HC Deb 21 December 1979 vol 976 cc1143-52

3.1 pm

Mr. Harry Greenway (Ealing, North)

I am pleased to have the opportunity of bringing the subject of aircraft noise in West London to the attention of the House. It is 40 years since Winston Churchill lamented the passing of man's greatest friend, the horse. He said that it was greatly to be regretted that man had parted company in workaday terms from his greatest and most faithful friend, the horse, and resorted to the infernal—which he corrected to the internal—combustion engine. We have lived with the combustion engine more closely since those days, to the point that while it brings major benefactions it brings also major hazards, worries and disturbances.

The quality of life in our land is, in many areas, unequal, and that is to be expected. In the area of aircraft noise I look for greater equity in the way that matters are handled. In West London in general, and especially Ealing, the lives of many are disturbed and disrupted every 30 seconds by a cacophony of aircraft noise. Some become used to it and say that they can live with it. Others never become used to it. They are, perhaps, forced by economic circumstances, or because they work in the area, to live in such areas, but are unable to adjust to the new hazard to their lives. I submit that aircraft noise is an issue that we must face and do something about.

During the summer I was in the gardens of some of my constituents. I heard aircraft passing overhead every 30 seconds, and sometimes more frequently. The effect was that it was quite impossible to hold a civilised conversation. However closely one stands to people—and there are limits on how close one can stand—conversation was drowned. It is not possible to live a civilised life on that basis.

If the wind is in the wrong direction or the cloud is low, resulting in aircraft having to fly low, the noise is even worse. I stress that aspect because it affects my constituents. The drowning noise of overhead aircraft upon conversation—whether outside or inside the home—makes life impossible. The noise overrides the sound of the television, and the picture can be disrupted, although that is not as likely. What about the blind? They need the sound from their radios, but it is totally disrupted. Others are in need of the comfort of radios and televisions, or the chat of a pleasant neighbour.

I am stressing mainly the importance of aircraft noise, but there is another aspect that I wish to mention, namely, the fumes given off by aircraft. It is a little outside the terms of the debate, but I mention it in passing in the hope that the Minister can give some attention to the effect on the area of pollution from fumes from over flying aircraft.

I welcome the Government's recent statement on airport policy. I am glad that we are not to have a fifth terminal at Heathrow, and pleased to note the Government's policy for spreading air traffic. It is inevitable that a fourth terminal will bring more aircraft traffic and passengers into Heathrow. The position will not ease in terms of aircraft passing overhead and passengers coming into Heathrow, which is the centre from which the aircraft leave and fly over Ealing.

If there are to be more aircraft and passengers, it follows that there will be more noise. We shall have interruptions of lives, not only every 30 seconds but more frequently. That will have an intolerable effect upon the way people live.

I do not ask for Heathrow to be closed. That would be a Utopian request and absurd. I shall make one or two specific suggestions that are designed to be helpful. After some thought, and having spoken to a number of experts and citizens who are affected, I feel that my suggestions could be put into effect and that results would be achieved within a fairly short time.

A solution needs to be found so that residents living near to airports and under flight paths are relieved of noise. Minimum noise routes and the shifting of flight paths are no solutions. I could not support a policy that consisted of shifting noise from one constituency to another. There would be a certain immorality about that. Such a policy would be as inequitable as the present situation.

First, the Government should phase out all aircraft movements at Heathrow between 23.00 hours and 06.30 hours. I ask my hon. Friend to consider whether that could be done. The absence of movements between those hours would allow comfortable sleeping time. If a person's life is disrupted by noise during the day, he is entitled to peace at night. In all civilised establishments it is normally expected that residents shall have peace after 11 o'clock at night. I regard the homes and dwellings in my constituency as one collective establishment. I ask that they be noise-free from 11 o'clock at night till 6.30 in the morning.

I ask that that be done over a period—for example, five years—to enable airport authorities, airlines and users, both passengers and cargo operators, to adjust to the new policy without undue dislocation. I think that five years would be reasonable. That would give reasonable notice and would enable those concerned to prepare policies accordingly and to put suitable research in hand where it is needed.

Aberdeen airport is shut between 21.50 hours and 07.00 hours. The income of that airport has increased by 40 per cent. since those hours were introduced. That information comes from the British Airports Authority's annual report of 1978–79. It is telling information.

New noise regulations should be introduced to lower the maximum perceived noise decibel level of 110 during the day and 102 at night. Those are high levels. They should be reduced to 85 perceived noise decibels. For instance, 92decibels has the effect of an alarm clock ringing at a distance of 2 ft, while 88 decibels is the sound of a telephone ringing 9 ft away. Those comparisons give some measure of the level for which I am asking. Regulations should be introduced and rigorously policed. Infringements should be subject to severe penalties. They will have to be severe. There will have to be a tough approach. There is every reason why there should be. The United States of America and Japan take that approach—why cannot the United Kingdom?

I suggest that hush kits be fitted to all aircraft currently flying to bring them within the new regulations. Hush kits are fitted to BAC 111s to enable them to come within the maximum permitted levels in the United States and Japan.

Manufacturers of aircraft engines should be encouraged to produce quieter engines for new aircraft that are being planned and developed and for aircraft currently flying so that they are less obtrusive on take-off and landing.

In an age in which we produce aircraft which can fly at twice the speed of sound, and even faster, it is beyond my comprehension, as a non-scientific person, to understand why we have not made better progress towards totally silent engines. The same amount of research should be carried out into producing silent engines as into developing other aspects of new aircraft. It is crucial to our way of life and comfort.

Larger compensation payments should be made to residents who consistently experience aircraft noise of, say 95 perceived noise decibels and above until the new noise control regulations are introduced and enforced. That payment should provide fully for insulation against noise.

I remind the House that there was a major campaign against atmospheric pollution in the 1950s and 1960s. It was largely successful, and has contributed substantially to a more acceptable, happy, comfortable, and healthy way of life. Why should there not be similar drives against aircraft and other noise in the 1980s, or are vested interests to be victorious? I do not say that meanly.

I ask for aid in installing double glazing of homes and schools. In saying that I do not want to let go of my ultimate aim, which is that there should be noise-free aircraft. I realise that there will be noise from any vehicle travelling through the atmosphere. Nothing can be done about that noise, but engine noise can and must be tackled.

We may succeed in achieving double-glazed homes, schools and other public buildings, but that is no solution for people who have to live in houses with windows permanently shut against noise. People need to be able to open their windows and enjoy fresh air, particularly on summer days.

The situation is inequitable, and damaging to people's nerves and health. That is demonstrated in letters which I receive from people who have been driven to distraction by a barrage of noise from aircraft over several minutes, or even a two or three-hour period. They ask me to bring the matter to the attention of Parliament, and to try to get something done to stop it.

The argument that people continue to live in air noise areas, and that property values can be high, is irrelevant. People have to live somewhere. That is a false argument and is unacceptable and unfair. I draw the Minister's attention to that argument, and I hope that he, too, regards it as unfair.

I have tried to describe the problem, and to present to the House the conditions under which people live not far from this building. The same applies to people living in other parts of the country, but not to the same extent.

There is a very special case for the people of West London to have relief from this form of noise pollution. I hope—indeed, I have every confidence—that the Minister and the Government will bend a sympathetic ear to what I have said, in the interests of justice, of fairness and of the welfare of the people in this country. We need to keep people on an even keel, with a proper sense of integration and well-being, if they are to live fulfilled lives and, as a result, put their utmost into our community, as individuals and collectively. It is in that spirit that I make my submissions to the Minister.

3.15 pm
The Under-Secretary of State for Trade (Mr. Norman Tebbit)

I should like first to congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Ealing, North (Mr. Greenway) on raising this issue on behalf of his constituents. He is one of the newer Members for the West London area, but since he has been here he has been one of the most active Members in coming to me to discuss the problems of noise which affect his constituents in Ealing. Certainly they are real problems. But, if I may say so, even in the day of the late Winston Churchill's horses, there were pollution problems in London. I am given to understand that there were those who were becoming increasingly worried about the scale of those problems as London's population increased and it was still dependent upon horse-drawn transport. There were major problems then; there are major problems now.

The one thing of which we can be sure is that in 20, 30 or 50 years' time there will still be major problems. They will be different ones, no doubt, but I am certain that people will then look back to some of the present-day problems and think that 1979 was part of the good old days of this century. That does not mean that I underestimate the problems which affect us now, but there are one or two things that I have to say about the importance of Heathrow and the importance of the air transport industry.

As my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State pointed out earlier this week, the United Kingdom airlines in 1978 had total operating revenues of nearly £2,000 million. Air transport produced a net addition to this country's invisible earnings of about £350 million, and over 18 per cent. by value of our international trade was carried through our airports in 1978. The United Kingdom airlines employed about 70,000 people at the end of 1978, and 23,000—excluding the airline employees—were employed at the British Airports Authority's airports, including Heathrow.

I know that some of those at least will be my hon. Friend's constituents and I know that they, like him, fully appreciate the importance of the industry. But it is useful to spell out just how substantial an industry it is. In days when growth industries are hard to come by, it is still a growth industry, so it deserves consideration to see how we can let it both grow and be a good neighbour.

The statement about airports policy that my right hon. Friend made earlier this week contained much that was of the greatest importance to people living near Heathrow. We entirely accept that there are more people affected by noise at Heathrow than at any other airport in the United Kingdom; therefore we pay particular attention to its problems. Indeed, that is why we have decided that the proposed fifth terminal at Heathrow should not go ahead and, indeed, why, beyond that, we have imposed a limit of 275,000 air transport movements a year at Heathrow. That movement limit takes account of the extra passenger capacity created by the fourth terminal.

My hon. Friend may be aware that this year an estimated 265,000 movements will take place. Therefore, the limit is very little above what is currently happening. It is not right to believe that there is no limit on what will happen at Heathrow or that the building of the fourth terminal will cause a great increase in the number of movements.

Mr. Greenway

I accept the implication of what I think my hon. Friend is about to say. My point is that we are already at breaking point. There is a little further to go, and we shall only just manage that, but it will be very hard to take. The Government are to be congratulated on putting the damper on the limit now, but we could not possibly go any further.

Secondly, I should like to refer to a paradox, if my hon. Friend agrees that it is a paradox. There is implied prosperity and more fun for everybody with more aircraft, more people going on holiday, more freight, more trade, and so on. However, the paradox is that it creates misery for others. That is one of the paradoxes of life of which I want everyone to be aware. I hope that my hon. Friend does not mind having that point brought out at this juncture.

Mr. Tebbit

Not at all. That is one of the paradoxes of life.

I recollect that at one time I had a neighbour whose son thought that the nicest way of spending Sunday mornings was to mow the lawn with a motor driven lawnmower with a transistor radio hanging from it and turned up sufficiently loudly for him to hear pop music. It gave him a great deal of pleasure, but I confess that it did not give me much pleasure. I take the point about the pleasure given to those who travel from Heathrow—that is, once they have got out of the place—and the pain that it gives to others living in the area.

What can we do about it? I have said that we have imposed a limit on the total number of movements. It is difficult for airlines to operate up to a limit of that kind. Almost certainly they will fall slightly short of it because of the consequences of trying to schedule to the limit. Things may go wrong and operations may be impaired. I hope that my hon. Friend will find that the number of aircraft movements will not greatly increase.

Above all, my hon. Friend was right to say that we must concentrate more strongly on the source of noise—the aeroplane. He suggested that further noise limits should be imposed and proposed some very low noise limits which he thought would be reasonable. I do not believe that those noise limits could be reached with the technical abilities that we have in the immediate vicinity of the airport—that is, at the standard noise measuring areas just outside the airport boundaries. However quietly we try to do it, providing the power to move 350 tons of aeroplane and to accelerate it to a speed of 150 or 250 m.p.h. is bound to be a noisy process. My hon. Friend suggested a limit of 92 decibels, which he likened to an alarm clock, and 88 decibels, which is equivalent to a telephone ringing at a distance of 9 ft.

In the study on aircraft noise carried out by the Civil Aviation Authority in the summer of 1977, measurements were made of the noise caused 14 km away from Heathrow at Ealing. The noise from some aircraft—here I mention that old baddy which is mentioned in all these debates, the Trident—was pretty bad. The average was 101.5 perceived noise decibels. In contrast, the sample—a relatively small one, I agree—that was taken from the A300 airbus, the DC10 and the Lockheed Tristar, turned in an average figure of 87.8, measured outdoors. So the noise outside that type of aircraft was much the same as that of a telephone ringing 9 ft. away.

The background noise that was measured was between 60 and 75 DBA. I am sorry that this measurement is not in the same unit, but to convert from one to the other I would have to add about 12 to that figure, which would mean that we would be talking about a figure of 72 to 87. There we have an example of the progress that we can expect in reducing the level of noise through technical developments that have already been achieved.

I am happy to be able to tell my hon. Friend the Member for Ealing, North that not only are the older, noisier airliners to be banned from use by British airlines at the end of 1985, but, as a result of the meeting of the Transport Ministers' Council of the European Community which I attended a week or two ago, it was agreed that there should be a directive requiring all member States to ban the use of such aircraft by 1988. So in the foreseeable future we shall rid ourselves of the noisy aircraft, and though there will still be some aircraft that are noisier than the DC10, the A300 airbus and the Tristar, the worst of the problem will have gone.

To insist on hush-kitting aircraft is misplaced. It would pose a considerable financial burden on the airlines. It might also slow down their re-equipment programmes, and I could not assure my hon. Friend that the effect he desires would be achieved. I do not believe that it would achieve a noticeable reduction of the noise level in areas such as Ealing.

My hon. Friend also suggested that we should phase out all night movements at Heathrow over perhaps the next five years. My hon. Friend referred to the airport at Aberdeen. I think he would agree that the two are not comparable. Aberdeen airfield is heavily dependent on oil-related traffic and not through traffic. Heathrow not only has aircraft that start and finish there but accepts transit aircraft. It is almost inevitable that some of those transit aircraft will require to pass through Heathrow during the night hours. It would not be right totally to rule out the possibility of night operations at Heathrow.

What we are doing is to maintain the level of the number of movements and to make a steady shift from the non-noise certificated aircraft to noise-certificated aircraft. Therefore, although the number of movements will not be decreased, the amount of noise both aircraft make will be decreased.

In my view, the prospect of further noise reduction beyond what we are achieving with aircraft such as those I have mentioned is slim. We have reached a plateau of technical development at present and I do not believe that we shall make further progress in the near future.

We have recently agreed with the British Airports Authority a new programme for noise insulation grants which will be directed at houses nearest Heathrow as opposed to those further away. I hope that it will be announced by the BAA very shortly.

I do not believe that it would be right to institute noise compensation payments. After all, this would open the way for compensation payments to those who live near motorways and even railways. We are right to move towards throttling the noise at source—in the aeroplane—and we are doing that.