House of Commons Hansard Debates for 27 May 1993

Column 1049

that the Minister will give me, the community and the dedicated staff of Stobhill some hope for the future because the speculation has led to a sad state of affairs.

I also hope that the Minister will bear in mind the fact that medical evidence suggests that the loss of 1,000 beds in Glasgow would be damaging. There is also concern that the people making the decisions about the future of Stobhill are the political appointees of a Government who, admittedly, went to the people on the basis of cuts in public expenditure. Nevertheless, there is some distrust of people who have been appointed by the Government and who have the same political leanings. Perhaps it would be better if Greater Glasgow, like London, were the subject of an independent public inquiry into hospital and medical needs. Everyone in the community is worried about the hospital.

My neighbour, Sophie Anderson, aged eight, was so impressed by the demonstration on Sunday that she sent me a poem for the debate. It is called "Stobhill Hospital" and reads :

"Today we stand around Stobhill

To try to stop it closing,

We want to let the people know exactly

What they're losing.

I think it would be a terrible shame

Because lots of people use it.

We want the Health Board our plea to hear

Keep it open, don't close it!"

11.27 am

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Allan Stewart) : I congratulate the hon. Member for Springburn (Mr. Martinon securing the Adjournment debate and on speaking with his customary knowledge and eloquence on a matter that is undoubtedly of great importance to his constituents. As Hansard will attest, he has asked about the future of Stobhill more than once during Scottish Question Time. I shall try to answer his questions but I hope that he will understand that I am not in a position today to make any announcements about its future.

There is no formal proposal from the health board to Ministers about the future of Stobhill or any hospital in Glasgow. The board is conducting a review of its future requirements for acute beds and their distribution throughout the city. That process is well advanced but it will be a while before the board is able to put firm proposals to Ministers and some time thereafter before final decisions can be taken.

However, I repeat my pledge to the hon. Gentleman that before any final decisions are taken my right hon. Friends the Secretary of State and the Minister of State will be happy to discuss the issues fully with him and other hon. Members involved.

Let me describe some of the background. The final decision on closures or major changes in the pattern of health services is a matter for Ministers, and I must re-emphasise that no decisions have been taken about Stobhill or any other hospital in Glasgow. The hon. Gentleman referred to investment and the use of public resources. It is perhaps worth emphasising that over the past 10 years or so the hospital capital building

Column 1050

programme for acute services has been directed at building district general hospitals outside the main centres of population. The past 10 to 15 years have seen major hospitals in, for example, Dumfries, Inverness and Melrose--the list is quite long. The Princess Royal will be opening the new Queen Market hospital in Dunfermline at the end of next month and new hospitals are under construction in Oban and Campbeltown. I must resist boring the hon. Gentleman by continuing, there simply is not time to list all the new developments.

Since taking office, the Government have spent more than £512 million on 91 major national health service capital investment projects in Scotland ; 21 of those projects, totalling £86 million, were in Glasgow.

As I have said before, that programme of creating new district hospitals outside the main centres of population is coming to an end. We now need to turn our attention to the main centres of population, where the acute hospitals are generally old and in an unsatisfactory condition. Our first priority fr population.

The hon. Gentleman and I agree that it is vital that we get the process right. I shall now respond to his more detailed points by setting out the factors that we need to take into account and explaining why we believe that the number of acute hospital in-patient beds will fall.

There are four main factors which will influence the number of acute hospital beds that we shall need in future : first, the number of patients who need to be treated as hospital in-patients ; secondly, how long they stay in hospital as in-patients ; thirdly, the efficiency with which acute hospitals use the beds available to them ; and fourthly, how medicine and surgery will be delivered in future. Those factors were at the heart of the hon. Gentleman's argument and I shall deal with them in turn.

Since the mid-1970s, the number of patients treated by the acute services has increased from around 615,000 to nearly 870,000--the hon. Gentleman referred to the figure for Stobhill. That represents an average annual growth of 2.3 per cent. and that figure has not changed very much over the years.

Increasingly, not all patients will be treated as hospital in-patients. Within the overall figures that I have quoted, there has been a marked shift towards treating patients as day cases. In 1975-76, only 8.3 per cent. of patients were treated as day cases. By 1990-91 that proportion had increased to nearly 18 per cent., and it will not stop there, as recent studies by the Audit Commission and the Scottish Office Audit Unit have predicted. They found that the use of day surgery is well below its estimated potential and concluded that up to 30,000 additional cases a year are possible for the 20 procedures covered by the study. That represents a 90 per cent. increase on current levels.

We expect health boards and hospitals to expand considerably the use made of day case treatment and that it might be possible to increase the number of cases by at least 75,000 over the next few years. I believe that that trend will be generally welcomed. The shift away from hospital in-patient treatment or treatment by general practitioner is not about saving money ; it is in the best interests of patients. It means that the medical or surgical treatment that the patient receives is less drastic. That reflects medical advances.

Column 1051

Mr. Malcolm Chisholm (Edinburgh, Leith) : The Minister is making a lot of the increasing number of day cases. How does he know that the trend will continue? Has he carried out surveys about whether patients want such treatment and has he studied issues such as the higher rate of post- operative infection in day-case patients and the increased numbers that have to be re-admitted? If he is supporting the trend towards day cases, is he putting more money into care in the community?

Mr. Stewart : As I have told the House, the basis of my case is the recent studies by the Audit Commission and the Scottish Office Audit Unit. In answer to the hon. Gentleman's second question, we have indeed substantially increased resources for care in the community. The shift to local authorities has been accompanied by considerable increases for care in the community.

I now turn to length of stay. For some of the reasons that I have just mentioned, the average length of stay for those patients who have to be hospital in-patients has also declined dramatically. In the mid-1970s the mean length of stay for all acute specialties was 10.7 days. By 1990-91, that had fallen to 6.7 days and it continues to fall.

In our planning we have assumed that length of stay will continue to fall, but at a slower rate than in the past. We have assumed an annual rate of 2 per cent.--a cautious assumption compared with the recent rate of more than 4 per cent. I accept that the figures that I am quoting are averages and will vary in different parts of the country. The hon. Member for Springburn was quite right to mention that there are problems of deprivation in some areas of Glasgow and that may well mean that planning has to assume a slightly longer length of stay than in other areas. However, that has been taken into account in our planning.

I now turn to occupancy rates. Acute hospital beds have an occupancy rate of just over 70 per cent. With the move to hospital trusts and the associated increase in efficiency, it is reasonable to assume that that figure will rise to about 80 per cent. Again, that is an overall average.

Mrs. Alice Mahon (Halifax) : Will the Minister give way?

Mr. Stewart : I want to answer the points raised by the hon. Member for Springburn, but I shall give way.

Mrs. Mahon : The Minister said that there could be a dramatic increase in occupancy. Have the Government made any estimate of the number of staff that would be needed to cope with that increase?

Mr. Stewart : First, may I warmly welcome the hon. Lady's intervention in a Scottish debate. Of course, the House will generally appreciate the fact that this is a United Kingdom Parliament, and we are all delighted that the hon. Lady, who represents an English constituency, has taken the opportunity to avail herself of her right, as a Member of the United Kingdom Parliament, to intervene in a Scottish debate. I warmly welcome the assertion from the Opposition Benches that this is a United Kingdom Parliament.

Mrs. Mahon : I am half Scottish, actually.

Mr. Stewart : Indeed, but the point is that the hon. Lady is here in the House as a Member of the Parliament of the

Column 1052

United Kingdom. I pay tribute to her for asserting her right, as an English Member, to intervene in a Scottish debate.

Secondly, in answer to the hon. Lady's detailed question, what I was saying did not have staffing implications. I was emphasising the fact that at the moment acute hospital beds have an occupancy rate of just over 70 per cent., and that, irrespective of staff numbers, we believe that increased efficiency could increase that figure to 80 per cent.

When we consider medical advances, we sometimes assume that medicine and surgery will be delivered in the future in pretty much the same way as they are delivered now. That assumption seems increasingly questionable. Because of the advent of, for example, keyhole surgery, and the work of leading authorities such as Professor Alfred Cuscherri of Dundee university, patients recover much faster. The implication of that is that lengths of stay in hospital will fall quite sharply.

What do all those factors, taken together, mean for the planning of acute hospitals? Our best guess is that the need for acute in-patient beds across the whole of Scotland will fall by 3,000 to 5,000 by the end of the decade. I can reassure the hon. Member for Springburn that those figures have been discussed with many people in the medical profession. Of course, what I have said does not mean that fewer patients will be treated. We have assumed that the number of patients treated in the hon. Gentleman's constituency and elsewhere will continue to grow by between 1 per cent. and 2 per cent. a year.

Mr. Michael J. Martin : Does the Minister still maintain that 1,000 beds must be lost in the Greater Glasgow catchment area?

Mr. Stewart : The figure of 1,000 or so was arrived at through various planning models. It has been discussed and generally agreed with many clinicians through the internal consultation process, and it is in line with the overall Scottish figure to which I have referred.

In the two minutes or so remaining to me, I emphasise that the whole exercise is not about saving money-- [Laughter.] The hon. Member for Halifax (Mrs. Mahon) laughs, as part of her continued and welcome intervention in Scottish debates. But the exercise is not about reducing the scale of the national health service in the sense of treating fewer patients ; it is about getting the size of the hospital sector right so that resources are not wasted on providing in-patient beds when they could be better used--for example, by providing day surgery facilities, by supporting the development of primary care, by providing high-technology operating theatres to allow minimal access surgery, or by doing a dozen other things that will provide a better service to patients than providing hospital beds that are simply not needed.

The cost of achieving those better services will be high. We are talking about investment in new and improved hospitals in Glasgow, which will cost between £200 million and £400 million. The easy option would be to leave everything unchanged. That would save the Government money. It would not only be cheaper, it would avoid a lot of fuss and bother, but I emphasise to the hon. Member for Springburn that that would not be the way forward.

Column 1053

Mrs. Mahon : On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Clearly a major reshuffle of the high offices of state is taking place at this moment. I understand that the former Home Secretary is to become Chancellor --

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Geoffrey Lofthouse) : Order. That is in no way a matter for the Chair.

Mrs. Mahon : I just wondered, Mr. Deputy Speaker--

Mr. Deputy Speaker : Order. That is not a matter for the Chair.

Column 1054

Night Flights (Heathrow)

11.45 am

Mr. Toby Jessel (Twickenham) : I am grateful for the opportunity to raise the question of night flights at Heathrow. This is part of a wider problem of aircraft noise. Aircraft noise is a curse and a pestilence. It ruins people's quiet enjoyment of their homes, especially in spring and summer, when they are more likely to have a larger proportion of their windows open. It interferes with people's private lives, with their telephone conversations and with their opportunity to listen to records or to television. It spoils their pleasure in their gardens ; it interrupts the work of schools, hospitals, churches and offices. It can even interfere with people's sleep at night. That is the main subject of my debate.

It must be said that there are some people who do not mind aircraft noise very much. But to a large proportion of the people living around Heathrow-- perhaps 1 million people--it is a considerable nuisance. To many people it is a major nuisance. To some it causes actual suffering and even mental ill health, as has been shown in research by the West Middlesex University hospital. That is especially true of night noise disturbance.

There are already 1,000 flights per day at Heathrow, so that at times aircraft come over every two minutes. It is not enough to say, as British Airways and the airports authority do, that there should be "no increase" in noise. The present noise level is unacceptable. My constituents and others around Heathrow require a substantial and permanent reduction in the volume of noise. It is not enough to say, as the consultation document says, that the noise problem should merely get no worse.

People can look to courts of law for protection against other forms of noise nuisance, but in the Civil Aviation Act 1949 Parliament expressly ruled out that protection in the case of aircraft and helicopter noise. That being so, people can do no other than look to the Government and to Parliament for protection against the nuisance of noise which, in other cases, is enshrined in English law. The Government, therefore, have a special duty to have regard to the impact of aircraft noise on householders, as does Parliament. There is no subject on which I have had more letters from my constituents who are resident in Twickenham, Teddington, the Hamptons and Whitton. But it is not confined to my constituency. My right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Putney (Mr. Mellor), my hon. Friend the Member for Ealing, North (Mr. Greenway), my hon. Friend the Member for Fulham (Mr. Carrington) and many other hon. Members in west London will bear out what I say. My hon. Friend the Member for Richmond and Barnes (Mr. Hanley), a Minister from another Department who therefore will not speak in this debate but who is here today, is also lending his support by being present. He has his own channels by which he can make his views known, and I have not the slightest doubt that he has already done so with considerable force. His concern is shared by the hon. Member for Ealing, Acton (Sir G. Young), the Minister for Housing, Planning and Construction, and by all right hon. and hon. Conservative Members who are present.

The Conservative Government's record in the field of aircraft noise has so far been really rather good. In 1985, the late Lord Ridley, then Secretary of State, refused

Column 1055

planning permission for a fifth terminal at Heathrow. When the M25 motorway was built, he stopped the Heathrow to Gatwick helicopter link as some of us had asked. Over the years, some--I repeat, some--quieter aircraft engines have been brought in and, up until now, the Government have curbed any increase in the number of night flights. Lord Ridley and Lord Parkinson as Secretaries of State for Transport did so, as did my right hon. Friend the Member for Southend, West (Mr. Channon) and my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Edinburgh, Pentlands (Mr. Rifkind). All of them consistently refused to increase the quota for night flights above the average of 16 per night for the summer season.

In the face of enormous commercial pressure, those Secretaries of State were absolutely right to be firm, resolute and strict in protecting the people on the western side of London from any increase in night flights. I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister for Transport in London, who will reply to the debate, will reassure me that the present Secretary of State will not weaken and will be equally strong in protecting the people. If he does not, I for one will take an extremely dim view and so, I believe, will my right hon. and hon. Friends and large numbers of people in all the constituencies on the western side of London.

The peace, the quiet and the health of millions of people must be placed above commercial interests. It is absolutely intolerable to contemplate that thousands and thousands of people might be woken up at night for the convenience of a few hundred travellers in aeroplanes above. My constituents simply will not accept it. They are angry at the very thought of it. What they want is a total ban on all night flights except in emergencies. I hope that the Government will listen carefully, pay heed to what my right hon. and hon. Friends and I are saying and take a robust view. After all, there are only 16 night flights per night now and even if that number were doubled, with 1,000 flights every day, it would only increase the total number of flights through Heathrow by 1.5 per cent. Yet it would be doubling the number at night.

If people wake up for any reason in the middle of night, perhaps because they have overeaten and are suffering from indigestion or because they want to go round the corner, they then go to bed again. They may have been worrying about something and then, just as they are drowsing off to sleep, an aeroplane--a so-called "quiet" aeroplane--comes over. That will wake them up again and they may not be able to get back to sleep for an hour or so. If they have read that the Government have allowed an increase in the number of night flights, they will blame the Government for the fact that they cannot get to sleep--and that will be a perfectly reasonable assumption for them to make.

Millions of people throughout the country suffer from the effects of aircraft noise, but none suffer more than those on the west side of London. I hope that my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State will be absolutely firm in resisting any increase in the number of night flights. Indeed, I hope that there will be a total ban on all night flights except in emergencies.

Column 1056

11.55 am

Mr. Harry Greenway (Ealing, North) : I know that my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Putney (Mr. Mellor), my hon. Friend the Member for Fulham (Mr. Carrington) and my right hon. Friend the Member for Chertsey and Walton (Sir G. Pattie) are hoping to catch your eye, Mr. Deputy Speaker, so I shall be brief. I am grateful to you for calling me, and to my hon. Friend the Member for Twickenham (Mr. Jessel) for securing the debate, which is extremely valuable--indeed, crucial--to the people of west London.

In referring to the interests of the people of west London, I shall bear my own constituents most particularly in mind. I am sorry to say that air pollution in Ealing is among the most serious in the country. Ealing is a beautiful place and is rightly known as the queen of the suburbs. [ Hon. Members :-- "Hear, hear."] I am grateful to my hon. Friends. Air pollution is serious in Ealing mainly because aircraft flying overhead pollute the atmosphere and because of the huge amounts of traffic that are sucked through my constituency because of its proximity to the airport, from which people want to catch aircraft to fly to various parts of the world. Add to that air pollution the serious noise pollution from which my constituents suffer by day--and which they could suffer by night--and the House will see why I am so keen to support my hon. Friend the Member for Twickenham and those of my right hon. and hon. Friends who represent constituencies in west London.

At present there is an almost universal ban on night flights and it is important that that should not be relaxed in any way. The Local Authorities Aircraft Noise Council, which represents all local councils in the areas surrounding Heathrow, is firmly opposed to any relaxation of the ban, but the consultation paper recently issued by the Department of Transport implies that, as most aircraft are now quieter, a relaxation of the present restrictions on night flights would be justified. It is certainly true that the latest generation of aircraft are considerably quieter than the earlier jets, and successive Conservative Governments must take credit for that. With the strong support of its members, the European Commission, too, has been heavily involved in persuading manufacturers to introduce quieter planes--indeed, that is one of the good things that the Commission has done.

There is a great deal of evidence to suggest that people would be seriously disturbed at night if the present night flight ban were relaxed in any way, and such a relaxation would bring justifiable fury to my constituency. Why should the people of west London be disturbed in this way? The House will understand why I am so keen for the night flight ban to be retained. If there is anyone in the land who takes seriously the suggestion in the White Paper that people may not be disturbed by certain aircraft, I should like to meet him. I do not think that anyone who studies the question in any depth can take seriously the argument that aircraft can be made so quiet that they will not disturb people at night. That simply can never be true. However quiet aircraft become, people will always be disturbed by them. It is bad enough for that to happen by day, but it would be totally unacceptable for it to happen at night. I support my hon. Friend the Member for Twickenham in respect of a relaxation of the ban on night flights.

Column 1057

11.59 am

Mr. David Mellor (Putney) : I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Twickenham (Mr. Jessel) for giving us the opportunity to debate this matter today. He has been absolutely tireless in his pursuit of this issue in the nigh on 20 years that he has represented his constituency.

Mr. Jessel : Twenty three years.

Mr. Mellor : Well, there you are.

My hon. Friend pursues this matter not through a fixation with the issue, but because his constituents demand it. It would be absolutely impossible for him and for some of us to represent our constituencies if we did not take the view that we do, so all-pervasive is the concern about the issue. My hon. Friend the Minister for Transport in London will be aware of that.

It is significant that we have gathered here this morning, not the usual lonely vigil of the initiator of the Adjournment debate, the Minister and the poor old Whip, but several other hon. Members because this is such a significant and substantial matter. It is particularly noteworthy that my hon. Friend the Member for Richmond and Barnes (Mr. Hanley) is present. Although he is a Minister and unable to speak in this debate, I know that he passionately believes that enough is enough in respect of Heathrow airport.That is the cause that we advance today.

I can tell my hon. Friend the Minister for Transport in London--this is not empty piety on my part because I am not terribly good at empty piety--that I pay him a genuine tribute because this very week he has announced an extremely politically sensitive decision in my constituency when he rejected plans to expand the A3 beyond the Robin Hood roundabout although being under great pressure from the roads lobby to do that.

My hon. Friend the Minister decided to reject the scheme because he knows full well that the political controversy which the scheme would engender does not make the project worth while. It is therefore a pleasure to see my hon. Friend the Minister in the Chamber today because I am sure that the same considerations will weigh heavily with him when he broods on this particular matter.

I believe that our case can be stated simply. Heathrow airport is one of the great airports of the world. Whatever the extent of the suffering that it causes to local communities represented by my hon. Friends who are here today, and by others who cannot be here, we all recognise the pressures on my hon. Friend the Minister from the airline companies, the British Airports Authority and others to ensure that Heathrow keeps that competitive edge.

I recall Douglas Jay once telling me how Heathrow was set up. One afternoon towards the end of the war, a few civil servants decided that that marshy place on the wrong side of London should be Heathrow airport. How very differently things are done today, when we can spend 30 years deciding, through endless public inquiries, whether something should be built.

Mr. Jessel : Does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that those civil servants in that room after the war, who took that decision without reference to Parliament, could never have foreseen the massive growth in demand for air travel or the development of noisy jet engines?

Column 1058

Mr. Mellor : I suppose that if they foresaw anything I would probably be a good deal less cynical about the whole process of decision making. Let us assume that they thought about things carefully, even if that assumption is misguided.

The plain fact is that Heathrow exists. It is a great airport. We all use it and I have nothing against its excellent facilities. However, the communities of south-west London suffer intolerably because of the airport. The appropriate way to consider aircraft policy is to say that we all have the benefits of air travel and we should all share the suffering. We cannot have more suffering lumped on to the communities around Heathrow when Stansted was supposed to be London's third airport, although there is precious little sign of that, when there is Gatwick and when the regional airports are getting down on their knees to beg for more business.

Night flights are a thorough nuisance. I live happily or not as the case may be--in that part of my constituency that is overflown by aircraft coming in, so I am not raising an academic matter in the House. Every morning, I get it. If my humble home were big enough, any number of civil servants from the Department of Transport could come and share that night- time vigil so as to be acquainted with what it is like.

I do not want to take up time that we do not have. It is clear that the Government, under pressure from the industry, are floating a proposition that is not acceptable or saleable and will have to be rejected. The proposition is that there is such a thing as a quiet or non-intrusive aircraft. That is nonsense. There are, however, quieter aircraft. I am grateful for the efforts that Governments have made over the years to prohibit the noisy clapped-out old 707s of emergent African dictatorships from coming into Heathrow. That has all been stopped--and a jolly good thing too.

The mere fact that some aircraft are quieter than others does not mean that we live in the world of the quiet aircraft. There is no such thing as a quiet aircraft. The assumption which underpins the document produced by the Department of Transport is that, if further pressure is exerted on noisy aircraft, our communities will accept that two or three quiet aircraft are worth one noisy aircraft, and even erect a statue in the centre of Putney, Richmond or Twickenham to the beneficent Secretary of State for Transport who has given them three times as many quiet planes. That is nonsense and it would be helpful, especially in the Government's present state, if that nonsense were realised before rather than after any blood needs to be shed. On that basis, I make this genial speech today.

12.6 pm

Sir Geoffrey Pattie (Chertsey and Walton) : I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Twickenham (Mr. Jessel) for securing this debate and the speeches that have been made. The key point for my hon. Friend the Minister to bear in mind is that in no way has the case been made for any change in the present situation. A ridiculous and thin piece of research has been done into sleep patterns. If the Department wants to do something proper in that area, it could revisit that whole question and do a proper study over a long period. But nowhere to my knowledge has the commercial case been made by any of the airlines for any relaxation in the current regime. It would be interesting to speculate that, if the British

Column 1059

Airports Authority believed that relaxation in the regulations was an absolute sine qua non before they began the procedure for terminal 5, they would not be spending tens of millions of pounds going through application and planning procedures for that development and all of the surface access that is needed.

Hon. Members whose constituents are most seriously affected by the proposals want to see at least the maintenance of the existing regime. We would like to see monitoring equipment for landings put sensibly into position. In the past, the emphasis has been on monitoring take-offs, not landings. A lot of research needs to be done so that the Government can be satisfied that any proposals that they may bring forward in the future could possibly command an element of acceptance. These proposals would command no support whatever in our constituencies.

I echo the appeal of my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Putney (Mr. Mellor) that in the present state of affairs it might be wise for the Government to take the sagacious view of spending a little more time cogitating and working out what would be acceptable, bearing in mind the fundamental point that quality of life is important to our constituents and should be weighed at least equally with the commercial development of the airport.

12.9 pm

Mr. Matthew Carrington (Fulham) : I am grateful for the opportunity to speak in the debate. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Twickenham (Mr. Jessel) on raising an issue of vital importance to anyone who lives in the west of London. It affects my constituents as much as those of all my hon. Friends who are present and many who would have liked to be here today to debate this important issue. My constituency is slightly further from Heathrow than other constituencies, but that is not to underestimate the disturbance caused by flights to and from the airport. The disturbance is serious. I associate myself with the remarks made by my hon. Friends this morning. My constituents are worried about the proposals, especially the proposal to increase the number of night flights into Heathrow.

It is clear that sleep patterns are seriously disturbed by night flights. They are disturbed by the current number of night flights. To suggest that quieter aeroplanes disturb less is perhaps true if windows are double glazed and it is not the summer months when windows are left open. Through great parts of the year, my constituents like to sleep with their windows open. They like to benefit from the fresh air and enjoy the pleasures of bird song in the early morning.

A quiet plane going over in a background of relative silence in London at night is as disturbing to the sleep of my constituents as a noisy plane going over. Whatever the cause, if people are woken from their sleep, especially in the early hours of the morning, they find it difficult to go back to sleep again. So the suggestion that many more quieter planes equal one noisy plane is so ludicrous as to have brought into question the basis upon which the consideration document issued by the Department of Transport was produced. I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister will therefore review that document and consider whether it would be appropriate to reject its suggestions. I hope that he will also reconsider night flights into and out

Column 1060

of Heathrow. As my hon. Friends have said, our constituents are perhaps prepared to tolerate the status quo, but that does not mean that the status quo is acceptable.

Ideally, the current number of night flights into Heathrow, especially early morning flights, would be reduced. As has already been said, the expansion of Heathrow is unnecessary, given the alternative airports into which those flights could go. I should like the Department of Transport to give that serious consideration. I should also like the overall study to include overflying of our constituents by helicopters. Helicopter flights are a particular problem in my constituency, as in any constituency along the River Tntrolled, but they are not controlled as effectively as they should be.

A great deal more could be said on this subject. I do not want to take up any more time because I want to give my hon. Friend the Minister ample time to answer the real anxieties of my constituents and those of my hon. Friends and to explain exactly how he intends to ensure that my constituents get a good night's sleep.

12.13 pm

The Minister for Transport in London (Mr. Steve Norris) : I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Twickenham (Mr. Jessel) on securing the debate. I have been left in no doubt whatever about the strength of feeling among my right hon. and hon. Friends on this important issue.

If it is not too churlish, I should like to make one point at the start of my reply. We had excellent speeches from my hon. Friends the Members for Twickenham, for Ealing, North (Mr. Greenway) and for Fulham (Mr. Carrington), my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Putney (Mr. Mellor) and my right hon. Friend the Member for Chertsey and Walton (Sir G. Pattie). My hon. Friend the Member for Richmond and Barnes (Mr. Hanley) is also in his place. Sadly, that is it. With the honourable exception of my hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, North-East (Mr. Kirkhope), who has an interest in this matter as well as being a member of the Government Whips Office, not one Labour or Liberal Member is in the Chamber to discuss this important issue. I have heard about pavement politics, particularly from some Liberal councillors who make so much of their interest in such politics in some parts of the city, so why is it that not one of their representatives was able to be present for this important debate?

Mr. Mellor : Had I thought that I had a minute or two longer in which to speak, I might have dilated on the point which my hon. Friend has properly raised. It is even worse than my hon. Friend suggests, as those of us with long memories will know. The late Stephen Ross, whose death saddened me because he was a nice man, although I did not agree with everything he said, helped to prevent the passage of an aviation Bill that we attempted to get through the House. That Bill was designed to restrict the number of flights into and out of Heathrow, but it was aborted because of the efforts of Liberal and Labour Members and, sadly, one or two Conservative Back Benchers. The Liberals speak with a forked tongue on this matter because they say one thing in Parliament while

Column 1061

trying to assert other things in the affected communities, where they try to pretend that they are on the side of those who are concerned about the Heathrow expansion.

Next Section

Home Page