House of Commons
Friday 12 July 1996
The House met at half-past Nine o'clock
PRAYERS
[Madam Speaker in the Chair]
PETITION
Northolt Airport
9.34 am
Mr. Harry Greenway (Ealing, North): The petition of the residents of the Ealing, North constituency--I am presenting a sample of up to 10,000 signatures--declares that they totally oppose plans to extend Northolt airport, including proposals contained in the United Kingdom airport capacity report of the Select Committee on Transport 1995-96, as they would lead to a vast increase in aircraft noise and pollution levels, and would create impossible traffic levels, which have already increased excessively because of Northolt's proximity to Heathrow airport. Any such expansion would make life intolerable for the people of the area.
The fact that up to 10,000 people have already signified their resolute opposition to the proposals of the Select Committee on Transport--these are people within or very close to my constituency--is a clear sign that it would be very wrong of the Government to accept a preposterous proposal that would so damage the lives of my constituents as to make them unbearable.
They believe--I strongly support them--that the Government should reject the all-party suggestion out of hand:
Mr. Harry Greenway (Ealing, North):
I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.
Madam Speaker:
With this, it will be convenient to discuss also Lords amendment No. 2.
Mr. Greenway:
The House will be aware that the Bill includes provision for a new offence to deal with excessive noise at night emanating from domestic premises. The Bill enables local authorities, by resolution, to adopt for their areas the new night noise provisions. The amendments would, in addition to the local authority power to make a resolution, enable the Secretary of State to make an order applying the new night noise provisions to the area of a local authority. The order cannot have effect until three months has passed from the date on which the order was made.
In considering the need for the amendments, we need to ask ourselves one key question: in practice, will the new offence operate in places where there is a real problem with excessive night-time neighbour noise?
Mr. Nigel Waterson (Eastbourne):
As I understand it, clarification of the existing powers of temporary confiscation and forfeiture of noise-making equipment will not itself be adoptive, and the amendment will make no difference in that respect. I understand also that, when the Bill becomes an Act, the power will become available immediately in its clarified form to local authorities. Is that correct? Perhaps my hon. Friend will clarify the position.
Mr. Greenway:
So far as I understand it, that is the position. If it is not, I shall come back to my hon. Friend, but I am sure that he is right. I thank him for making that point, because it is of great importance to everyone in the land.
Some of my hon. Friends are not confident that the new, excellent powers will be adopted in every area, which is a problem, but I think that we are generally agreed that making every local authority operate the new offence is not the answer. There will undoubtedly be local authorities that have little need for a night-time noise service, and such authorities may have to cut back something that has a higher priority locally to provide the service. A middle way might be to make it mandatory for all urban authorities, but one then has the problem of defining what constitutes an urban authority. I am very tempted by the idea that it should be.
Mr. Roy Thomason (Bromsgrove):
Does my hon. Friend accept that the problem of noise often applies to semi-urban, even rural areas, as well, and so to talk of these measures in terms of urban authorities might be misleading in terms of assisting those who need it?
Mr. Greenway:
I accept that noise can come from anywhere. It can come from heavily urban authorities and from rural and semi-rural authorities, and definitions are extremely difficult. It is clear, though, from past prosecutions and reportage, that some local authorities, particularly rural areas, do not regard night-time noise as a severe problem, and therefore to force all local authorities to adopt the measure when, I hope, it becomes an Act, might be taking a sledgehammer to crack a nut. The freedom to adopt or not in the first place is of great importance and must be respected.
It is always easy in life to take an all-or-nothing decision, but the problems may arise afterwards, which is when any anomalies arise, when one is faced with difficulties, irregularities and situations that one had thought existed when the total decision was taken but which did not actually exist. Bearing in mind that we would be giving money to local authorities that do not necessarily need it and taking it away, possibly, from urban authorities--despite the problems of definition--where it is urgently needed, it is right to strike the balance, which I seek to do this morning, by accepting the Lords amendment.
I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Minister for undertaking on Report to review the workings and take-up of the new offence after two years. He also said that the Government would not oppose an amendment that gave the Secretary of State the power to order local authorities to operate the new offence.
That is very important, as individuals and Members of Parliament could make representations directly to the Secretary of State and pressurise him or her into forcing local authorities to operate the new offence. We would then see the democratic process at its most effective, assuming that we have such a sensible Secretary of State as we have now. Thus, the Secretary of State would be able to take action if the review showed that that was desirable.
Lords Amendment No. 1 provides the order-making power. Lords Amendment No. 2 is consequential amendment, to allow at least three months to elapse before the Secretary of State's order takes effect. It gives the local authority time to put its organisation into place. These amendments are a sensible way forward and address the concerns of hon. Members without imposing an unnecessary burden on local authorities. I commend them to the House in that spirit.
After talks with the Department of the Environment, I understand that the new night noise offence, with confiscation provisions, is expected to be implemented next April, which will coincide with the money resolution coming into effect, and will allow time for full consultation on the technical aspects of measuring the noise.
Mr. Thomason:
My hon. Friend referred specifically to money, and clearly there are problems about the cost of enforcement of the provisions of the Bill. Can my
Mr. Greenway:
My hon. Friend makes an important point. We should remember that the money resolution was set at £3 million, which has already been accepted by the House and so would be law, so to speak. Costs in terms of wages, salaries, the number of enforcement officers required and so on will vary from area to area.
Personally, as a sound and--if I may say so--successful schoolmaster, I know that, to be successful, one must go in hard straight away. If a teacher takes on a new class--I am not straying, Mr. Deputy Speaker; I am drawing an analogy--or starts to run a new school and begins by being weak, grinning at everybody like some Cheshire cat, willing to accommodate any reaction, they will get nowhere.
But if they go in ferociously, prepared to deal with any nonsense, from wherever it might come, fearlessly, without flinching, strongly and resolutely, as though they are going to win, they will win. One can always come back from a strong position, but one can never go forward to a strong position from a weak one.
Mr. Hugh Dykes (Harrow, East):
That was a very moving lecture.
Mr. Greenway:
I am glad that my hon. Friend is moved.
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael Morris):
Order. The hon. Member must remain in order as well, though.
Mr. Greenway:
I am seeking to remain in order by drawing an analogy, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
The Petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons makes it clear to Her Majesty's Government that they are totally opposed to any expansion of Northolt Airport and in particular that they are totally opposed to the 1995-96 Parliamentary Select Committee on Transport's 2nd Report on UK Airport Capacity which recommends the further expansion of Northolt Airport on a complementary basis to Heathrow Airport.
I beg leave to present the petition.
9.45 am
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |