§ Mr. Eldon GriffithsI beg to move Amendment No. 15, in page 10, line 44, at end insert 'or apron'.
§ No. 14, in page 10, line 44 leave out from 'aircraft' to end of line 45.
§
No. 18, in page 11, line 25, leave out subsection (6) and insert:
'(6) in this section "runway or apron alterations" means—
§ No. 26, in page 14, line 21, at end insert 'or apron'.
§ No. 27, in page 14, line 27 after 'runway', insert 'or apron'.
§ Mr. Eldon GriffithsIn Committee there was a good deal of discussion about the eligibility for compensation in the case of airports where new terminal buildings were erected, where supersonic or jet planes rather than ordinary turbo-prop or other aircraft began to use the aerodrome or where taxiways and hardstandings were extended.
868 The Committee accepted, as a matter of principle in this case as it did with highways, that the mere intensification of use should not of itself entitle people to compensation since the use of existing facilities up to their natural capacity should always be expected by those who purchase. Nevertheless, as the hon. Member for Widnes (Mr. Oakes) said, very reasonably, a great deal of inconvenience can be caused by aircraft revving their engines on hard standings or as they taxi before take-off. My hon. Friend the Member for Hemel Hempstead (Mr. Allason), who speaks with great knowledge of these matters, pointed out that changes to taxi-ways and hard standings can also enable the runway capacity to be changed and enlarged.
It is because my right hon. Friend accepted the force of my hon. Friend's argument that we are moving the Government amendments here which will enable taxi-ways to be included. We have managed to achieve this by use of the old English word "apron", and we have defined it in these words.
§ 12.30 a.m.
§ Mr. AllasonI am extremely grateful to my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary for this amendment. It will make a great deal of difference.
The situation at Luton and at some other airports is that there is only one taxi-wav on to the airfield, and this limits the number of aircraft which can take off per hour. By providing a taxi-way at the other end of the runway, the capacity of the airfield would be doubled. So it is not only a matter of the provision of facilities for a greater number of aircraft, as mentioned in Amendment No. 18, but provision for a greater number taking off, which is what concerns everyone.
I hope that the Government will not accept Amendment No. 14, which is quite abominable.
§ Mr. Roger Moate (Faversham)My hon. Friend the Under-Secretary will recognise that the clause as amended will have a considerable effect for sonic years to come when we come to consider the impact of the new airport, runways and facilities at Maplin on my constituency, including the Isle of Sheppey and North Kent. Naturally, I hope that it will never be built, thus saving the Government and the taxpayer a great deal 869 of money and a great deal of compensation. But in years to come I think that we shall see this clause as a very important one for people living in North Kent. I am grateful to the Government for seeing their way clear to extending the benefits of the clause.
My right hon. Friend said that this was becoming a "What about it" Bill and he referred to the number of occasions on which he had said that he would study amendments and see whether they could be incorporated. Most hon. Members would say that his willingness to examine matters was sympathetic. His response to amendments is widely appreciated. We are immensely grateful for the Bill, the generous way in which it has been introduced and the sympathetic way in which my right hon. and hon. Friends have responded to our suggestions. That applies especially to this amendment.
There are, however, one or two matters concerning the impact of the clause about which I wish to ask my hon. Friend. Presumably it has its effect in two ways. One is under Clause 1 on the question of compensation arising from depreciation through aircraft noise. The other is under a later clause on the question of sound-proofing. This could affect my constituents who live 10 miles away from the runways. Some people might say that that is too far away to be affected by the airport. I should like to think that that is the case. Unfortunately, it is not.
My hon. Friend the Member for Hemel Hempstead (Mr. Allason) has considerable experience of these problems. In Committee he said:
At 12 miles away from the runway the noise from some types of aircraft is greater and getting worse than that permitted at Heathrow when night take-offs were allowed. The situation is appalling."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, Standing Committee A, 12th December 1972; c. 95.]That is a prospect which my constituents have to consider possibly occurring some years hence. Understandably, we must concern ourselves with the compensation provisions which the Government are making.
§ Mr. AllasonIn fairness, I ought to point out that there are special considerations as regards that 12 miles. Luton Airport is the worst sited in Britain. All aircraft have to fly at low altitudes for 870 between 15 and 20 miles in order to keep underneath the flight paths from Heathrow. That is why aircraft are at only 2,000 or 3,000 feet when they are 12 miles away. I trust that that will not happen in Kent.
§ Mr. MoateI trust so too. I shall be careful not to go far in that direction because I might be out of order. Here in central London, however, 14 or 15 miles from Heathrow, aircraft come over at a height, I think, of 3,000 feet. That is their accepted, legal height. I do not understand why. I fear that when they come over Kent they will be at a height of not much more than 4,000 feet and we will suffer serious noise nuisance.
My particular questions are these. Am I right in saying that to obtain compensation under Part I of the Bill a person simply has to prove depreciation as a result of aircraft noise, or is it the Government's intention later to specify criteria to which people will have to work to decide whether they are entitled to compensation?
Secondly, under the sound-proofing provisions it is clearly stated that orders will subsequently be issued. I should like to know from my hon. Friend the Minister when we might expect those orders and whether they will cover the people who come within the 35 noise contour line referred to in recent documents by the Government.
§ Mr. MulleyMay I express the hope that we shall soon get to Clause 18, on which this matter arises? If the hon. Member is trying to discuss the whole Bill under "or apron" he is stretching things a hit far. We shall come to questions of height when we reach the clause concerning soundproofing.
§ Mr. MulleyYes, it is.
§ Mr. MoateIt is a much broader group of amendments than that. I have made the points I wish to make on the amendment and I hope that my hon. Friend will be able to answer some of the points I have raised.
§ Mr. Eldon GriffithsAs the right hon. Member for Sheffield, Park (Mr. Mulley) fairly said, "apron" cannot be made to 871 cover everything. The short answer to my hon. Friend is that it is not sufficient simply to prove that aircraft are causing a nuisance.
§ Mr. GriffithsOr depreciation as a result. What one has to show is that there is a change of use of the particular public work which has brought this about. That is why we have said in the amendment, as urged by my hon. Friend the Member for Hemel Hempstead (Mr. Allason), that we would have regard to putting in new aprons or taxiways where the revving of the engines can take place.
On the sound-proofing point, I am sure that we should follow the wise advice of the right hon. Member and wait until we come to Clause 18.
§ Amendment agreed to.
§ Mr. Michael Cocks (Bristol, South)I beg to move Amendment No. 16, page 10, line 45, at end insert:
'or a change to supersonic aircraft'.At this hour of the night I shall be brief and deprive myself of the unfortunate task I have laid on myself, reminding the Minister of the depredations he wrought on the city which I represent and simply saying that in this case he will appreciate that the Concorde, SST or supersonic aircraft is built in Bristol.I move the amendment not with any feeling that this aircraft will be any great nuisance to people who are adjacent to airports where it lands but rather as an expression of complete confidence that, whatever may happen in future, we are absolutely assured that such will be the technical perfection and quietness of the aircraft that we are fully prepared to compensate anybody who may consider that he has legitimate claims against it.
With those few words I invite the Minister to state the case against the amendment, because I am sure that under it if it were passed, no compensation would ever be claimed by any reasonable person.
§ Mr. Eldon GriffithsThe hon. Member for Bristol, South (Mr. Michael Cocks) has moved the amendment with considerable ingenuity and confidence, which I fully share. But I am afraid that I am not able to advise the House to accept the amendment as such because of the 872 essential principle here. Where one is merely intensifying the use of an existing facility, as was argued and agreed in Committee, that would not create eligibility to compensation as such.
May I put it this way. The introduction of jet aircraft or helicopters or supersonic aircraft does not of itself create a change of use of an aerodrome. The aerodrome is still being used for the purpose for which it was built, namely the landing and take-off of aeroplanes. A change of use would occur only if the airport were to be converted to some other type of use—for example, if it were changed into a car racing track. There is no change in the use of an aerodrome simply because larger or faster or different aircraft use it.
The distinction between supersonic aircraft per se and other aircraft is really quite irrelevant because aircraft do not in any case take off and land at supersonic speed. In fact, Concorde will be no noisier than existing aircraft such as the VC10 or the Boeing 707.
Sound insulation schemes exist around Heathrow and will shortly be in operation around certain other major airports. The boundaries within which dwellings can be insulated are related to the noise contours. If the noise and the aircraft numbers increase, the noise contours will be amended and the sound insulation boundaries might well as a result be extended. In this respect I am very glad to be able to tell the House that the noise contours are, in fact, about to be changed around Heathrow in a way which will be very helpful to people there.
I am therefore bound to resist the amendment, while acknowledging the ingenious way in which the hon. Gentleman moved it, largely because it conflicts with the principle firmly embedded in Part I, namely that intensification of use is excluded from the concept of alteration of public works for the purposes of this Bill.
§ Mr. Michael CocksI find the hon. Gentleman's argument most decisive, particularly his point that the use of airfields by Concorde will be no different from that of other aircraft, from the point of view of noise levels.
I therefore beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
§ Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
873
§
Amendment made: No. 18, in page 11, line 25, leave out subsection (6) and insert:
'(6) in this section "runway or apron alterations" means—