| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
Mr. David Clelland (Tyne Bridge): I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.
Motion, by leave, withdrawn.
Ordered,
That Standing Order No. 148 (Committee of PublicAccounts) be amended, in line 7, by leaving out the word 'fifteen' and inserting the word 'sixteen'.--[Mr. Clelland.]
28 Oct 1997 : Column 809
Aircraft Noise (South-west London)
Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.--[Mr. Clelland.]
10 pm
Mr. Tony Colman (Putney): Mr. Deputy Speaker, I know that this Adjournment debate is about a subject close to your heart, as you have an interest in Stansted airport. I look forward to hearing the Minister for Transport in London respond to the debate, clarifying Government policy in this area.
I have spent much of the past three years espousing the cause of sustainable development as set out in the Rio treaty. I was particularly pleased to see that the consultation paper for the Greater London authority defines the key function as:
Two years ago, the hon. Member for Windsor (Mr. Trend) told the House that the aircraft instrument landing system required a precise line of approach, which was undeviating in the hardship that it delivered to residents below. The microwave landing system, which offers a variation of approach, has still not been advanced in the two years since the previous debate. Thus, there has been no improvement. There are noise limits only for departing aircraft and not for incoming aircraft--an oversight which has prevailed for years, despite assurances about a change.
Night flights continue to plague the sleep of the people of Putney and elsewhere. Why have such flights not been banned? In respect of the last consultation, a constituent wrote:
Putney suffers doubly as it is also under the flight path for helicopters that use the Battersea heliport. Routes H10, H3 and H7 converge over Putney common, and thus all helicopters from the north, west and south fly over Putney and Fulham at very low levels. The noise can be
excruciating. I, of course, exclude the need for helicopters to bring badly injured patients to Queen Mary's university hospital regional burns unit, a unit which I am fighting to retain at that hospital.
It is widely accepted that one way to reduce aircraft noise is to limit that noise at source. International agreement is essential, and I welcome the International Civil Aviation Organisation's phasing out of the noisier chapter 2 aircraft by 2002. I also welcome the checks instituted by the Civil Aviation Authority, leading to the grounding of aircraft if they do not meet the necessary standards.
As the Minister is aware, Cranfield university in Bedford recently undertook a series of experiments on a digital, pneumatic actuator, and I am pleased that the Department of Trade and Industry, British Airways and the British Airports Authority are working together in sponsoring the device that claims to eliminate most noise. Aircraft construction companies will need to adapt aircraft engines to control carbon dioxide emissions to ensure that the Kyoto agreements against global warming are not breached. It is important that noise pollution is tackled at the same time as air pollution is dealt with. Developments such as that which I have outlined are the way forward for an innovative Britain, finding solutions to problems.
This debate is particularly urgent because of the events of 16 October. On that day, Miss Elizabeth Duthie of the aviation environmental division of the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions told the terminal 5 planning inquiry:
In July, Miss Duthie said:
We thus have a catalogue of woe, and an environmental and social disaster. Of course, there are economic gains in employment and wealth creation, thanks to the superb success of BAA and Heathrow Airport Ltd. and the many airlines and companies involved with the workings of the airport. Heathrow is the stepping stone to Europe for the rest of the world and is a world-class industry in its own right. I am not suggesting anything that would harm that success story but, in the spirit of local Agenda 21, for which I lead in London, all the stakeholders--businesses, local government and local people--need to plan for the sustainable development of the airport. That must mean that the social and environmental damage currently inflicted must be reduced.
The need to work with the community is doubly important with the terminal 5 inquiry. Local people and I see terminal 5 as an environmental disaster, yet business states that it is essential for the continued pre-eminence
of Heathrow. The battle line has been drawn up for three years--the Minister will have to decide, although I am not expecting her to express a view this evening.
My hon. Friend the Member for Hayes and Harlington (Mr. McDonnell) has passed to me the response of his local residents association to the consultation by the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions on the integrated transport policy. The association puts forward the concept of airport environmental limits. I commend the document as a way forward which will enable BAA and local residents associations to sit down and work out, within the framework of the Greater London authority, a future for Heathrow.
The hon. Members for Windsor and for Richmond Park (Dr. Tonge) have asked to be allowed to intervene to support my argument. I have agreed that they should do so to emphasise the cross-party concern about the matters that I have outlined.
I ask the Minister to come to the rescue of the people of Putney and of all those suffering from aircraft noise on the Heathrow flight path by agreeing to the following points.
First, let the people decide about noise limits. In my response to the Greater London authority consultation, I strongly recommend that the authority and the mayor, not the Government, should decide about noise limits, just as they will decide about other London transport issues. The United States Government do not make decisions about JFK airport in New York; local government does. That is also the case for noise controls for all other United Kingdom airports, except Gatwick and Stansted. Only the mayor of London can bring together all the stakeholders involved. I look forward to the new consultation period on noise limits. I shall recommend stiff limits from 1998.
Secondly, let there be noise limits on incoming as well as departing aircraft and proper fines for miscreants, not the £500 fine currently levied.
Thirdly, let there be a ban on night flights between 11.30 pm and 6 am. That works elsewhere, so why not here? Consultation is due to start shortly. I ask that that should be an option that the people can vote on.
Fourthly, let controls cover all aircraft--small as well as large--including helicopters. Often smaller aircraft--and certainly helicopters--are noisier and fly lower.
Fifthly, I commend the Cranfield research project into noise reductions in aircraft engines. Noise pollution should be discussed together with air pollution controls at Kyoto. It is a worldwide problem.
Sixthly, let there be an unequivocal statement this evening that the Government are determined to reduce noise pollution on the Heathrow approaches, repudiating the views expressed by Elizabeth Duthie of the aviation environmental division. Let there be a target for reductions between now and 2010.
"sustainable development, giving all Londoners an improved and lasting quality of life, combining environmental, economic and social goals".
I read under the proposals for an integrated transport strategy for London that there is a need for action
"to take forward London-wide measures to reduce air traffic pollution."
In that context, I speak tonight on behalf of my constituents and all those who suffer noise pollution both in south-west London and on the approaches to Heathrow. There are now more than 1,200 flights a day into Heathrow and, despite efforts such as runway alternation--which I applaud--many of those flights bear down in a cone of appalling noise across swathes of central Putney, Sheen, Richmond, Isleworth, Hounslow and on into the airport. When the northern runway is used, Fulham, Barnes, Kew, Brentford and Hounslow are affected.
"Our three-year-old son comes into our bedroom at 4 am terrified by the noise of the large jets screaming overhead in the middle of the quiet night."
Another constituent counted 39 aircraft coming in over his house between 4.30 am and 8 am on a Sunday--when Sunday restrictions should have made that impossible. Why cannot the departure times of flights from the far east be rescheduled so that they arrive at Heathrow at a suitable time?
"Government now believes that a continuing improvement (in aircraft noise) cannot be guaranteed indefinitely"--
a statement that appears to signify a change to the previous policy, which was
"to do everything possible to ensure that the noise climate improves."
Alarm has spread through west London, especially as the inspector for the terminal 5 planning inquiry--Roy Vandemeer--believes that the Government have moved the goalposts. That will materially affect his work on the inquiry.
"night flights cause negligible sleep disturbance".
I invite my hon. Friend the Minister to spend the night at the home of one of my constituents in Putney to discover how wrong that statement is.
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |