---

Civil Aviation Bill

My Lords, I shall start by picking up the points made by the noble Lord at the end of his speech. He commended the Bill to the House by saying that it was positive for the airlines, consumers and residents. I am sorry but that is not how the residents around Heathrow airport perceive it. That point has been made by the noble Lord, Lord Faulkner, on behalf of Hounslow, but does the Minister realise that 12 local authorities are affected by the noise levels and flight paths around Heathrow? They are all extremely concerned about Clause 2, which amends Section 78(3) of the Civil Aviation Act. I am a resident and former councillor of the Royal Borough of Windsor and Maidenhead. I am sure that today, if other Peers lived in the boroughs surrounding Heathrow, they would all speak on this. It is of the deepest concern to the residents and to the local authorities that the Secretary of State will have the flexibility, the discretion and the power to introduce night flights on the basis of noise alone. I cannot put it better than the noble Lord, Lord Bradshaw, and my noble friend Lord Hanningfield. One point that has not yet been made is that it does not matter how low aircraft noise is at night as at night time we can hear the smallest noise; we can hear a car on the road that we do not notice in the daytime. The noble Lord, Lord Faulkner, touched on this matter. He said that a little less noise will not make a difference. I emphasise that night-time is a very quiet time and almost any level of noise—the noise-free aircraft has not yet been invented—will keep the residents near and around the airport awake at night. Many lives have already been blighted. There are many examples of how flight paths have been chosen; the noble Lord, Lord Bradshaw, mentioned how flight paths are changed and organised so that they blight people living under them. I want to provide the House with an example. On 14 October this year, there were 649 movements in a 24-hour period from Heathrow, during easterly operations, when aircraft were landing over Windsor. During that week there were seven days of continuous easterly operations, providing little or no respite for local residents, except for about three or four hours during the night. Noble Lords who have been in Windsor during the day will know that one has to stop talking, even in enclosed places, when planes fly over. If that is to happen at night, the residents of the Royal Borough will certainly not have very much sleep. The local authorities took the Secretary of State to judicial review in 1993—that was under the present regime. I do not know whether anyone has noticed, but Clause 2(2) takes away from local authorities the right of judicial review as regards limits so that they will not be able to question the Secretary of State via a judicial review because it will no longer be ultra vires. That is another very deep concern. As has been stated by Karen Buck, the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for transport in another place, nothing will happen until 2012. One noble Lord has already said that there have been many broken promises and if noble Lords were to read Commons Hansard they will see lists of broken promises. There is no guarantee for people to ensure what goes on because in the end the legislation says that the Secretary of State can change the situation if he thinks fit by one means or another. I am an inveterate traveller and I have been using Heathrow the whole of my life. I would like nothing better than to fly at night because that would make it easier to get flights and we may not have to arrive in another country in the middle of the night. We always leave here in the daytime, but arrive at our destination at night. I believe that it is worth the sacrifice for the sake of all residents, who need at least some hours of peace at night. I would be sad to see that amendment go through, and will strongly support the amendments that will be put forward from this side of the House.