Proceeding contribution from Lord Berkeley (Labour) in the House of Lords on Wednesday, 8 March 2006. It occurred during Debate on bill on Civil Aviation Bill.
Civil Aviation Bill
My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend for his answers. They deserve detailed reading as he has given some very interesting information. I am not sure why the Government are so much against a statutory scheme, which is the crux of the debate. There is one at Chicago O’Hare airport which works well. I live in a house in Battersea, west London, which received statutory noise insulation against Channel Tunnel rail freight trains. Noble Lords might think there is an irony there. I have the installation, but if I had wanted it for noise from the air, I probably would not have received it. There is a precedent for a statutory scheme such as this, and it is something on which to reflect before Third Reading. For the moment, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment. Amendment, by leave, withdrawn. Clause 8 [Functions with respect to health]:
Secondary information
- Type
- Proceeding contribution
- Reference
- 679 c801
- Session
- 2005-06
- Chamber / Committee
- House of Lords chamber
- Subjects
- Aviation Air pollution Aircraft Airports Air routes Health Fees and charges Licensing Environment Noise National parks Safety
- Legislation
- Civil Aviation Bill 2005-06
- Link
- View this Proceeding contribution on www.publications.parliament.uk
Librarians' tools
- Timestamp
- 2024-01-26 17:40:39 +0000
- URI
- http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_306345
- In Indexing
- http://indexing.parliament.uk/Content/Edit/1?uri=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_306345
- In Solr
- https://search.parliament.uk/claw/solr/?id=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_306345