Proceeding contribution from Kelvin Hopkins (Labour) in the House of Commons on Monday, 8 May 2006. It occurred during Debate on bill on Civil Aviation Bill 2005-06.
Civil Aviation Bill
I thank the hon. Gentleman for his intervention. I wanted to respond to the intervention made by my hon. Friend the Member for Crewe and Nantwich (Mrs. Dunwoody). She mentioned the distribution effects of charges relating to emissions and noise. I welcome the Under-Secretary of State for Transport, my hon. Friend the Member for Halton (Derek Twigg) to his place. Has he looked at the impact of distributing traffic between airports? Such a distribution could have a significant impact on south-east England, especially on London Luton. I hope that traffic will shift from London Heathrow to London Luton, as that would benefit Luton and Heathrow. We know that there will be an increase in air traffic, although I think that it will be smaller than is being predicted, for all sorts of environmental and political reasons. Nevertheless, such a shift would be beneficial. Has the Department considered the distribution effects of such constraints on noise and emissions? My hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Blackley (Graham Stringer) mentioned noise footprints. A new generation of aircraft will soon come into existence. Some hon. Members might have seen the presentation on the so-called Dreamliner, which is made of composite rather than metal. It is much lighter, has a bigger payload and can fly much longer distances. Most significantly, however, it is much more fuel- efficient and has a much smaller noise footprint. If we can offer the industry incentives to move as quickly as possible towards adopting such aircraft—which I believe are the future—we shall do everyone a great service in regard to the environment. It would also make life easier for the industry, as it would be less under pressure than it would otherwise be. We should also press what is left of the British aircraft manufacturing industry—there is not too much left, but what is left is Airbus—to go in that direction as well. It should follow Boeing in making aircraft that are much more fuel-efficient and generate far fewer emissions and less noise. Having made those few remarks, I shall acquiesce in what the Government decide on this amendment.
Secondary information
- Type
- Proceeding contribution
- Reference
- 446 c50
- Session
- 2005-06
- Chamber / Committee
- House of Commons chamber
- Subjects
- Aviation Air pollution Airports Finance Fees and charges Environment protection Heathrow Airport Noise Night flying Regulation East Midlands Airport
- Legislation
- Civil Aviation Bill 2005-06
- Link
- View this Proceeding contribution on www.publications.parliament.uk
Librarians' tools
- Timestamp
- 2024-04-21 12:04:40 +0100
- URI
- http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_320889
- In Indexing
- http://indexing.parliament.uk/Content/Edit/1?uri=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_320889
- In Solr
- https://search.parliament.uk/claw/solr/?id=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_320889