Today the Chancellor indicated support in principle for a third runway at Heathrow, without sight of any plans, any analysis of cost, benefits, or impact.
The Chancellor is right to prioritise economic growth, and the Government is in desperate need of measures to deliver this, but there is a logical incoherence given the backdrop of the harm to businesses and resulting job losses from their National Insurance tax rise.
I have been a long-standing opponent of a third runway at Heathrow – while economic growth is important, so are the lives of the people this decision would affect, the environmental implications of such development, and the need to balance growth across the whole of the UK, to name but a few key considerations. Decisions should be made on the detail.
In light of the Chancellor's comments I expect we will see plans brought forward for a third runway, and I will be looking closely at what provisions are included to reduce noise and air pollution, such as increased climb rates and use of sustainable fuels by aircraft, as well as the level of proposed public engagement and the improvements to local transport infrastructure that would be needed. I will be calling on the Government to ensure all these factors are addressed prior to any formal decision on plans.
I want Heathrow and our aviation sector to be successful, along with all the jobs, businesses, and families who depend on it - which is why I supported aviation so strongly during the pandemic and beyond; pushed for adoption of Sustainable fuel; and continue to campaign for better local transport routes to Heathrow. But a third runway causes Runnymede and Weybridge more problems than benefits.
If a third runway cannot be stopped, I will work constructively to make sure the local harms are mitigated and we get other direct benefits from it – removing a level crossing in Egham to improve traffic and support a rail link to Heathrow would be a good starter for ten…
