Proceeding contribution from Justine Greening (Conservative) 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 fail to understand how the Minister’s argument stacks up. Surely keeping two locks on the Secretary of State’s ability to manage noise—one involving movements and the other involving what many of us would say is a fundamentally flawed noise quota system—is better than taking one away. Surely the Minister should leave the movements cap in place and perhaps allow a future Secretary of State to set it high enough that it would be ineffective. Why does he want to take it away altogether and remove a future Secretary of State’s ability to use it to curb movements in and out of airports close to my constituency, such as Heathrow?
Secondary information
- Type
- Proceeding contribution
- Reference
- 446 c62
- 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 12:06:23 +0100
- URI
- http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_320935
- In Indexing
- http://indexing.parliament.uk/Content/Edit/1?uri=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_320935
- In Solr
- https://search.parliament.uk/claw/solr/?id=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_320935