The issue is more profound than that. It is about Government policy making on the future of aviation over half a century, which has been dominated by the aviation industry itself, with no countervailing factors limiting Government discretion, either from communities or environmentalists. That has been our problem throughout that period.
Our present concern in London and around Heathrow is that the Bill will afford the opportunity to lift the cap on air traffic movements that was placed on Heathrow by the terminal 5 inquiry. That cap was set as a condition of the approval of the terminal 5 project by the planning inspector, and it was solemnly endorsed on the Floor of the House, with assurances by the then Secretary of State for Transport to all of us who represent constituencies around Heathrow. It was the one sop, the one thing that we were given to take back to our constituents to say that at least there was light at the end of the tunnel following that terrible inquiry that allowed terminal 5 to go ahead and introduced the risk of a third runway. The Bill will allow the Secretary of State the opportunity to lift the cap and to undermine the basis of that five-year inquiry and the conclusions that it reached.
The value for my constituents of limits on aircraft movements is that they are readily understandable. Their simplicity inspires some level of confidence in Government decision making, and they are readily measurable. They therefore give further reassurance that the Government are abiding by some of the commitments that they have made. Noise quotas engender a lack of clarity. Their measurability is challengeable. There are differing definitions of noise, as we have heard at length today and throughout the debates on this issue. There are different assessments of its impact on people’s lives, and they open up a vista of dispute. We cannot agree on what is to be measured, how it is to be measured, or even who should be the measurer. That lack of clarity will undermine any confidence that people might have in the Government’s long-term aviation policy. It will result in a lack of confidence.
Movement controls do not only control noise. They also limit the general disruption caused by aircraft activity, at night and at other times, in the local area. Even the quieter planes cause disruption involving lights, ground operations and, for communities living near Heathrow, the traffic generated by those flights. Increasing the number of movements, no matter how much quieter the planes are, will not overcome but increase that type of disruption.
I do not want to return to the same old argument that people who oppose proposals such as those in the Bill are all luddites who oppose the aviation industry. My constituents also work at Heathrow, but we are looking for some form of balanced development. The only agency that can provide us with the protection that can achieve that is the Government. There are alternative ways forward.
Civil Aviation Bill
Proceeding contribution from
John McDonnell
(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 c80-1 Session
2005-06Chamber / Committee
House of Commons chamberSubjects
Librarians' tools
Timestamp
2024-04-21 13:56:30 +0100
URI
http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_266087
In Indexing
http://indexing.parliament.uk/Content/Edit/1?uri=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_266087
In Solr
https://search.parliament.uk/claw/solr/?id=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_266087