The speech made by Munira Wilson, the Liberal Democrat MP for Twickenham, in the House of Commons on 14 May 2026.
I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Richmond Park (Sarah Olney), who is my constituency neighbour, and congratulate her on securing this important debate, on her excellent speech and on giving me permission to make a speech. I also thank the Minister for allowing me to speak today.
My hon. Friend has clearly laid out the key questions that Ministers need to address in approving a third runway at Heathrow, which we have heard publicly today. I am also grateful to the Minister for having previously met my hon. Friend and I when we set out a number of those questions privately to him.
As my hon. Friend has already said, in the King’s Speech yesterday the Government set out that
“Legislation will be introduced to unlock the benefits of airport expansion”.
I and many people, not least my constituents, are asking, “What benefits?” The truth is, as my hon. Friend has eloquently set out, the Government have provided precious little evidence to support their far-reaching claims of the economic benefits of a third runway at Heathrow. Many of us can only see costs, be they financial, environmental or to health.
It is obvious that the Government’s expansion of Heathrow—not just Heathrow, but London City, Stansted, Gatwick and Luton—will have a significant impact on this country’s climate commitments. When I and other hon. Members have raised such concerns in the House, Ministers’ answers revert to sustainable aviation fuel every time. However, the reality is that SAF is not a silver bullet. As my hon. Friend has suggested, the Government’s expectation is for SAF to meet 22% of aviation fuel demand by 2040, while the Climate Change Committee’s prediction is just 17%. That will not be enough to make up for the 8 megatonnes to 9 megatonnes of carbon emissions as a result of expansion. The Environmental Audit Committee has warned that by putting all our eggs in this basket, the Government’s delivery on carbon budgets and net zero is “in serious jeopardy”.
We must not lose sight of the human cost at the heart of this debate. Some 2.2 million people would suffer from an increase in noise pollution by 2050. Working people will see air pollution increase from congestion on the roads as the M25 is diverted for years—not to mention the permanent increase in traffic to the airport—and from thousands more flights over a very densely populated area, all pumping noxious fumes into our environment. My hon. Friend the Member for Richmond Park has set out clearly the resulting health impacts.
Over the past 15 months, I, like my hon. Friend and a number of others, have asked this Minister, his predecessor, the Chancellor, the Chief Secretary to the Treasury and the Transport Secretary about the funding behind expansion. They all insist that taxpayers’ money will not be used to fund expansion of Heathrow, but frankly, that is hard to believe, given the unsustainable financial circumstances of Heathrow airport and the eye-watering, ever rising costs of a third runway. As we have heard, Heathrow itself has suggested that its expansion will cost £49 billion, but other estimates are much higher, and this country’s track record of delivering infrastructure on time and on budget is not exactly promising.
At the same time, Heathrow is beginning to resemble another financial omnishambles: Thames Water. Both have significant debt and are spending massive amounts of money on infrastructure while jacking up prices for bill payers—or, in this case, those taking flights—knowing that the Government are ultimately there to bail them out if it all goes wrong. Let us make no mistake: taxpayers will be expected to foot part of the bill, and hard-pressed families and businesses will be forced to pay more for holidays and business trips through higher fares to fund the higher landing charges, as even airlines have warned.
We deserve transparency and accountability from this Government, but at the moment we are getting neither. This Government are delaying publication of vital evidence, such as the aviation night noise effects and aviation noise attitude studies, when we know they have been sitting on the Minister’s desk for months. The Minister has been far from clear on whether this House will have the chance to scrutinise the ANPS properly, which means a debate and a vote. I very much hope he will address those questions head-on today.
Back in January 2025, the Chancellor staked her “growth credentials” on this huge project. This kind of infrastructure project needs both economic credibility and economic and political stability. We cannot have another HS2, where half the project gets cancelled a decade down the line—too much is at risk. With the week we have just had, I cannot see how this Chancellor and this Government can seriously be trusted to see through a project that could take a decade or more to build. The Minister must follow the evidence and put a stop to this expansion before it is too late, for the sake of taxpayers, for the sake of our local communities and for the sake of our environment.