HC Deb 22 October 1973 vol 861 cc676-9
12. Mr. Tebbit

asked the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what progress has recently been made by his Department in the reduction of aircraft noise.

20. Mr. Barnes

asked the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will make a statement on progress being made by his Department to reduce aircraft noise.

Mr. Michael Heseltine

My Department undertakes a continuing and comprehensive programme to reduce noise from aircraft and the disturbance this causes. Some recent examples of this are our massive support for the RB211 engine, and for research into the techniques of quiet engines generally; the restrictions on night movements at Heathrow and Gatwick; improvements in the runway alternation system at Heathrow; the introduction of a noise insulation grant scheme at Gatwick and the extension of this scheme at Heathrow.

Mr. Tebbit

Yes, but now that the Government have happily delayed Maplin for a couple of years and have given my hon. Friend more time to think, will he not agree to undertake a little research into the comparative effectiveness and cost effectiveness of promoting quieter aircraft, retro-fitting, and new engines, instead of going in for dubious projects on the East Coast that the construction industry does not have the capacity to perform?

Mr. Heseltine

I am sure my hon. Friend will appreciate that the Government are making available substantial sums of money to the industry at large. I welcome the fact that Rolls-Royce and the British Aircraft Corporation are looking at the hush-kit technology as far as it applies to the BAC1–11. But I cannot accept that we are not doing everything within our power to assist the industry in the work that it is doing in partnership with our Department in the suppression of noise wherever possible.

Mr. Barnes

Does not the Minister agree that the restrictions on the night time use of Heathrow to which he referred have been disappointing, as the ban on take-offs has been more than outweighed by the big increase during the last two years in the number of night landings? Has not the time come for a ban on all night jet movements at Heathrow?

Mr. Heseltine

I think the hon. Member will concede that the figures are rather better than his question implies. In 1971 there were 1,638 night take-offs at Heathrow. Up to 22nd October this year there were 261 take-offs. It is perfectly true that the number of landings has increased from 1971, but the figure for 1973 over 1972 is of the same order of magnitude. The total movements show a reduction of 9 per cent. comparing 1972 with 1973.

Mr. Crouch

I was particularly interested to hear my hon. Friend saying what progress is being made in the reduction of aircraft noise and the substantial sums that are being spent. Does he consider that the progress that he expects in the next few years will have an effect upon the location of airports throughout this country?

Mr. Heseltine

One of the anxieties is the rising public expectancy of noise reduction. Although there is a continuing and welcome introduction of quieter aircraft, the public will increasingly demand an extension of the privileges that this will begin to show. This has influenced our judgment in moving to a coastal site for the third London airport.

Mr. Mason

Will the Minister now tell the House what substantial sums the Government are granting for the research and development of quieter engines, whether this includes the Spey engine, and to what extent they are enabling the industry to be financially assisted with the development of hush kits? Is the Minister aware that there is a strong feeling in the industry that the Government are purposely denying financial aid for quieter engines in order to bolster their argument for Maplin?

Mr. Heseltine

The right hon. Gentleman asked about the sums made available. He will be aware that we are funding the joint project with Dowty Rotol for the variable pitch fan experimentation. The Spey engine is part of the work that BAC and Rolls-Royce are undertaking in relation to the BAC 1–11. He will realise—the point is perfectly valid—that the sums of money involved in the exploration of further technology are very small indeed and have to be seen in the context of the overall profitability of the industry, together with the substantial sums of money being put into the industry for the support of the projects at large.

Mr. Ronald Bell

While encouraging research into the suppression of aircraft noise, will my hon. Friend beware of the optimistic forecasts of retro-fit and other techniques floated by the opponents of Maplin? Will he also bear in mind the possibility that the best way for the moment, and pending Maplin, of dealing with this problem is by a 10 per cent. reduction in all aircraft movement at Heathrow?

Mr. Heseltine

It would be unrealistic to pretend that we see a possibility of a 10 per cent. reduction in aircraft movements at Heathrow and Gatwick. Indeed, all the forecasts indicate that there will be a substantial increase for the rest of this decade. I assure my hon. Friend that we are certainly not prepared to be led along the argument that there is some magical cure by fitting hush kits or retrofitting to existing engines. That might play a part, but could easily be viewed out of proportion unless considered very carefully.

Mr. Molloy

As people afflicted by aircraft noise do not have the opportunity to express how their lives are being spoiled by it—for example, people in Ealing who suffer from the noise of Heathrow Airport—will the hon. Gentleman be prepared to consider, in conjunction with the Secretary of State for the Environment, hearing views of the local authorities around Heathrow Airport in order to discuss the matter from the point of view of those so afflicted?

Mr. Heseltine

I assure the hon. Member that although no formal consultation on the scale he suggests has taken place the Government are all too aware of the effect of aircraft noise on big urban communities. That is exactly why they decided to build a third London airport at Maplin.

Mr. Mason

Will the Minister now tell the House what substantial sums the Governments are spending on research and development of quieter aircraft engines?

Mr. Heseltine

The right hon. Gentleman will be aware that the costs of the RB211 engine are running very high. That, in itself, is sufficient answer. The Dowty Rotol experiment is, again, costing over £2 million. I will let the right hon. Gentleman have full details of the figures.