Skip to main content

Proceeding contribution from Lord Garnier (Conservative) in the House of Commons on Monday, 27 June 2005. It occurred during Debate on bill on Civil Aviation Bill.


Civil Aviation Bill

I am not sure that the hon. Gentleman’s point defeats my argument. As he has drawn our attention to subsection (8) clause 3, I shall deal with it. It states:"““A relevant manager who receives penalties under a penalty scheme shall make payments equal to the amount of those penalties for purposes which appear to him””—" not to the community at large, but to him—"““to be likely to be of benefit to persons who live in the area in which the aerodrome is situated.””" What do the words ““benefit to persons who live in the area”” mean? Will my constituents who live 50 miles away from Nottingham East Midlands airport be allowed to apply for compensation for property blight or to put in double glazing? Will they be allowed to apply for compensation for the psychological distress that they suffer endlessly from sleepless nights as aeroplanes fly over their houses every 90 seconds between 11 o’clock and 7 am? No doubt the hon. Gentleman knows that the European Court of Human Rights already recognises sleep deprivation as a disbenefit, but I have a suspicion that that will not be taken into account because NEMA and all the other fellows who will be dealing with this private justice system will narrowly define the words ““area””, ““vicinity”” and ““benefit””. Although the hon. Member for North-West Leicestershire may see some improvement in the double-glazing regime that pertains in the villages around Nottingham East Midlands airport, no such benefit will follow in the south-west, south-east and north-east of the county. My point is simple: if the Government want to be taken seriously in their desire to control air pollution, air noise and night noise they had better come up with a more effective set of policing arrangements than they are providing in the Bill. I shall end my speech, as other Members want to talk about their airports and will have much to say. The Government must get a grip on those who are wholly unaccountable to the people of Leicestershire, as I pointed out in an intervention earlier. The airport is owned by 10 local authorities in Greater Manchester—the former leader of Manchester city council is in the Chamber. My constituents cannot vote for those authorities and they cannot buy shares in the company. All they can do is send letters of complaint that their houses are being overflown at night and receive in reply the kind of meaningless waffle to which my hon. Friend the Member for Rutland and Melton referred in his opening speech. The Government should wake up. If they do not, it will lead to the dismissal of yet another aviation Minister. We have already seen off two, and we are not against seeing off another if we do not get what we want.


Secondary information

Type
Proceeding contribution
Reference
435 c1069-70 
Session
2005-06
Chamber / Committee
House of Commons chamber
Subjects
Companies Aviation Air pollution Aircraft Airports Air routes Health Finance Licensing Fines Exhaust emissions Heathrow Airport Protection Monitoring Passengers Noise Stansted Airport Regional airports South East Aviation Health Unit Gatwick Airport Air Travel Trust
Legislation
Civil Aviation Bill 2005-06
Link
View this Proceeding contribution on www.publications.parliament.uk