AIRCRAFT NOISE

HC Deb 02 February 1959 vol 599 cc161-72

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Bryan.]

10.13 p.m.

Mr. Ronald Bell (Buckinghamshire, South)

It is now some years since my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Chertsey (Sir L. Heald) and I raised in this House the general question of nuisance from noise. Tonight, I wish to raise the more particular question of nuisance from the noise and vibration of aircraft.

The constituency which I represent, South Buckinghamshire, is situated unfortunately near to London Airport; and, therefore, in common with those of some hon. Members on both sides, it suffers very greatly from the increase in air traffic which has taken place in recent years. It may, therefore, be helpful to cast an eye back over the history of this matter.

In 1947, in the Air Navigation Bill, a new Clause was slipped in during the Committee stage which, for the first time, made it impossible for anyone to bring an action of nuisance against the operators of an aerodrome, on account of the noise caused by the aerodrome. So that, quite suddenly, in 1947, the operators of aerodromes became exempt from the ordinary provisions of the law of nuisance, and they could make as much noise as they wanted to, provided that the Minister of Transport and Civil Aviation did not withdraw his licence from them.

That was a dramatic development, and of course, at the time it was accompanied by the sort of assurance that these developments always carry with them when they are introduced. That is to say, the House and the country were assured that a very tight rein would be kept on aerodromes and that although the subject could no longer seek his remedy in the courts, nevertheless, his interests would be watched by a vigilant Department of State. So it may have been for a few months. Then we began to hear those phrases which have since become so familiar to us about the duty of the man on the ground to get used to these new noises, to become acclimatised and accustomed to them and to put up with them with good grace. That has become increasingly the refrain as immunity from actions for nuisance, introduced in 1947, has come to be taken for granted as an immutable part of the world in which we live.

I must congratulate the Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Transport and Civil Aviation, my hon. Friend the Member for Henley (Mr. Hay), upon the maiden speech which he is about to make from the Dispatch Box and which, I am sure, will be a most impressive maiden speech. But it is being made in very exacting circumstances, because I greatly fear that he will have nothing new to say to us and, therefore, we shall depend more than normally upon some variation in the manner in which it is said.

I sometimes wonder whether, as a result of this growth of noise, we are not in danger of creating a world in which we concentrate so much upon the method of getting about from one part of it to the other that we may be left with no part of it worth going to because of the noise when we get there. In certain parts of the south-east of England we are getting near that state. My constituents have put up for a long time now with a great deal of noise from London Airport and it is not quite good enough to say to them, "You must get used to this noise from modern flying machines," because as soon as they get used to the noise from the airport the noise increases and they have something more to get used to. The reason why I raise this matter tonight is that what I might call their absorptive capacity is becoming exhausted.

The immediate precipitating cause of that is the introduction of these big new jets, the Boeing 707 and the TU. 104, both of which are inventions of the devil, especially the TU. 104 which, perhaps, has political overtones as well as its ordinary noise. But what one has to emphasise about these jets is not only that they make far more noise than the piston-engined aeroplanes, but that the noise is one of higher pitch and one to which the human ear simply does not get used in the ordinary way.

My constituents, who are living under this noise, say that the Comet IV and the Caravelle—the French airliner—are not causing them anything like as much annoyance as the Boeing and the TU. 104. I notice that a Press release from the Miinistry of Transport and Civil Aviation, last August, said: Tests carried out for the United Kingdom authorities have shown that suppression"— that is, of noise— in the case of the Caravelle and Comet will reduce the impact of their noise so that it is comparable with that of piston-engined aircraft already in commercial use. What I hear from my constituents bears out that this is so, but, on the other hand, the American and Russian aeroplanes are in no way comparable with the piston-engined aircraft. They are causing far more noise. They are causing not only noise, but actual physical vibration in some of the houses over which they go and which cannot but have some structural effect upon the houses. They are producing a state of near-prostration in some rather sensitive people. They are operating under limitations at the present time.

I want to allow at least one hon. Member opposite an opportunity of speaking, and to give full scope to the Parliamentary Secretary for the important announcement which I trust he will make to us, so that I will not go into the limitations, which are perfectly well known to hon. Members, except to say this, that with those limitations in force I and other hon. Members are continuing to receive complaints. It is, in fact, with those limitations in force that the nuisance is being experienced. What the situation would be if those limitations were not in force I do not like to think. That is what worries my constituents.

I have here an extract, from The Times, of a letter which was written a few days ago to the Chairman of the London Airport Standing Consultative Committee by the predecessor to my hon. Friend the Joint Parliamentary Secretary, who has now passed on to the Air Ministry, where his aeroplanes can make more noise with less trouble in this House, He wrote—and these are the phrases which cause us anxiety: That was not to say that as air traffic increased and changed its pattern it would be possible indefinitely to retain all the restrictions on operations. That is depressingly like some of the phrases that we have heard in the past. The Ministry goes through the motions. It imposes limitations and restrictions for a time and then the door is thrown wide open, having got people used to the idea of having these aeroplanes. I repeat: That was not to say that as air traffic increased and changed its pattern it would be possible indefinitely to retain all the restrictions on operations. The other passage was this: The new large jet aircraft formed a distinct category … and before they were allowed unrestricted use of airports in built-up areas the Minister had made it clear he must be satisfied that every reasonable attempt had been made to silence them. To me that implies that if every reasonable attempt has been made and still they fail, the restrictions will be withdrawn.

Mr. Christopher Boyd (Bristol, North-West)

Does not the quietness of the Bristol Britannia prove that aeroplanes can be made to work quietly and that if the authorities brought all aircraft manufacturers into line they could produce quiet aircraft?

Mr. Bell

The hon. Member is anticipating something that I was going to say. Perhaps he has a constituency interest in the Bristol Britannia.

We have many anodyne phrases. They may be new to my hon. Friend, but they are familiar to us. However, we shall not object if he repeats them tonight. If "good will and understanding" could solve this problem, it has been solved many times already. If "consultation and intensive study" were any comfort to my constituents, nobody would be more comfortable than they. If "standardisation of noise measurement" were the solution to this problem, the matter is already solved. All these phrases come at us every few months, year by year. We do act want any more "consultation", "standardisation of noise measurement," "full understanding" and "intensive study". We shall be grateful if these things continue, of course, but what we want now is some results.

There is really only one thing to be done in tackling these problems, namely, to put on a plain restriction and make it clear that it must stay there, a restriction on the amount of noise made by the aeroplane. I know all the arguments. It is said that, if one makes an aeroplane more powerful so as to achieve a faster rate of climb, it will, since it is more powerful, make more noise. But we have had these arguments in other contexts. There was a time in this country when motor bicycles used to make an infernal row.

Mr. Robert Cooke (Bristol, West)

They still do.

Mr. Bell

If they do so, it is the fault of the police and not of the Legislature. There was a Section in an Act passed by the House which restricted the noise. At that time, it was said that, if motor bicycles were silenced, their power would be reduced and, therefore, the time during which one had to listen to them as they passed would be increased.

My experience in these matters—I think that hon. Members will agree—leads me to believe that, if one imposes a restriction and keeps it there, the aircraft manufacturers and the airline operators will very soon find the answer. If we do nothing, they will do nothing. We shall have the old story going on of our having to accept changes in the advance of the modern world, learning to put up with noise and liking it.

That is all I have to say to my hon. Friend. I know that his Department has been taking tests and measurements on the Boeing and the TU.104 during the last few months. I should like him to tell us what the result of those tests is and what hope he can give us for some genuine improvement in the future.

10.27 p.m.

Mr. A. E. Hunter (Feltham)

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman the Member for Buckinghamshire, South (Mr. Ronald Bell) for giving me the opportunity to intervene in this Adjournment debate. I know that the Minister is anxious to make a full reply and I shall, therefore, be very brief.

The hon. Gentleman the Joint Parliamentary Secretary will be making his first speech from the Front Bench. At the Ministry of Transport and Civil Aviation he will, no doubt, have found that complaints from residents living around London Airport will not be the least of his worries. Anything he can do to abate the noise will be appreciated, and I certainly wish him well in that direction.

Aircraft noise presents a major problem in residential areas around London Airport. There are hon. Members here this evening whose constituencies are very close indeed to London Airport. In the Feltham and Hounslow district, which is nearly a built-up area, there are houses in Cranford and in Bedfont only a few hundred yards from London Airport. The runways are extremely close to the residential area and the people there suffer very severely from the noise, which also can be heard in the constituency of the hon. Member for Buckinghamshire, South. We ask the Minister to take strong and direct action to abate this noise.

With the coming of the jet airliner this problem is becoming more acute. The Minister of Transport and Civil Aviation has applied a test, but, after the experience we have had with the Boeing 707, I must say very definitely that many of my constituents are sceptical of the noise level tests. I understand that when these tests are carried out only one runway is used. To ascertain the true noise level, all the runways at London Airport should be used when testing jet airliners.

Research work must be doubled or even trebled in order to solve the problem. I will quote a statement from Sir Miles Thomas, a former chairman of B.O.A.C. He said: My personal feeling is that we aircraft operators could well consider injecting a new factor into our forward aircraft specifications and refuse to buy machines that do not conform to strict noise limitation. I trust that the Parliamentary Secretary will direct his research along those lines. The Minister has the problem. The problem is there the moment the aircraft comes to London Airport.

I want the Ministry, in conjunction with the manufacturers, to double their research so that the noise of engines can be stopped at its source. We should cooperate not only with the aircraft manufacturers in this country. We must aim at international co-operation with the Russians, the Americans and anyone else to make sure that this noise, which irritates, worries, and causes great concern to residents around London Airport, is stopped once and for all.

10.30 p.m.

The Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Transport and Civil Aviation (Mr. John Hay)

May I begin the remarks that I have to offer to the House on this subject by thanking my hon. Friend the Member for Buckinghamshire, South (Mr. Ronald Bell) and the hon. Member for Feltham (Mr. Hunter) for the kind personal references they made to me? I will not deny that one of the most urgent and pressing problems with which I have had to deal in the comparatively short time that I have occupied my present position has been this subject of aircraft noise. I am grateful to my hon. Friend for giving me this opportunity to say something about the matter this evening.

It is a vexing problem and the Ministry of Transport and Civil Aviation devotes a great deal of time and attention to it. It is a problem which becomes even more important as world air traffic increases, and the first remark that I should like to make is that Britain's share of this air traffic is already large and is likely to grow.

We have in this country already some of the world's major airports. London has been mentioned, and we have Manchester and Prestwick, which is about to be further developed. Whatever we do in the field of aircraft noise we have always to keep our minds upon the necessity of not unnecessarily—and I stress that word—inhibiting the use which operators wish to make of these important airports.

We in Britain are at the centre of the world land mass. A great number of aircraft routes come through Britain and we want to make sure that we get the benefit from that. It is inevitable—and we all realise this—that some people who live near airports will suffer more inconvenience and nuisance and annoyance than the rest of the general public. It is a self-evident proposition, but I think it right to point out that the livelihood of a very large number of the people who happen to live near airports in fact depends upon the aircraft industry.

In any event, I think it most important that the public as a whole is made aware of the efforts which are made to minimise this nuisance and discomfort, and I should like to say something about what we are doing. I wish to deal with three points only, because this is a very vast subject and my time is limited. Therefore, I can concentrate on these three points only.

First, I wish to say something about the procedures which we are operating in respect of take-off and landing; secondly, about restrictions on ground testing of engines, which is another source of nuisance, and, thirdly, something about the scientific and technical improvements.

First with regard to procedures. The House knows that there are, broadly, two categories of aircraft: the conventional type piston-engined aircraft and turboprops and, secondly, this new and growing group, the jet aircraft. I must say frankly to the House that with regard to the conventional type aircraft we have virtually come now to the limit of what we can do to minimise the noise they make.

My hon. Friend referred to the letter which my predecessor wrote to the Chairman of the London Airport Consultative Committee recently. Apart from the quotation which he gave there are three principles enunciated in the letter which I should like to repeat to the House because they detail the basis of our thinking on this matter. The first is that whatever we do with regard to operating procedures at the airport we must not simply transfer the burden of noise from one community to another.

People often ask, "Why do you not change the runways; why not slew them; why not provide that aircraft must take off along a certain runway?" The effect of that in the case of London Airport where there is a large built-up area around it would usually be to transfer the nuisance from one group of people to another. That is not a remedy.

The second principle is that whatever measures we undertake must be designed to relieve as many people as possible, and particularly those living near the end of the runways. The third principle, which I am certain I am right in sticking to, is that we do not propose, as we are sometimes urged to do, to ban certain types of aircraft. To do so would be quite contrary to international practice, and I am sure that, in the long run, it would damage us more than it might benefit some people.

I have a further observation to make. As my hon. Friend has said, we are now witnessing the beginning of a gradual change-over in aircraft; from the conventional to the jet. The jet is coming in increasing numbers. The superior rate of climb of most of these jets means that although the machine is noisy at the start, the disturbance goes on for far less time than is the case with some of the more conventional aircraft. Here, I have only to mention one type of conventional aircraft—the Super Constellation. That is fairly well known to be very noisy, and it takes a very long time to reach a reasonable height, so that the noise goes on for a longer time.

There is no doubt, however, that jet noise is a growing problem, and one that is accentuated by the size and speed of these aircraft. When they are on the ground they look most fearsome, and I think that people sometimes imagine the noise to be greater than it is in fact.

We get no help in this connection from any reduction in the number of engines. It is the fact that two jet engines—as for example, in the Caravelle—make nearly as much noise as four jet engines, as in the Comet IV, to which my hon. Friend referred, although both aircraft use precisely the same type of engine—the Avon. A better illustration might be this. If there are two pneumatic drills working in the road outside one's house, and one stops, there is not an enormously appreciable amount of difference in the noise. It happens to be exactly the same with jet engines.

At the moment, the jet aircraft are operating only from London Airport, and I am told that, on average there are four scheduled movements a day; that is to say, by the Boeing 707 and the Comet IV. But we must not blind ourselves to the fact that very soon we are to have in service jet aircraft with much more powerful engines, and we are also to have more jet aircraft—

Mr. A. Fenner Brockway (Eton and Slough)

The noise from the Boeing 707 is already very great. There is now likely to be a new type which will be still noisier. What does the Ministry intend to do about that?

Mr. Hay

I hope that by the time I have finished I shall have been able to satisfy the hon. Gentleman—I am coming to that. I was merely saying that we are to have these new types, such as the Caravelle, and, as my hon. Friend said, the Soviet jet TU.104. About the Soviet machine, I may say, in passing, that its use at London Airport has not yet been fully authorised. Certain tests have been carried out, but we are still awaiting a reply from the Soviet authorities to the points announced by my right hon. Friend last Wednesday.

It is important that we should, as quickly as possible, build up a body of practical experience about the effectiveness of the measures we are taking to minimise noise. On 28th January, I was asked by the hon. Member for Govan (Mr. Rankin) what we were doing in that connection and I then explained that we felt, in the light of what we had already done, that we needed a little more time to evaluate the effectiveness of the operating procedures we have instituted at London Airport in respect of both the Boeing 707 and the Comet IV.

I would remind the House, briefly, what those operating procedures are. First, there is take off. The pilot is obliged to get up to at least 1,000ft. by the time the aircraft reaches the nearest built-up area, and, once off the ground, he must use reduced power. On landing, the glidepath—that is, the angle of descent to the ground—must be not less than three degrees. That, I am told, is a gradient of about one in twenty. Those are the procedures that are operating now, and which we still want to evaluate. We want to see how they work out.

We are not, however, alone in this problem. There are a number of other cities in other parts of the world—in particular, New York and Paris—where the same problems are being met. They, too, are accumulating experience, and we can, I think, pool all this experience, and eventually evolve some common approach.

My hon. Friend the Member for Buckinghamshire, South asked me to say something about monitoring arrangements at London Airport. Since the start of regular operations by the Boeing and the Comet in mid-November last we have been monitoring take-offs and landings whenever conditions permitted. Our objective has been to see that the operating procedures are complied with. We have recorded heights over built-up areas after take-off and recorded measured noise levels, and landings have been monitored by radar to ensure that the aircraft are coming in no lower than necessary. The operators are well aware of these arrangements, and we discuss the results with them. I can assure the House categorically that we are keeping a very close watch on the conduct of these operations by the big jets by these methods.

I would say, in answer to the hon. Member for Feltham that it is not quite accurate to say that we are not monitoring all runways. The position at the moment is that in a westerly wind the aircraft normally uses only one of the runways but we monitor all runways on which the aircraft are actually going to take off, so far as it is possible.

I may not be able to complete all I wanted to say about testing, but I can say that we are planning some physical measures in the form of earth banks at London Airport and Gatwick, with the object of blanking off from the surrounding built-up areas the volume of noise coming from the maintenance sheds. We have obliged the operators of jets to fit mufflers to the engines when they are actually run on the ground. With the Comet it is possible to carry out some maintenance checks at low power, and we have therefore arranged with B.O.A.C. to agree to a procedure as to the place where these maintenance tests at low power are to take place, and the times when they are to take place, to avoid so far as possible any nuisance being caused.

Finally, with regard to the scientific and technical side of the matter, investigations and experiments are being carried out all the time by aircraft manufacturers, engine manufacturers and the Ministry of Supply. My hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Supply, on 26th January last, gave the House some details as to the work they are doing. Already we have had a little success. A new corrugated jet nozzle has been developed, which has some appreciable effect upon the volume of jet noise, and it is now fitted to the Comet aircraft. I am also advised that in due course we can expect some appreciation in the situation from the development of the by-pass and ducted fan type of jet engine. I hope that nobody will ask me to explain those terms.

I leave the House with this final thought—

The Question having been proposed after Ten o'clock and the debate having continued for half an hour, Mr. SPEAKER adjourned the House without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order.

Adjourned at seventeen minutes to Eleven o'clock.