Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
John McDonnell: While my hon. Friend has the opportunity to expand on the matters relating to the amendment, may I point out that some of the studies on sleeplessness have taken place at Hounslow, near Heathrow, although I am not sure whether any have taken place in my constituency? These measures are to be implemented in 2012, as he has proposed in the compromise that he has offered. May I remind him that Members of Parliament representing constituencies round Heathrow have been asking for an investigation into the overall health effects of the airport itself for
some time? This relates to sleep deprivation. The Bill also deals with emissions, however, and air pollution also has an effect on peoples health. We have had neither a specific study of sleep deprivation north of the airport nor a health study to examine the impact on the local community of emissions surrounding the airport. The local primary care trust has made representations to that effect in the past, and I would like my hon. Friend to take that subject from the debate so that funding by central Government can be considered in the interregnum between
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. Even in the current conditions, that was a long intervention.
Derek Twigg: My hon. Friend makes an important point about the disbenefits of air pollution. He may be aware that the Government published the air quality strategy for England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland in January 2000 and that the strategy sets health-based objectives for the eight main air pollutants and deadlines for achieving them. It identifies the action required at national and international level and the contribution that the Government, industry, transport, local authorities, businesses and individuals can make to improving air quality.
I know that this issue will concern you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, but the Environment Act 1995 places a duty on local authorities to review and assess the current and likely future air quality in their areas against the national objectives set out in the strategy and prescribed in the air quality regulations. The local authority role is important and if a local authority considers that one or more of the air quality objectives is unlikely to be met by the required date, it must declare an air quality management area covering the area in which the problems are expected. It must then draw up an action plan, setting out the measures that it intends to take in pursuit of air quality objectives.
I have been diverted from the subject a little, but I wish to return to the issue of sleep disturbance, which concerns many Members. There are differing views among those who suffer from the problem as to whether a single loud noise or an accumulation of smaller noise events causes more disturbance. It is clear that disturbance is different from annoyance and from sleep deprivation, which relates to lengthy periods without sleep. It is also acknowledged that a small minority of people are much more sensitive to noise and sleep disturbance from aircraft noise than others. That is the important point.
The results of the further study that reported in 2000 did not contradict the essential findings of the 1992 field study, and that is the point that I wish to make about the time lag between the two studies. In contrast, a social survey conducted in parallel reported that a substantial percentage of those interviewed in higher noise areas reported being highly disturbed by aircraft at night.
After those studies the Government took the advice of independent experts and concluded that a new full-scale objective sleep study would be unlikely to add significantly to our understanding of the effects of airport noise on sleep disturbance. The Government
then commissioned a major new study to concentrate on subjective responses to annoyance from aircraft noise and examined, in a hypothetical way, the willingness to pay, in respect of the nuisance from aircraft noise. It is acknowledged that our current understanding of the annoyance caused by aircraft is primarily based on research carried out in the 1980s.
John McDonnell: Can my hon. Friend just clarify the geographical basis of the recent study, the samples that were taken, the interviews that took place and the areas that were designated as the most affected?
Derek Twigg: I have not got that information to hand, but I will write to my hon. Friend following the debate.
The study of how people would price nuisance from aircraft noise is designed to improve our understanding of the value that people give to relief from noise. We expect that the study, which has been guided by the steering group of a wide range of interests including environmental organisations who are represented, to be completed by about the middle of the year. The work is divided into two phases. Phase 1 has now been completed and has developed a stated preference methodology by carrying out a number of pilot surveys[Hon. Members: You can stop now.] I think that hon. Members will bear with me a few more moments, because there are other issues to discuss. Phase 2, which is the main survey and has recently been completed, applies the methodology and is reassessing the validity of the Leq family of noise indices as a proxy for relative community annoyance. I know that the hon. Member for Windsor has a particular interest in that aspect of aircraft noise.
Finally, the hon. Gentleman referred to the Government writing to Members in support of the Lords amendments. The Government did not write to support the Lords amendments to abolish clause 2, but we did write at that time about tabling an amendment in the Lords to explain the clause.
I thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, for your forbearance and urge the House to reject the Lords amendments.
Question put, That this House disagrees with the Lords in the said amendment:
Derek Twigg: I beg to move, That the House agrees with the Lords in the said amendment.
Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to discuss Lords amendment No. 7.
Derek Twigg: These amendments make two minor changes to the consultation requirement that subsection (5) of new section 38B places on the Secretary of State when proposing to make an order specifying an area within which a non-designated airports noise control scheme shall apply.
It has become apparent to us that although subsection (5) lists a number of specific statutory consultees, including the CAA, the operator ofthe airport, local authorities and organisations representing the interests of local people, the operators of aircraft that use the airport are not included on the list. The first [Interruption.]
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I am sorry to interrupt the Minister. Could hon. Members not have conversations in the Chamber that distract from the main business?
Derek Twigg: The first of the amendments remedies that omission. It does so using the formulation,
any body appearing to the Secretary of State to be representative of operators of aircraft using the aerodrome,
which is used elsewhere in the Bill, specifically inclause 3, on page 4, in line 31. The latter amendment changes the reference to organisations representing the
interests of local people, so that the same formulation is used consistentlythat such bodies are those,
appearing to the Secretary of State to be representative,
of those interests. The effect of the provisionthe requirement for the Secretary of State to consult bodies representing the interests of local peoplewill remain the same.
Mr. Brazier: We have no objection to these minor amendments.
Lords amendment No. 7 agreed to.
Derek Twigg: I beg to move, That the House agrees with the Lords in the said amendment.
Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this it be will convenient to discuss Lords amendments Nos. 9,10 and 12.
Derek Twigg: The Government gave notice of their intention to make these amendments to the Bill in a written statement by the Secretary of State for Transport on 21 November 2005, and wrote to Opposition spokesmen to explain their purpose.
Lords amendment No. 8 inserts a new clause into the Bill, giving effect to the schedule on policing at airports inserted by amendment No. 12. The schedule amends the Aviation Security Act 1982 in relation to the policing of airports that have been designated under section 25 of the ActHeathrow, Gatwick, Stansted, Birmingham, Manchester, Prestwick, Edinburgh, Glasgow and Aberdeen airports. Recently, it became clear that we needed to clarify the relationship between security and policing activities at designated airports. Increased clarity on that point should prevent future disputes between airport managers and the police. It has also become clear that we need to design a robust mechanism for resolving any disputes that arise.
The amendments to section 26 of the Aviation Security Act 1982 will define and clarify the relationship between the activities of an airport manager and other directed parties at an airport, and policing activities. Our intention in doing so is to prevent disputes on that point and to ensure that the aerodrome manager and chief officer of police work closely together in protecting an airport. The amendments are in paragraph 3 of the schedule.
Next Section | Index | Home Page |