Proceeding contribution from John McDonnell (Labour) in the House of Commons on Monday, 10 October 2005. It occurred during Debate on bill on Civil Aviation Bill.
Civil Aviation Bill
My hon. Friend reminds me of the history of the debate on terminal 5. He and other Members who supported terminal 5 based their case on the economic benefits, as well as on the assurances that had been given that enough was enough and that there would be a cap on flight movements as a result of the terminal 5 agreement. We shall now have to go back to our constituents and tell them that the Bill might empower the removal of that cap. That is how we undermine confidence not simply in decisions such as this but in representative government overall. Within only a few years, the assurances that we gave our constituents are being undermined by the measure. There is another way forward and I shall sum it up briefly. It is to maintain and extend the use of air movements as the basic tool for controlling airport development and noise and emissions impact and to require the Secretary of State to limit air movements from individual airports. Below those limits, we can encourage quieter aircraft by additional noise controls on individual planes and also by awarding incentives through the allocation of landing slots to types of plane and companies that perform well in reducing noise and emissions. The Government’s proposals will result in the creeping up of the number of flights at Heathrow and elsewhere. There will be no improvement in noise or emission controls and there will, yet again, be a betrayal of the communities surrounding Heathrow. New clause 6 would place a duty on the Secretary of State to act in providing insulation protection to constituents on whom aircraft noise had an impact. The Secretary of State already has power under the Land Compensation Act 1973 to introduce legislation on noise insulation, yet no regulations have been enacted. We are asking for a limit, so that a year after the Bill is enacted the Secretary of State would act on that important matter. It is another way of reassuring people that the Government are on their side and are trying to protect their interests rather than merely driving through a growth in aviation no matter what the environmental and social impact may be.
Secondary information
- Type
- Proceeding contribution
- Reference
- 437 c82
- Session
- 2005-06
- Chamber / Committee
- House of Commons chamber
- Subjects
- Complaints Consumers Aviation Air traffic control Buildings Aircraft Airports Air routes Airlines Health Finance Fees and charges Licensing Insurance Insulation Protection Pollution control Noise Night flying Radar Standards East Midlands Airport London airports Air Travel Trust Airspace
- Legislation
- Civil Aviation Bill 2005-06
- Link
- View this Proceeding contribution on www.publications.parliament.uk
Librarians' tools
- Timestamp
- 2024-04-21 14:03:39 +0100
- URI
- http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_266091
- In Indexing
- http://indexing.parliament.uk/Content/Edit/1?uri=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_266091
- In Solr
- https://search.parliament.uk/claw/solr/?id=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_266091