HC Deb 19 July 1968 vol 768 cc1921-30

Amendment made: No. 31, in page 21, line 22, leave out 'said' and insert 'British Airports'.—[Mr. William Rodgers.]

Order for Third Reading read.— [Queen's Consent, on behalf of the Crown, signified]

Question proposed, That the Bill be now read the Third time.

3.35 p.m.

Mr. Onslow

The Motion in the Order Paper, "That the Question be not put forthwith" is an unusual one, but this is an unusual Bill. One of its unusual features is that until now it has not come before the House for debate, because it received its Second Reading in Committee, after having been introduced in another place. Hon. Members on both sides of the House are anxious that it should receive its Third Reading, because there are important features in it which it was felt that hon. Members on both sides should be able to comment upon.

The Bill has other unusual features. It was introduced as a standard Departmental rag-bag, but in the course of its passage it turned into something quite different. It became virtually a Private Member's Bill in Government time, and with very great help and co-operation from the Minister's predecessor and his understanding attitude in Committee, the Committee can claim to have succeeded greatly in improving and extending this legislation. That is not a claim which can often be made and supported by both sides of the House. The Bill's Committee stage was an enjoyable and instructive experience. Even our adjournments in confusion were put to profitable use. This might become a more common Parliamentary device, to the mutual benefit of us all.

The Bill contains a number of welcome powers concerning consultative procedure and the control of noise and the sonic boom—which latter is very necessary, and in respect of which the hon. Member for Putney (Mr. Hugh Jenkins) is not the only person to have pestered the Minister; my hon. Friend the Member for Tiverton (Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop) put down the first Amendment on the subject. These powers will be of considerable value to the public.

I do not wish to expound upon them because we have heard a good deal about them today. But serious though this problem is, and seriously though we can see it now being taken, there should not be any false hopes about it. The normal course of events is such that as older and quieter aircraft are phased out of operation and the quantity of air traffic increases there will be an increase in aircraft noise in the next 10 or 15 years. Nobody should expect—however desirable he may find them—that these powers will lead to an immediate diminution in levels of aircraft noise. That is not necessarily something to be said against the Bill. The important point is that this is a first step forward, although not one on which we should base too extravagant hopes.

The Bill provides for greater security of airfields, and contains powers to detain aircraft and enforce charges. One Clause contains powers to extend the facilities which can be provided by local authorities, while another will have the effect of widening the financial arrangements for the purchase of aircraft, thus doing much to stimulate the general development of the industry. The powers of Clause 22 should do much to increase safety in the air. These are all welcome provisions, and the Bill is one which the House as a whole has welcomed and done much to improve.

It is a useful Bill, although some of its powers will depend for their value upon the way in which the Minister employes them. We want to get the Bill through today and there is not sufficient time for him to do so now, but on some other occasion I hope that the Minister will explain how he will seek to make use of Clauses 6 and 11, which refer to the question of extending facilities; how much money is likely to be made available for further expenditure on airports by local authorities, and whether he sees in this the roots of a national airport policy, which this country very much needs and which we shall have to debate increasingly in the years ahead.

We are not sufficiently air-minded. There is insufficient awareness in transport and communication of what can be made of the potentialities of aviation. There needs to be a general pressing forward in this field. Clause 22, with its inclusion of near misses in the safety regulations, is obviously important. We can debate this at greater length when we have, as I hope we will, a full debate on air safety, but I hope that we can be assured that statistics on this subject will be collected and can be made available.

Finally, we want some further indication of how the Minister will use the powers to control supersonic flight. Although the authority is an enabling one, much will depend upon how he uses it. Many people feel that we shall have to think very carefully before sanctioning supersonic flights over the United Kingdom at all. There may be circumstances in which they can be deemed to be tolerable. There is a distinction between over-flight by day and by night. There is need on all these matters for greater testing and knowledge, much of which can never be obtained until the aircraft have taken to the air and have flown at supersonic speeds. We will not know the final answers on much of this, therefore, until Concorde has been in action, if not fully in operation, but we need an assurance that, as soon as the point is reached at which decisions can be taken about the use of these powers, the Minister will be able to let the House know how he intends to use them.

I see no part of the Bill as a victory for a particular lobby, although the anti-noise lobby can claim some credit for having softened up the Minister. I see the way in which the Bill has been improved and the powers it contains as a victory for common sense. All hon. Members must welcome this rare opportunity to see so much common sense in one piece of legislation. If there are still deficiencies, we can fall back on one consolation—that the Bill has been so radically altered since it came from another place that much of its contents will have to go back to another place as Amendments from this House. The enlightened other place being what it is, it may be possible to insert certain further improvements there. But all of us must share the hope that the Bill will become law before the end of this Session. It has been a most valuable exercise in legislation and I commend it heartily to the House.

3.43 p.m.

Mr. Rankin

When we began our proceedings on the Bill, it seemed that it would be a dull, simple and possibly dreary operation, but it has finished almost in a blaze of glory. I wish to speak only on two major matters which have thrust themselves into the Bill during our consideration of it.

There is now included a new Clause which says that the person having the management of any aerodrome … shall provide for users of the aerodrome, for any local authority … and for any other organisation representing the interests of persons concerned with the locality in which the aerodrome is situated, adequate facilities for consultation with respect to any matter concerning the management or administration of the aerodrome which affects their interests That is one of the most comprehensive Clauses which I have read in any Bill and the remarkable thing is that it has been inserted in one forenoon and inadequately debated.

How are we to comprehend the phrase "users of the aerodrome", when we come to provide these facilities? Obviously, they could live in any part of the world. I am not condemning, but merely trying to show the comprehensive nature of this piece of legislation which has been inserted in the Bill, after we had sat for weeks dealing with it, upstairs, in two hours, as was noted at one o'clock today. For those people, for local authorities and for a variety of others, we are providing adequate facilities for consultation on matters concerning management or administration—

Mr. Speaker

Order. We debated the new Clause, as the hon. Member has pointed out, for two hours. We must not debate it again now.

Mr. Rankin

I am merely trying to point out, Mr. Speaker, the things that are now in the Bill, to which we are giving a Third Reading. I regard this as an important addition. It raises matters of great interest for almost every airport in the United Kingdom. These are matters on which we have to focus our attention. The Bill makes provision for certain things and surely it is pertinent to ask at this point how we will met the obligations which are imposed upon Parliament in the Clause.

The second important thing which the Bill does is to prohibit aircraft from taking off or landing in the United Kingdom unless there are in force in respect of those aircraft such certificates of compliance with standards as to noise which may be specified in the Order", which has still to be delivered to us. This controls movements of aircraft and says that they may not be permitted to land in this country. This has been confused with a campaign; and it is a credit to some extent, that this campaign has helped to control noise.

It is fair to point out that we all want to have aircraft which are as noiseless as their power will permit. I hope that in seeking to give force to this part of the Bill, we will assure every air traveller that safety in flight will not be endangered. That is one of the paramount jobs now laid upon the operator. If the Order concerning noise is to operate successfully and noise is to be controlled, since so much in an aircraft depends upon the engine assurance is necessary that there will be no danger to the safety of any passenger in any aircraft in seeking to comply with this part of the Bill.

In view of the lack of time I limit myself to the two issues which I have raised. They are the most important additions to the legislation. I wish the Bill all success in fulfilling the job which Parliament has imposed upon it.

Several Hon. Members rose—

Mr. Speaker

Order. If the House wants the Bill today, I remind hon. Members that only 10 minutes now remain to complete Third Reading.

3.50 p.m.

Mr. Terence L. Higgins (Worthing)

I am glad of this opportunity to comment on the Bill and I wish particularly to refer to Clause 18, which is concerned with the control of aircraft noise and supersonic flights. I understand that this matter was raised in the discussion of earlier Amendments and that the Minister indicated then that it would be more appropriate to discuss the subject on Third Reading.

Alas, noise is a matter which is of growing concern to my constituents, for reasons which I will mention. There is a considerable danger that we too readily accept the view that increasing aircraft noise is something about which we can do nothing. I agree, however, with my hon. Friend the Member for Gloucestershire, South (Mr. Corfield) that while an increasing level of noise is inevitable, that should not detract us from minimising it as much as possible.

I am particularly concerned today with the question of consultation and the effect which minimum heights have on aircraft noise. Clause 18 gives the Minister enabling powers to control the level of aircraft noise. This is of particular interest to my constituents, partly because Worthing is a holiday town. People from other parts of the country who are more severely affected by aircraft noise may come to my constituency to escape the noise. It is no attraction for a holiday town to have a high level of aircraft noise. Many of my constituents are retired and it is now accepted that the retired population suffers greater misfortune in this respect than other sections of society.

A new aircraft route has only recently been directed right through the middle of my constituency. People are bound to say, "Airplanes must fly over somebody's constituency. We must face up to that." However, one need only look at the map to see that the population is further out into the countryside of Worthing that it is almost anywhere, with the exception of Brighton. It seems ridiculous to have routed aircraft right through my constituency and a part of the coast where the population is most widespread. The fact that the route may be spread over a 10-mile lane does not justify the centre of the flight lane going right through the deepest part of the population in this area.

I therefore doubt whether adequate consultation took place or sufficient consideration was given to this matter before the route was decided. It seems that the knowledge that the new air route was to go this way leapt into the Press almost by accident. I was, therefore, surprised, when I raised this matter in a Question on 3rd May last, that the Minister replied: The new routing was fully discussed with representatives of all the flying interests concerned, and the noise implications were thoroughly examined."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 3rd May, 1968; Vol. 763, c. 262.] As far as I can ascertain, there was no attempt to take account of people's interests in this matter and no consultation took place.

It is to be hoped that the Minister will make more Orders of the kind permitted by Clause 18 and that, in doing so, lie will take into account all the people over whom air routes are likely to pass. It is not good enough to say that aeroplanes must fly somewhere, over some people, so that nobody need be consulted.

The question of minimum height comes into this and, in the case about which I have been speaking, the height set is 6,500 feet. What is taken into consideration when determining the minimum height? It seems that there are no technical reasons why aircraft should not fly above 6,500 feet. I assume, therefore, that the considerations that exist are economic ones. What are they? We must compare them with the plight of those over whom the aircraft are flying. I suspect that it is too easy for the Government to take the view, "Because it would increase aircraft costs a little if they were obliged to fly at a higher minimum height, we will take that aspect into account rather than the interests of the constituents concerned". I hope that the Minister will say clearly, when making Orders under Clause 18, what criteria he takes into account.

Mr. Burden

All the aircraft operators want is to attain height as quickly as possible. The economics of the aircraft become more viable as it gains height.

Mr. Higgins

I am grateful to my hon. Friend. Perhaps—and I am not clear about this—this is why we should specify a greater height The Minister should spell it out. The general public is not aware of the considerations, and I am sure that my hon. Friend the Member for Gillingham (Mr. Burden) will agree that this is so. While I welcome Clause 18, I am concerned that sufficient Orders are not going to be made under it or under earlier legislation. I hope that the Minister will widen the scope of consultation in future and make greater use of the powers we propose to give him in Clause 18.

3.56 p.m.

Mr. Hugh Jenkins

There is only one noise which is the sort of noise which cannot be beaten by the place in which it is made. But this is a noise we could get over by having airports on the coast. Aircraft flying over the sea disturb no one. Supersonic noise over land effects the whole of the land area. In the generality of things, therefore, it is highly undesirable that supersonic flying should be permitted at all over the land mass of the United Kingdom, except in grave and exceptional circumstances.

3.57 p.m.

Mr. Burden

I want to make a couple of quick observations in the time left. We feel that more time should have been given for Third Reading, particularly with regard to certain aspects of the Bill. When the Bill first arrived, we were told that it would probably be through in one sitting of the Standing Committee. In fact we sat for eight sittings in Committee and the Bill was considerably changed for the better.

Under the Bill, a considerable number of byelaws will be made which will involve people in certain penalties if they break them. Nowhere in the Bill is there an indication of how and to what extent the byelaws will be made known to the ordinary public who visit airfields, and this is extremely important.

I, too, want to make a point about noise. The Bill gives the Minister certain powers but it is in the interests of the public and of the Government that a distinct differentiation should be made between the problems of the sonic bang and of the ordinary noise of an operational aircraft which is not going through the bang. They are two inter-related but different problems. We should have been able to talk about them today. There is considerable interest in the subject and it is essential that it should be discussed.

Because of the size of this country, there is no need at any time for our people to be subject to the problem of the sonic bang. I hope that the Minister will bear this in mind and make it known that this is so. The aircraft constructors are engaged in the task of considerably reducing aircraft noise, and it is essential that, while this proceeds, the opportunity of extending the economic capabilities of airfields in this country at night and during the day should be given full scope.

3.59 p.m.

Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop

The reasons why we need an extended and thorough Third Reading debate on this Bill were given fully by the Minister of State in Committee, as reported in the OFFICIAL REPORT at column 232. He was good enough to put his name to the Motion calling for more time. There are quite a number of definite factors which need to be ventilated during Third Reading—

It being Four o'clock, the debate stood adjourned.

Debate to be resumed upon Monday next.