§ Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn—[Mr. Brooke.]
1.40 am§ Mr. Keith Wickenden (Dorking)I am grateful to Mr. Speaker for granting me a third Adjournment debate in less than two years. Each debate has been on the subject of airports within my constituency. The House might be forgiven for drawing the inference that I am committed to opposition to airports and aviation. Nothing could be further from the truth. I frequently use airports, including those within my constituency. I frequently use them for purposes of pleasure, recreation and business and I hold a pilot's licence. Nobody could in fairness accuse me of being anti-aviation.
1090 I do not subscribe to the school of thought that I know some of my constituents do—namely, that the answer to all airports is to take them away. That is an unrealistic view and one that I would not support for a moment. However, those of us who use airports and who inflict environmental damage, as we undoubtedly do, on local residents in the vicinity of airports must be expected to provide compensation.
I wish to draw attention to what I believe are the inadequacies in the Gatwick airport noise insulation grant scheme. The House will remember that the current scheme was introduced by order in the spring of 1980. At that time my hon. Friend the Member for Horsham and Crawley (Mr. Hordern) and I prayed that the order be anulled on the ground that it was inadequate in various respects. My hon. Friend joins me in the sentiments that I propose now to express.
There are two main planks of criticism. The first is that the footprint area, as it is termed, which is eligible for grant is too small. Secondly, the level of grant is too low. I need not say too much about the first plank, because I can demonstrate the inadequacy of the footprint area for which the grant is available. If the present Gatwick airport second terminal inquiry results in the terminal being built as planned it will not fall within the area that is covered by the grant. In other words, the current scheme does not even fully cover the area of Gatwick airport. Nothing could more forcefully demonstrate the inadequacy of the area.
I am well aware that one of the problems that my hon. Friend the Minister has in accepting my argument that the area should be increased is that whatever is done for Gatwick, which perhaps in itself would not be too expensive an exercise because Gatwick is situated in a largely rural area, could not be avoided at Heathrow. The position at Heathrow is very different. It is in a much more urban area and many houses would be affected by such a scheme. I suggest that that is not a reason for allowing Gatwick, Heathrow or any other major airport to suffer. It merely means that we must look for a different method of financing the scheme.
As for the level of the grant, I draw attention to the fact that it is not possible fully to insulate one's property on the grants available even if it falls within the restricted area. Because of that, it is widely felt, both by local authorities and by others in the area, that the scheme is not being used as much as it could be used within its restrictions.
My hon. Friend will know that the local authorities have several times drawn the attention of the Department and Lord Trefgarne to the inadequacies of the scheme. I hope that my hon. Friend will forgive me if I summarise those arguments in order to put them on the record. I do not expect a detailed answer to these various points at this late hour.
I mentioned that the area was very small. That is the criticism of the councils about the area. I demonstrated that the area was small by drawing attention to the fact that the proposed second terminal would not even be within it. The village of Charlwood, which is close to the airport—one can see the airport from the village—is divided by the area. Of approximately 450 houses in the village of Charlwood, fewer than 120 are eligible for the grant scheme. The village of Hookwood is a smaller village which is even closer to the airport in many respects but falls without the usual standard instrument departure routes. The village has approximately 120 houses and is 1091 entirely outside the scheme. No houses qualify for the scheme. That is the most serious criticism about the area which qualifies for the grant.
The method of calculating the grant is rather confusing. It is called yardstick costs. There is a widespread belief amongst local authorities in the Gatwick area, which is largely rural, that the yardstick costs are based on the standard semi-detached house, which is commonly to be found around Heathrow airport and not on the rather different types of properties which are more likely to be found around Gatwick.
I do not know from personal experience whether this is a fair criticism, but it is frequently made. It is felt that the British Airports Authority, which administers the scheme in partnership with the local authorities, is too often too inflexible in its dealings with the scheme. It is a common criticism of such bodies that too often they pass on the decision making. Perhaps they have no choice. I do not wish to he unfair to the authority, which has the difficult job of administering what must be an unpopular scheme in any event.
It is felt widely—this is particularly important in the Gatwick area—that not enough consideration is given to special cases, such as listed buildings or properties which are completely open plan inside. In that respect, there are many listed buildings which deserve special attention.
It is felt that there is no good reason why the grant scheme should not be open-ended in time. It is felt that it should be continuous and that there should he no restriction on the work being completed or on an applicant's interest in the property. Because they will have to bear part of the cost, applicants should be able to carry out the work in their own time and within the limit that they can afford.
A particularly serious criticism made by the local authorities is that the scheme does not permit sound insulation of the roof. In many cases, roofs let sound through at least as much as windows. It may be said that this may be covered by the roof insulation grant scheme, which is primarily designed for thermal insulation and not for noise insulation. The type of insulation that qualifies for thermal grant may not be suitable for keeping out noise.
It is particularly surprising that the grant is not intended to cover noise from aircraft on the ground. It covers only noise created in flight within a certain footprint area. When large jet engines are maintained in maintenance areas—as they are at Gatwick on occasion—and then have to be tested, they cause a considerable noise. If an unfortunate resident of the village of Charlwood, the village primarily affected by ground noise, falls just outside the grant area, he receives no grant at all, even though the noise may be considerably more than it is from aircraft in flight.
As the scheme operates, the difference between the amount of grant available and the maximum grant available, which is achieved by not having some optional works carried out, cannot then be put towards the extra costs of double glazing, which is estimated by the contractor and which is over and above the cost yardstick limit.
I know that my hon. Friend the Minister has given a very sympathetic response to the local authorities who have approached him, and I am grateful to him for that. I hope that he will be able to consider these points concerning the area of the scheme and the amount of 1092 grants. If I ask him to consider as a matter of urgency the amount of the grant rather than the size of the scheme, it is because I recognise the difficulty that the Department has in relation to other airports, in particular Heathrow.
One problem with the scheme is that the present Government and preceding Governments have done what we so often do in this country. They have simply nibbled at the fringes of the problem instead of tackling it head on. Much as I use the aviation services—and I suppose that I make 40 to 50 scheduled flights every year and a good many more private flights—I can see absolutely no reason why I should do so without contributing towards the relief of noise pollution which I am helping to inflict upon others. The only sensible long-term answer to the problem, which is experienced particularly at Heathrow and to a lesser extent at Gatwick, is for there to be a levy on passenger flights in exactly the same way as there is a levy on passenger flights to provide the cost of security measures.
A levy of £1 per single passenger flight, which would perhaps be 2 per cent. of the cost of the average air ticket, would yield about £5 million a year. I do not think that this is a burden which we should expect to place upon the taxpayer. It is something that we who use aircraft for business and social purposes should expect to bear.
If it is to be argued that the principle should be extended to others who suffer environmental damage, such as those who live close to motorways, railways and hoverports, I would agree that this is a principle which could be extended. I appreciate that that goes much fun her than what I am asking for now, which is consideration of an improvement in the scheme, ultimately in the area and, I hope more immediately, in the amount of grant available. My noble Friend Lord Trefgarne has received with great sympathy delegations who have approached him, and I am grateful to him for that. I hope that he will be able to extend his sympathy into a little practical help to these constituents who suffer day and night from this problem.
§ The Under-Secretary of State for Trade (Mr. Reginald Eyre)I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Dorking (Mr. Wickenden) for raising this subject on the Adjournment debate tonight.
The problems caused by aircraft noise are, as I am fully aware, a major source of concern for those who happen to live near a major airport. Yet a healthy civil aviation industry is of crucial importance for the economic wellbeing of the nation. All Government policy connected with civil aviation has to face this problem and try to strike a reasonable balance between the legitimate needs and interests of those who earn a livelihood in the industry or who depend on its services for business or pleasure, and the equally important interests of those who are likely to be disturbed by the industry's operations.
Clearly, the question of how best to cope with the noise nuisance caused by aircraft extends beyond the provision of grants to permit householders around Gatwick to install noise insulation. Indeed, it extends beyond the boundaries of this country, since civil aviation is, in its very essence, an international business. Fortunately, the most modern types of aero-engine are considerably quieter than their predecessors. In the long term, the most effective way of minimising disturbance is to promote the reduction of noise at source by encouraging operators to use the quietest and most modern aircraft available.
1093 To that end, this country plays a very active part in discussions within the framework of the International Civil Aviation Organisation and the European civil aviation conference aimed at drawing up more stringent standards of noise certification for all new aircraft types. The Government have already decided to prohibit the use of non-noise certificated subsonic jet aircraft on the British register from 1 January 1986, and similar action is being taken by other countries with major civil aviation interests in respect of aircraft on their national registers.
I accept, however, that this is a long-term solution to a problem that today is of great concern to many people. The Government are therefore actively concerned in trying to minimise disturbance by imposing noise abatement measures on those airports, including Gatwick, for which they have responsibility under section 29 of the Civil Aviation Act 1971. These measures include the use of minimum noise routes designed to ensure that aircraft overfly the smallest number of people possible; the operation of a quota system for night movements; the maintenance of noise limits for aircraft taking off; the use of quieter approach procedures; and, of course, the provision of grants to cover the cost of noise insulation for homes near Gatwick and Heathrow.
The existing noise insulation grants schemes at these airports are thus just one part of the Government's overall strategy for dealing with aircraft noise. The present schemes were announced on 6 February last year by my hon. Friend the Minister of State, Department of Industry—the Member for Chingford (Mr.Tebbit). They represent a considerable improvement over earlier schemes. For example, those who had moved into the qualifying areas around the airports before the new schemes came into operation on 1 April 1980 but after the original qualifying date, which was 1 January 1973 in the case of Gatwick, are now able to claim grants for the insulation of their properties.
I am aware that there are those who argue that the boundary of the Gatwick scheme should have been more widely drawn, and I noted carefully the points that my hon. Friend made. I am afraid that, given the constraints on public expenditure, this was not possible, but it may help if I explain how the boundary of the scheme was determined. First, it was felt that account should be taken of the substantial improvement in the noise climate around our major airports that will result from the phasing out of the noisier jet aircraft and their replacement by the newer, quieter types, such as the A300, the Tri-Star and the DC 10. Although this will lead to a significant reduction in disturbance around Gatwick and Heathrow, people living close to the airports are still likely to be subjected to comparatively high levels of aircraft noise even after the mid-1980s, and these are obviously the people who are in greatest need of assistance.
The measure to assess the impact of aircraft noise around our major airports is the noise and number index, usually referred to as the NNI. It is generally accepted that 55 NNI represents a high level of annoyance.The boundary of the insulation grants schemes is based on the lower 50 NNI contour that has been forecast for 1985, when most of the noisier aircraft will have been retired from service. It was also considered that the schemes should provide protection for householders against aircraft noise at night. The boundary therefore includes all areas 1094 that after the mid-1980s are likely to be exposed to noise levels at night in excess of 95 perceived noise decibels. This is the noise level below which the current scientific evidence suggests that the average person sleeping in an uninsulated room is unlikely to be awakened.
I know that the scheme for Gatwick has been criticised because the area is now smaller than that within the outer boundary of the previous scheme. My hon. Friend raised that point. Under that scheme there were two areas—an inner one, defined mainly by the 60 NNI contour, within which 100 per cent. grants were available, and an outer area, based on the 55 NNI contour, within which the grant level was 85 per cent. The current scheme is therefore based on a lower level of disturbance than that adopted as the criterion for even the outer area of the previous one. The fact that the area is smaller is merely a reflecton of the very real improvement that will come from the use of quieter aircraft. It is, of course, considerably larger than the inner area of the previous scheme.
These criteria were chosen in order to concentrate the limited resources on those who will continue to suffer from comparatively high noise levels even after the new, quieter aircraft types have entered service on a large scale. This is, I suggest, a fair principle to adopt. I can sympathise with those who find themselves just on the wrong side of what may appear to them to be an arbitrary line, but I am afraid that this is unavoidable wherever the line is drawn. Furthermore, the situation at Gatwick cannot be treated in isolation. I know that my hon. Friend understands that. The Gatwick and Heathrow schemes are constructed on identical bases, and any change in one would be bound to have repercussions on the other. I do not see how one could, in equity, change the rules at Gatwick without making similar adjustments at Heathrow, where even a minor alteration in the boundary could bring significant numbers of houses into the scheme and greatly increase its cost. As I have already said, the resources are limited, and I believe that the present arrangements ensure that they are deployed to the best effect.
With regard to the funding of these insulation schemes, I accept, of course, that it is right that the cost should be borne by those who are responsible for creating the noise that the schemes are designed to ameliorate. This is in accordance with the well established "polluter pays" principle and is, in fact, achieved under the current arrangements. The schemes are financed from the landing charges on aircraft using Heathrow and Gatwick. As these charges are reflected in the price of airline tickets, the cost of the schemes thus falls ultimately on the airline passenger. I hope that my hon. Friend will think that that is fair.
I do not believe, however, that it is either necessary or desirable to identify this cost element by establishing a noise levy or charge, as my hon. Friend has suggested in detail, since there is no simple relationship between the amount of noise at an airport and the number of passengers using it. Moreover, the arguments for such a charge in the case of aircraft noise do not appear to be notably stronger than those that could be advanced for a similar charge to deal with the effects of noise from other sources, such as road transport. It is very difficult to see how the same principle could be extended to them.
I am also aware that criticisms have been made of the grant levels available. Unlike the older schemes, which simply set an overall maximum figure of grant, the present schemes set maxima for each element in the insulation 1095 works—so much per square metre of double-glazing, so much per unit of ventilation, and so on. This is, as I am sure my hon. Friend will agree, a more flexible system, which recognises that the costs of insulation can vary widely according to the design of the individual house. My hon. Friend emphasised that point with reference to Gatwick. Criticisms have, however, been levelled at these individual maxima.
This is a serious matter. The intention of the schemes, as set out by my hon. Friend the Minister of State, Department of Industry when they were first announced, was that the grants available should cover the full costs of insulating all eligible rooms. It remains the Government's intention that the grants should continue to fulfil this aim. I have noted very carefully the points made by my hon. Friend and I note that he is supported by my hon. Friend the Member for Horsham and Crawley (Mr. Hordern). All this confirms information that has been reaching us from other sources and adds considerable weight to the case for an increase in the present cost limits. I am pleased to be able to tell my hon. Friend that we have been reviewing the schemes for both Gatwick and Heathrow, in consultation with the British Airports Authority, which is responsible for operating them, in order to determine what increases in the grant maxima are necessary. Although I 1096 am not yet able to say what the outcome of this review will be, I hope that my noble Friend who is the Minister responsible will shortly be making an announcement.
I trust that my hon. Friend will accept that my noble Friend and I are very conscious of the problems that aircraft noise can cause for those who have to endure it. I hope that he will also accept that the Government are actively concerned to do all that they can to reduce this nuisance. I think that it is clear from what I have said that these efforts extend well beyond the subject of this interesting and, I hope, valuable debate.
However, I am sure that my noble Friend will he most interested in what my hon. Friend said about the noise insulation grants and the emphasis that he has placed upon the matter, and that he will be strongly influenced by the powerful arguments advanced by my hon. Friend in support of an increase in the cost limits. I can assure my honourable Friend that the Government's purpose is that these insulation schemes are to be kept under constant review and that action will be taken whenever it is clear that the grants available are proving inadequate to meet the full cost of insulation.
§ Question put and agreed to.
§ Adjourned accordingly at seven minutes past Two o' clock.