Healey Says Heathrow Third Runway Would Drive Growth, Burnham Undecided
The chancellor says the expansion has "always been a case for growth" while the prime minister declines to say whether he backs it
By AXY Business Desk ·
Key points
- Chancellor John Healey says a third runway at Heathrow has always been a case for growth, speaking at the IMF meetings in Bangkok.
- Prime Minister Andy Burnham has refused to say whether he backs the expansion and previously said it is a matter for London and Londoners.
- Heathrow chief executive Thomas Woldbye warned that not building a third runway would be a huge missed opportunity.
- The formal consultation is closed, and the Transport Department is reviewing responses before further decisions are announced.
Chancellor John Healey has said building a third runway at Heathrow Airport has "always been a case for growth", returning one of Britain's longest-running infrastructure disputes to the centre of national debate after Prime Minister Andy Burnham refused to say whether he backed the expansion. Speaking at the International Monetary Fund (IMF) meetings in Bangkok, Healey said airport expansion, including at Heathrow, had been "a big part of jobs and growth" in recent decades.
Healey told reporters: "The case for a third runway at Heathrow has always been a case for growth." He said the formal position was that the consultation was now closed and was being led by the Transport Department. "We're reviewing those, and then further decisions and announcements will follow," he said. He did not, in the comments reported so far, set out a timetable for those decisions.
Burnham has taken a more cautious line. Last month he told the BBC that the matter was "a matter for London and Londoners", and when asked about the project in September he suggested it was an argument for London to decide. Those remarks leave the question of national government backing unresolved, even as Healey argues the economic case is clear.
The pressure on the government has been sharpened by warnings from the airport itself. Earlier this week Heathrow's chief executive, Thomas Woldbye, warned that not building a third runway at the UK's busiest airport would be a "huge missed opportunity". Healey's predecessor, Rachel Reeves, had placed the expansion at the centrepiece of her argument that Britain was open for business. Last year she announced the government-backed expansion, saying "a third runway is badly needed" and that the government could not "duck the decision any longer".
Why Runway Capacity Matters
For readers less familiar with the aviation sector, the central issue is capacity. A runway is the strip on which aircraft take off and land, and the number of movements an airport can handle limits how many flights it can offer. When an airport is close to full, airlines compete for limited landing and take-off slots, which are the permissions to use a particular time at the airport. Those slots are valuable, and they tend to favour established carriers and long-haul routes.
Heathrow is one of the most important long-haul hubs in the world, and it serves as a connecting point for passengers travelling between Britain and destinations across the globe. More capacity can mean more routes, more frequencies to existing destinations and more space for cargo and business travellers. British Airways operates a large share of flights from the airport, so the carrier would be among the most directly affected by any change in capacity.
Supporters argue that this matters well beyond the airline industry. Airports employ large numbers of people directly, in roles such as ground handling, security and retail, and indirectly through supply chains including catering, maintenance and logistics. They are also seen as gateways for trade and investment, because exporters and multinational companies often rely on quick, frequent links to key markets. Healey's argument that airport expansion has been "a big part of jobs and growth" in recent decades follows that line of reasoning.
How the Project Reached This Point
The idea of adding capacity in south-east England has been debated for well over a decade. The Airports Commission, an independent body set up by the government in 2012, examined the options and in 2015 recommended a new runway at Heathrow rather than an extension at Gatwick. That recommendation set the stage for years of political, legal and local disagreement.
Parliament backed the expansion in a vote in 2018, but the scheme then ran into a series of legal challenges. Campaign groups and local councils argued that the approval did not properly account for the UK's climate commitments, and in 2020 the Court of Appeal ruled against the government's approval on those grounds. The case showed how difficult it has been to reconcile airport growth with the legal framework for cutting carbon emissions.
The project was revived when the government moved to support expansion again, and Reeves's announcement that a third runway was "badly needed" marked a clear shift in official policy. Yet, as the latest comments show, backing the policy at one level of government does not settle the question of who ultimately takes responsibility for the decision, or how it will be justified to the public.
The Case For and Against
The economic argument is that Britain needs to keep pace with rival hubs in Europe and Asia, which have invested heavily in their own airport capacity. Business groups, exporters and tourism companies say that reliable access to long-haul routes is essential to competitiveness, and that losing ground to other cities could mean fewer direct flights and weaker links for British firms. Healey's framing of the project as a growth question is designed to appeal directly to that audience.
Opponents raise different objections. Local residents living under flight paths complain about aircraft noise and air pollution, and campaigners say that a major expansion would make it harder for the UK to meet its legally binding carbon targets, because aviation is among the sectors that are hardest to decarbonise. Some politicians, including representatives of west London constituencies, have questioned whether the benefits justify the local costs. London's mayor has also opposed the project, which means that City Hall is likely to be a central voice in any future debate.
The disagreement is therefore not simply between growth and environment. It also reflects a question about who should bear the local consequences of a national economic decision, and whether those consequences can be reduced by conditions on noise, emissions and surface transport.
The Political Divide Over Who Decides
Burnham's description of the matter as one for "London and Londoners" points to the local dimension that has run through the debate for years. Heathrow sits in west London, and any expansion would affect residents, councils and the capital's wider transport and environmental plans. By framing the issue in those terms, the prime minister has signalled that he sees the decision as having a strong local character, even though the government has backed the project in principle.
Healey's comments suggest that the Treasury continues to treat the scheme primarily as an economic question. The contrast between the two positions is significant, because a clear national decision would normally need to be communicated and defended by the prime minister as well as the chancellor. Analysts expect the government to face pressure to resolve that split before the next stage of the process, though they caution that the political calculation depends on how the final decision is structured.
What Happens Next
The immediate step is the government's review of the responses to the consultation, which Healey said is being led by the Transport Department. He said further decisions and announcements would follow, but no timetable has been confirmed in the comments reported so far. The key questions for the coming months are whether Burnham will set out his own position, whether a firm timetable will be published, and how the government plans to address concerns raised by residents, councils and climate campaigners.
Analysts say any final approval could face renewed legal challenge, which could add further delay. They also expect that any decision would come with detailed conditions covering emissions, noise and local impacts, though the specifics would depend on the government's final position.
For now, the debate has shifted from whether a third runway is needed to who should make the call and on what terms. Readers should watch for an official announcement from the government and any statement from Burnham, because either could determine the course of one of the most closely watched infrastructure decisions in the UK.
Topics: Heathrow Airport, Third runway, John Healey, Andy Burnham, Thomas Woldbye, Airport expansion, UK economy, Heathrow expansion
Sources: BBC Business RSS