Proceeding contribution from Lord Berkeley (Labour) in the House of Lords on Monday, 5 December 2005. It occurred during Debate on bill and Committee proceeding on Civil Aviation Bill.
Civil Aviation Bill
I, too, have received letters from local authorities, around Heathrow in particular. When I stay in London I sleep under the flight path. Current regulations or rules were achieved after the Terminal 5 inquiry and the High Court case referred to by other noble Lords. I see little argument in favour of changing it. I shall not go into the details of that because it would take a long time and be rather tedious. The present regime seems to have been accepted, sometimes with a certain lack of enthusiasm, by local authorities, but I believe there would be a real outcry if the change proposed in the Bill went forward. I see nothing wrong with the present system. It seems to be a good compromise between the needs of the airline industry and the local residents to get some sleep.
Secondary information
- Type
- Proceeding contribution
- Reference
- 676 c86GC
- Session
- 2005-06
- Chamber / Committee
- House of Lords Grand Committee
- Subjects
- Appeals Aviation Air pollution Competition Aircraft Airports Airlines Fees and charges Liability Fines Insurance Exhaust emissions Heathrow Airport Powers Management Pollution control Monitoring Noise Night flying Terrorism Sustainable development Stansted Airport Gatwick Airport
- Legislation
- Civil Aviation Bill 2005-06
- Link
- View this Proceeding contribution on www.publications.parliament.uk
Librarians' tools
- Timestamp
- 2024-04-22 01:47:57 +0100
- URI
- http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_283675
- In Indexing
- http://indexing.parliament.uk/Content/Edit/1?uri=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_283675
- In Solr
- https://search.parliament.uk/claw/solr/?id=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_283675