Tonight:
4°c
Mandelson throws his weight behind third Heathrow runway
Nicholas Cecil, Chief Political Correspondent15 Dec 2008
LORD Mandelson today waded into the Cabinet row over Heathrow by “strongly” backing the business case for a third runway.
Downing Street also admitted that expansion at the airport had been discussed “numerous” times by the Cabinet, highlighting how controversial an issue it had become at the highest level of government.
Just 24 hours after Environment Secretary Hilary Benn warned that EU pollution laws must not be breached by a third runway, Business Secretary Lord Mandelson came out fighting the case for a bigger Heathrow.
A source said: “Peter will be one of the ministers in Cabinet making the case strongly for a third runway, reflecting the views of businesses.”
Lord Mandelson lined up alongside Transport Secretary Geoff Hoon and Prime Minister Gordon Brown supporting a third runway providing the environmental conditions can be met.
Experts fear the Government will fudge the environmental tests and Mr Benn, Commons Leader Harriet Harman, Climate Change Secretary Ed Miliband and Foreign Secretary David Miliband are all said to have voiced concerns.
Mr Benn's comments are said to have caused “irritation” in No 10 and the Cabinet appeared to be heading for a showdown.
However, the Prime Minister's official spokesman denied there was any Cabinet split. He said: “The Secretary of State for Transport has been pointing out that it's important we do take into account all the environmental issues. That is the government position.”
Government insiders are pushing the idea that instead of giving the go-ahead, Mr Hoon could relax regulations on the two existing runways.
They believe the row could be contained largely to constituencies, particularly those in south-west London already heavily affected by aircraft noise, by ending runway alternation and instead allowing mixed mode — both take-offs and landings — on both runways for more, or the whole of the day.
Such a move is already being proposed from 2015 to 2020 as an interim measure, before a new runway could be built.
Reader views (17)
Who cares what Mandelson thinks. And can anyone tell me why he was made a Lord?
- Frederick, London UK, 16/12/2008 07:39
Report abuse
I wish Mandleson would throw himself under a plane.
- Vince London, West London, 16/12/2008 02:37
Report abuse
Who cares, introduce mixed mode. I'll just board the house up and the bank can try in vain to sell it.
Criminal.
- Rich, London, 15/12/2008 23:06
Report abuse
Of course Mandy wants a third runway. Keeps his mates who are flight attendants in work!!!
- Kerry Trubee, Purley, 15/12/2008 22:26
Report abuse
Typical spin from the prince of darkness. We are now being offered a false choice - either we take a third runway or we can have more flights on the existing two runways.
Actually, we want a third choice - simply limit the number of flights on the existing two runways - so that Londoners can breathe air that's not filthy and can sleep undisturbed at night.
- Austen, London, 15/12/2008 21:33
Report abuse
No surprise in this.
- Helen, norwich, 15/12/2008 18:27
Report abuse
Remember Lord Mandy once said "I'm not a quitter I'm a flyer", or I think he did.
- Steve.W, B'ham UK, 15/12/2008 18:13
Report abuse
End Mixed Mode? I hope it was a "Hoonerism"
What a cowardly easy option for this Minister and his department, to go for having been previously proved wrong on almost every green aviation issue to date.
Theresa Villiers,the Shadow Secretary of State for Transport, declared, in a Parliamentary Heathrow debate on November 11th, that a Conservative Government would "scrap the government's proposals to end runway alternation (Mixed Mode)at Heathrow."( Hansard Column 659) or in ordinary language,they would reverse this crazy decision and re-instate the present one runway approach system presently giving Heathrow residents half a day's peace from the utter hell of noise and pollution from overhead plane
I'm sure the Wallies of Whitehall, will happily scrap mixed mode under this Governemnt only to re-introduce it under a new Conservative government. I suppose it keeps them employed, doing something, however stupid, with their usual disregard of service "to the public" rather than the government.
Labour has happily flouted and broken European pollution targets and it must now accept that ordinary, previously law-abiding, decent middle-class people will also be breaking the law through their utter contempt and disgust for the authorities who have always paid lip-service to the Aviation lobby.
Watch out. Heathrow is also becoming a Health-Row
- Mark, London UK, 15/12/2008 16:41
Report abuse
If this character says yes then it behoves all sensible people to go against it. Quite frankly, if he told me that his name was Mandelson it look for somebody to corroborate it.
- Dennis, Taplow U.K., 15/12/2008 16:39
Report abuse
Who gives a fig what Mandelson thinks?
- Wa, Oxford, UK, 15/12/2008 15:42
Report abuse
So, NuLab thinking appears to be " we will adhere to environmental guidelines;" but if there is a 'strong business case' the environment can go hang...well, I think most will agree there is a strong business case...for booting this party out of power before their dictatorial powers overwhelm the democratic state.
- Jon Kent, Hertford. UK, 15/12/2008 14:58
Report abuse
Just get that runway built along with multi mode operation of the runways by the time the runway is built we will all be going here, there and everywhere again.
- Paul Hopkins, London, England, 15/12/2008 14:57
Report abuse
So with Hoon, a man who has already made a reputation for defending the dire levels of kit we give soldiers (leading to increased deaths and injuries) and Mandelson a man who has twice had to leave government due to issues of probity of a minister in government office - does anyone feel that with that type of character in support this MUST be a wrong decision and it MUST stink to high heaven? I mean with supporters like these two politival opportuinists..................
- Christian Ball, London, UK, 15/12/2008 14:42
Report abuse
Tony how vindictive and demonstrable of all that is wrong with humanity. Lets look at the arguements again shall we - LHR breeches air quality limits and is well above World Health Organisation recommended Noise Limits. By adopting the end of alternation - adding more flights will plunge West London into a Noise nightmare. Do Not go to Windsor, Do not go to Kew, Syon park, Chiswick House, Clapham Common, Putney, in fact stay away from the outdoors completely. This wicked and frankly manipulative debate stinks of Mandelson - morality be damned lets look at political expediencey and screw people - well alternation is just as contentiuos round Werst london as any new Runway so playing with a half days sanity for 2 million people looks very very corageous to me.
- Christian Ball, London, UK, 15/12/2008 14:32
Report abuse
Most flights are now half full. There just isn't the money to travel. Time for flights to be cancelled to save fuel. Hey Presto! The third runway is no longer neded!
- Dave, Slough Berkshire, 15/12/2008 14:13
Report abuse
There is only one thing worse than a third runway and that is the introduction of mixed mode causing missery, ill health, pollution and unbearable constant noise upon those that already suffer from an airport which is acknoledged as being in the wrong place.
With the pound exchanging for 1 euro, a weak economy and fewer people contemplating holidays abroad, now is the the time to contemplate bigger, braver and bolder strategies, such as rail or an airport in the thames estuary.
The argument of competing hub airports in europe does not stand asthey have the decency to build or move lock stock there airports to areas which cause minimal impact on people, they build true intenational hubs away from the populace allowing for extra runways and a sustainable expansion. We on the other hand have a gutless government who want to do things on the cheap to the expense of those that call London their home.
In personal life I always buy the best I can afford, I know that if a dont buy the best I'll only have to buy it twice, Heatrhow is a poor choice for expansion which will cost more in the long term, financialy, environmentally and socially, its not the best solution that has been tabled.
- William Barrett, Chiswick, 15/12/2008 14:11
Report abuse
The residents of my old home of LB Richmond who made so much fuss about a third runway should have remembered the saying: "be careful what you wish for".
- Tonyb, Melbourne, Australia, 15/12/2008 11:36
Report abuse
