Civil Aviation Bill

The perversity is self-evident. As Chairman of the Environmental Audit Committee, my hon. Friend will be championing that issue even further. His record on that Committee and as a constituency MP is undeniable. I have in my hand two of the submissions from councils in his area—Surrey county council and Tandridge district council—which are compelling in the power of their argument. I shall skim through them. They say clearly:"““Section 2(2) of the Bill, as it stands, amends section 78(3)(b) of the 1982 Civil Aviation Act in such a way as to empower the SoS to discontinue applying limits to the number of night aircraft movements at Heathrow, Gatwick and Stansted and replace these with noise quotas alone.””" The nice, tidy phrase ““noise quotas”” encompasses all sorts of calculations that will allow more disturbance at night, even though it could be argued that there is less noise. It has been argued that that it is a perverse and deceitful measure of the problem that people on the ground face, because"““as aircraft become less noisy this would be likely to lead to more flights within the same noise quota limit and there would be no real benefit to the local community; particularly, in rural areas””." I declare an interest in that respect, as my Rutland and Melton constituency is affected, as is that of my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Harborough (Mr. Garnier), who has been fighting strongly against the increase in night flights from Nottingham East Midlands airport and who, I am sure, will speak in this debate. The noise is felt strongly because in an area where there is less ambient noise, the noise of an aircraft, however quiet, is more noticeable than it would be in an urban area. The argument against noise quotas continues:"““a movements limit can be easily understood by most people and is far more transparent and open to validation as compared to a noise quota limit . . . a movements limit provides particular protection for people who live very close to the airport . . . and who are especially troubled by ground noise at night.””" The arguments advanced by Tanbridge council and many others are compelling. The Government’s intention is clearly set out in the air transport White Paper, which is, ““when Parliamentary time allows””, to introduce legislation including"““an amendment to section 78 of the Civil Aviation Act 1982 so that controls such as night restrictions could, subject to public consultation, be set on the basis of noise quotas alone, without a separate movements limit.””" Amendment No. 1 is the one that we intend to press to a vote. The provision affects urban and rural constituencies alike and introduces—somewhat surreptitiously—a new regime that represents a backward step. The next amendment addresses the problem of people being unable to find out the basic facts. There is nothing more annoying than encountering bureaucratic obduracy when trying to discover the facts about events that affect one’s life. What happens when an aircraft flies overhead and wakes one up at 4 o’clock in the morning? One is likely to go to the nearest airport and ask, ““Was it you?”” to which the likely reply is, ““Not me, guv.”” One might then turn to National Air Traffic Services, which is in charge of air traffic control, but NATS would find it difficult to trace an individual aircraft. The Civil Aviation Authority says that it is duty bound to implement policy, not to answer specific questions and noise complaints. What we have is an extremely fragmented system in which public agencies with a public duty are failing to respond to the legitimate concerns of people who are disturbed by night flights. Even I, a Member of Parliament, get the runaround. To be fair, within such an unproductive and fragmented regime it is not easy for an airport to determine to its own satisfaction whether it is responsible. Nottingham East Midlands airport, which I visited at night only three weeks ago, has within its remit and control a fairly narrow air traffic control area, but it receives into that area flights that may be deviating slightly from the recommended flight path. What the airport calls its presentation profile of aircraft therefore lands it with a problem for which it is not necessarily to blame. In the context of massive environmental concern, there is no confidence that individuals can have their complaints dealt with properly and honestly. It may be that all are being dealt with honestly, but that is not how it seems. No records are properly kept for long enough; it is quite difficult to backtrace an individual aircraft and work out whose it was, at what height it was flying and at what speed it was going. In my view, a better regime, which I have mentioned to the Secretary of State and the Under-Secretary of State for Transport, the hon. Member for Regent’s Park and Kensington, North (Ms Buck), on many occasions, must be established if there is to be any confidence in the new regime that is being created. If we are trying through the Bill to set up a regime for noise and emissions regulation, it must be logical for those who are most affected by noise or disturbance—let us call it nuisance rather than noise—to be able to ascertain who is to blame so that at least all of us who set public policy can have the facts at our disposal. The aim of new clause 4 is simple: it seeks to establish a single point of contact for members of the public who have complaints about aircraft noise and movements when they suspect, or even if they do not, that aircraft are deviating from established flight paths. At present, the regime is fragmented and everyone, including Members of Parliament, I think, feel that they cannot obtain the basic facts. The Bill does a great deal for designated airports, but relatively little for those that are non-designated. Little control exists over the expansion of flights at such airports. The Campaign to Protect Rural England points out that the Bill will not help to tackle the problem of increasing flights eroding rural tranquillity.