I do not dissent from a word that my hon. Friend—my neighbour—said. It may be that the Minister, whom I greatly respect, believes that the Bill will get the problems of noise and penalty regimes off her desk. I do not think that it will, particularly if the airport designs and imposes an unacceptable regime. If, as in the case of Nottingham East Midlands airport, the airport continues to be noisy at night, the problem will come bouncing back to the Minister even more loudly.
Unamended, the clause is contrary to democratic principles. Through the democratic process people should have a voice in shaping the regimes that try to protect them from the environmental downsides of large aviation neighbours. It is contrary to the principles of sustainable development, which call for noise reduction and increased participation. The clause is contrary to our own Government’s principles of a local solution. Imposition by the airport, as anticipated in the amendment, without the involvement of a local authority, perhaps the county council, will not be a solution. We need to introduce into this part of the Bill some element of accountability.
Civil Aviation Bill
Proceeding contribution from
David Leslie Taylor
(Labour)
in the House of Commons on Monday, 10 October 2005.
It occurred during Debate on bills on Civil Aviation Bill.
About this proceeding contribution
Reference
437 c67 Session
2005-06Chamber / Committee
House of Commons chamberSubjects
Librarians' tools
Timestamp
2024-04-21 13:56:29 +0100
URI
http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_266044
In Indexing
http://indexing.parliament.uk/Content/Edit/1?uri=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_266044
In Solr
https://search.parliament.uk/claw/solr/?id=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_266044