---

Civil Aviation Bill

I defer to my noble friend, who is so well informed on those matters. Stansted was bound to be an important part of our considerations. However, I am inhibited in certain aspects of my response. The issue of generalised blight is presently before the High Court in connection with the voluntary blight compensation scheme introduced by the operator of Stansted airport but may have wider implications. I shall therefore address myself, as I know that the noble Lord, Lord Hanningfield, will expect me to, to the general issues. There is no doubt that the issue of blight is difficult and complex, but why should we single out airport development to be treated differently from all other developments? All sorts of developments can occur across the length and breadth of the land where residents can rightly say that they suffer from generalised blight as a consequence of a new economic activity developing. If we made the matter statutory in the Bill, we would be dealing with the subject solely in the context of airports. We do not underestimate the effect on residents close to airports as a result of airport development, but why should a resident who is close to an airport benefit from a consideration of generalised blight while a person close to a railway line being developed to serve the airport would not suffer from generalised blight as defined in statute? That is the basic problem, without detracting from the significance of the blight factor. I am all too well aware of the fact that airports need to be conscious of the issue of blight. They need to put in place schemes to address the problem. We insist on that approach. However, the concept of generalised blight is a difficult one to wrestle with.