§ Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Willetts.]
7.29 pm§ Mr. Michael Trend (Windsor and Maidenhead)The House will know that parliamentary private secretaries are restricted in what they may speak about in the Chamber in relation to matters covered by their Departments. Until recently, I had the honour of being PPS to my right hon. Friend the Member for Peterborough (Dr. Mawhinney) when he was Secretary of State for Transport. I am delighted that he has gone on to become our party chairman and was astonished, but very grateful, when he asked me to go with him to become the party's deputy chairman.
That move meant of course that my right hon. Friend and I were sadly deprived of the good company and sense of my hon. Friend the Minister for Transport in London. My hon. Friend will know, however, that I frequently brought up the concerns of my constituents in Windsor about aircraft noise when we met at the Department. Now that I am released from the obligations of being a PPS, I shall raise those concerns in the Chamber. Indeed, if my hon. Friend thought that I was something of a pest during our private conversations, I trust that he will find me an even greater nuisance in our public debates.
In raising this matter on behalf of Windsor, I should like to associate myself with the cause of my hon. Friend the Member for Berkshire, East (Mr. MacKay), whose constituents in Datchet and Horton are similarly affected by the noise pollution created by planes landing at Heathrow from the west. I am delighted to see my hon. Friend, who is of course a member of the silent service, in his place on the Treasury Bench.
It is a rather complex argument, and it would perhaps be easier if I gave compasses to all the hon. Members who are present. Indeed, I need to establish a few opening points if the House is to follow my main argument, which is that it is high time that greater priority was given to alleviating aircraft noise over Windsor.
First, there are two runways at Heathrow—the north and the south, which both run east-west. In all but the most exceptional circumstances, planes take off from one, while landing takes place on the other. Both take-offs and landings take place in the same direction against the wind. So if the wind is in the west, planes will take off westwards from one runway, while those landing will come into the other runway from the east. Since the wind is more frequently in the west, that indeed is the pattern for the great majority of days of the year. But when the wind moves to the east, planes take off towards London and therefore land over Windsor. It is that pattern on which I wish to concentrate.
It is a historical misfortune that Windsor and the other places that I mentioned lie directly under the approach to one of Heathrow's runways, the north runway. When planes land, they use a complex very high-frequency instrument landing system known as the ILS, which guides them very precisely along a straight line down on to the runway. It is a measure of technological advance that planes now pick up that direct line many miles away from the airport. That is known as establishing the ILS.
75 I can tell the House from great personal experience that that straight line is established well before most planes reach Windsor when they are landing from the west. Indeed, only yesterday, when conditions meant that planes were landing from the west, I stood in my garden in central Windsor and verified once again the monotonous regularity and precision of planes coming in to land at Heathrow.
The din created by the planes right overhead is appalling, and that is especially true when the weather is good, when people wish to open their windows and sit out of doors. Much of the best weather in the south of England during all seasons is brought about by the very conditions that dictate planes landing from the west: when the wind is in the east or stable.
The House will understand the serious problem that afflicts Windsor when planes are landing over the town. The planes are very low in the sky; it is simple task for people of averagely good sight to read off the identifying numbers. Moreover, many planes come over with their undercarriages lowered and their engines straining in that especially annoying, whining way that characterises high-powered machines working hard.
I hope that I have established to the House's satisfaction that there is a serious problem for my constituents. Before I go on to suggest how things might be improved, I need to raise two other wider matters.
First, there is still a general perception that take-offs, rather than landings, cause the greater offence in noise terms. There was a time when take-offs were the more serious and immediate problem, but I believe that that has changed. Great efforts were made to reduce the noise impact of take-offs, and they have been very successful. Now, however, the noise of planes landing should be seen as a much greater problem and I urge my hon. Friend the Minister to encourage the British Airports Authority, Heathrow and the carriers that use the airport to give much higher priority to alleviating the problems of landing noise.
At the moment, landing noise from the west seems a low priority to the airport authorities. While I accept that Heathrow has a greatly improved system of monitoring the noise impact of individual planes using the airport, it is clear from the location of the monitoring points on the ground around the airport that the problems associated with landings from the west are not taken sufficiently seriously.
My second point concerns the relief from the regular switching of runway use when the airport's movements become set for a while in one particular direction. Such switching is known as the runway alternation pattern. It happens only when the movements are in one direction and means that take-offs and landings are switched between the runways as planes are coming in and going out east to west.
In such conditions, planes taking off and landing switch runways at 3 o'clock every afternoon. That brings considerable and instant relief to those living in west London under the previously used flight path for landings, who are battered by the noise during the time preceding 3 o'clock. It is of prime importance to understand that that does not occur when the planes are landing from the other side—from over Windsor. When planes land from the west, they come down on only one runway, the north runway. There is therefore no switch; no relief for my constituents.
76 I said before that planes landing over Windsor do so with monotonous regularity and precision. To that I would add that they are relentless as well. Why is that? It is because when the wind is in the east, planes are permitted to take off only from the south runway, so all incoming planes have to land on the north runway, which, as I explained to the House, is the one in direct line with Windsor.
I have often asked why that cannot be changed, and the answer that I am given is that it is impossible because of a so-called Cranford agreement. The name refers to the settlement immediately to the east of the north runway. At an uncertain moment lost in the mists of time, it was decided that planes could take off only on the south runway when the airport's direction was west to east, and should not take off over Cranford.
But I have told the House already that circumstances have changed greatly in recent years. The so-called agreement may have seemed reasonable in the days when take-offs were regarded as a much more serious problem than landings, and before the advances that mean that planes now use much less of the runway to get airborne and rise much more quickly into the air. But it is no longer fair to hold to that so-called agreement against the interests of my constituents in Windsor.
As I said, the inflexible effect of the ILS means that we are subjected to the noise of all the planes coming in from the west without respite, which, certainly, was not the case in earlier times when landing practice was not nearly as precise as it is now.
Before I leave that particular topic, I should like to tell the House why I keep referring to the agreement as "so-called". I do so because I suspect that the agreement is in fact a convenient fiction. I have frequently asked to see a copy of the agreement. Unless my hon. Friend happens to have a copy tucked away in his pocket tonight, I must reach the conclusion that it simply does not exist. Can my hon. Friend please shed some light on the matter?
I would like my hon. Friend, therefore, to investigate the possibility of allowing planes to land on the south as well as the north runway when the airport's direction is west to east. I am asking only for the conditions that exist when planes are moving in the opposite direction. This is one thing that could be done to improve matters, but there are others.
I spoke earlier about the VHF technology that lays down that planes fly low and in a straight line over Windsor. I believe that an even more modern technology may, however, offer a new hope to my hard-pressed constituents. I understand that the system currently used at Heathrow may be replaced in the not-too-distant future by a new microwave system. It is my understanding that such a system would mean that planes would be able to lock on to a navigational path that was not necessarily laid down in a straight line. That is to say, a microwave ILS could bring planes in at different angles.
I am not advocating the dramatic change of course that those fortunate enough—if "fortunate" is the right word—to have landed at Hong Kong airport will have experienced. A microwave system could produce gentle curves that would be acceptable to passengers and much better for those who live below the present flight path. My hon. Friend will know that there are many areas around Windsor, where there are no large settlements, where that system might usefully be deployed. I ask 77 my hon. Friend whether that is his understanding of the possibilities of a microwave instrument landing system. If so, are those developing the system looking closely into environmental concerns as well as the convenience of the carriers?
I know that my hon. Friend would be surprised if I did not mention one more matter—the vexed question of night flights, although I understand that in his present position, he will not be able to give me any assurances. He knows that I am utterly opposed to any night flights and that I energetically contested the decision to allow some to continue. Surely it is not unreasonable for my constituents and me to expect a good night's sleep. Other than for safety reasons, I would like all night flights to be stopped and I would like a wider definition, in terms of hours, of the word "night" in this context.
In bringing the matter of aircraft noise over Windsor before the House, I do not want my hon. Friend to think that what I have been doing is a simple exercise in airport-bashing—what one might call nombyism, or not over my back yard. I willingly recognise that Heathrow is one of our greatest national assets and that it is very important to its surrounding area, both as an employer and as a magnet for a vast number of firms that are deliberately located nearby.
One often hears people bewail the loss of our once-great ports and of our former maritime strength. When I hear this, I reply, "If you want to see evidence of how the great trading spirit of our enterprising people continues to thrive, just visit Heathrow." Moreover, I regard both BAA and British Airways as tremendous success stories, both in terms of Government policy and in terms of how their work force and management have transformed their companies. In this party, we recognise what is of real value for the future of the country and we hate to see our success stories knocked.
I am sure, however, that my hon. Friend will understand that local anger over night flights and anxieties over the proposed fifth terminal must be seen in the context of current conditions. I am sure that if the people of Windsor could feel that progress was being made to alleviate their present problems, good relations with Heathrow could be maintained. We want nothing other than a happy and flourishing relationship with the airport, but unless the matter of landing noise over Windsor is addressed, the relationship can only be difficult.
I remind my hon. Friend of the specific matters and questions that I have raised tonight. I would like much greater priority given to alleviating noise created by planes landing at Heathrow going over Windsor. I would like to know once and for all whether there is such a thing as the Cranford agreement. I would like to know why, in the changed circumstances that I have described, the present use of only one runway for landing from the west should not be varied. That should be looked into as a matter of urgent priority. I would like to be assured that the alleviation of noise nuisance over Windsor is at the front of the minds of those looking into a microwave landing system for Heathrow. I would like an assurance from the Minister that pilots bringing planes in from the west to land are under appropriate instructions to ensure that present noise levels are kept to an absolute minimum. I promised my hon. Friend at the start that I would be a nuisance. I trust, in a kindly meant way, that I have not disappointed him.
§ The Minister for Transport in London (Mr. Steve Norris)My hon. Friend the Member for Windsor and Maidenhead (Mr. Trend) is entirely right; he has been a nuisance, but only in the charming way for which he is renowned. It would be remiss of me if I did not first congratulate him on his recent appointment. I, too, was astonished, but not a little pleased at the great honour bestowed on him. In all seriousness, I know that he will discharge his duties admirably. Indeed, he has done so tonight in raising the important issue of aircraft noise, especially in relation to his constituency of Windsor and Maidenhead.
I shall start, in a sense, where my hon. Friend finished, by acknowledging the importance of Heathrow airport as a major national asset. We ought not to forget that it continues to be the largest international airport in the world. This year, Heathrow airport will cater for more than 51 million passengers and 962,000 tonnes of freight. It is a workplace for 52,000 people directly and 26,000 people indirectly, including, I have no doubt, many of my hon. Friend's constituents. Heathrow contributes greatly to the prosperity of the area immediately surrounding the airport and to the wider national economy. I accept entirely that, whenever we consider these issues, that consideration has to be uppermost in our minds.
Equally, however, there is a downside to those activities. As my hon. Friend said, aircraft noise is probably one of the most obvious and unneighbourly attributes of any airport on a constituency doorstep. The noise, of course, is not constant, but it is, when it arises, extremely irritating. I live in Camberwell, south London, and although my home is not classically assumed to be among those affected by Heathrow, it none the less experiences considerable aircraft noise when wind and weather produce the particular conditions that bring the noise in my direction.
My hon. Friend said that the noise of landing aircraft is worse than the noise of aircraft taking off, and explained why in an interesting way. One would have assumed that the noise of an aircraft taking off at full thrust and gaining altitude would be greater than that of an aircraft on a steady rate of descent, simply coming in to land and losing height as it did so. My hon. Friend is right to say that, in recent years, there have been tremendous developments in the technology associated with maximum thrust and take-offs, which has substantially reduced the differential between the two aspects of airport movement.
My hon. Friend will accept that, frankly, people's perceptions of which is the worse activity depend on where they happen to be in relation to the runway. I acknowledge my hon. Friend's point, but I believe that his is not a unique perception; there are other points of view that contradict his. I shall recap some of the technical data that my hon. Friend introduced into the debate. He is correct to say that, for technical and safety reasons, aircraft operate into the wind and that at Heathrow, the prevailing winds are south-westerly. That means that the airport operates in a westerly direction for approximately 75 per cent. of the time. In other words, aircraft depart to the west and approach to land from the east over the city of London.
Aircraft leaving Heathrow are required to follow noise preferential routes—the so-called NPRs—which are designed as far as possible to avoid the most populated 79 areas. Pilots are required to follow NPRs—unless otherwise specifically instructed by air traffic control—until they have attained an altitude of 4,000 ft. Only two of the NPRs in use during westerly operations might affect my hon. Friend's constituents, although they are designed to avoid Windsor and Maidenhead; the first lies roughly between Windsor and Slough and the other lies between Windsor and Old Windsor. The two NPRs are designed to minimise whatever noise may be in that area.
Since the noise track-keeping system at Heathrow became operational in 1993, it has been possible to monitor how well aircraft conform to routes and the system has shown that track-keeping on both of the routes is of a high standard.
§ Mr. NorrisThe point is that landing aircraft require different characteristics. I shall refer to the microwave landing system—to which my hon. Friend referred—later, but my comments on NPRs are concerned with take-offs. To summarise, a pilot is obliged to follow one of two exit paths if he is travelling in a westerly direction until he reaches 4,000 ft. My hon. Friend knows his constituency intimately, and he will recognise that one route is designed to pass between Windsor and Maidenhead, while the other passes between Windsor and Old Windsor. I hope that that is clear to him.
It is difficult to apply the same principle to landings. Windsor is between five and eight miles due west of Heathrow—in the sense that the town is about three miles in diameter—and lies directly under an extended centre line of the approach to the northern runway. During easterly operations, a measure of overflight by landing aircraft is, I am afraid, unavoidable.
During daytime operations, aircraft must join the final approach at a minimum altitude of 2,500 ft approximately eight miles from the runway threshold. That is a minimum joining point and aircraft—particularly during busy periods—will in practice join the final approach further from the airport. For some time, it has been standard practice during night-time easterly operations to move the minimum joining point some two miles further from the airport, so that aircraft join the final approach at a minimum altitude of 3,000 ft, with a consequent reduction in disturbance. A trial use of that procedure during westerly operations was initiated in early September to try to bring similar relief to parts of west and central London.
Once an aircraft is established on its final approach, it is in a stabilised descent which requires less engine power. Pilots are also required wherever possible to adopt what is called a low-power, low-drag procedure as a further means of reducing noise disturbance.
Since 1972, during westerly operations, a system known as runway alternation has been operated. Essentially—as my hon. Friend outlined—under that system, one of the two main runways is assigned for landing aircraft and the other to departing aircraft. If the alternation lasts between 7am and 11pm, the switch is normally made at 3pm. The purpose of that is to give areas to the east of the airport predictable periods of relief from the noise of landing aircraft. Alternation is not operated during easterly operations due to the existence of the Cranford agreement, to which my hon. Friend referred.
80 I hope that I can clarify the status of that agreement. There is no secret about it. It is a long-standing arrangement to avoid—as far as possible—take-offs to the east over Cranford from the northern runway. My hon. Friend, with his natural sense of fairness, will accept that the community of Cranford is far closer to the runway than any part of my hon. Friend's constituency. That is a matter of fact. In the many years that the Cranford agreement has existed, neither Cranford nor Windsor—as far as I know—has changed its geographic location. My hon. Friend may be aware that surviving records of the agreement are far from complete, and no formal written agreement—if such a thing ever existed—can now be found.
In 1952, a senior official, with ministerial approval, gave the Cranford Residents and District Amenities Association a verbal undertaking that overflight of the area immediately to the east of the northern runway would be avoided as far as practicable, except during peak periods. Initially, that applied to both take-offs and landings, but subsequently the undertaking was confined to aircraft taking off over Cranford. It has not been possible to establish exactly when that change occurred.
Since the agreement was made, both runways have been extended at the western end. That has brought the communities of Foyle, Stanwell and Stanwell Moor to within similar distances of the end of the runway as Cranford was in the 1950s. The consequence of the Cranford agreement is that during normal daytime easterly operations, the northern runway is used for landing aircraft and the southern runway for departures.
§ Mr. TrendI said that much had changed since 1952 when the understanding was reached, and I am delighted to hear my hon. Friend confirm that there was no proper agreement. If it is now possible to land aircraft over Cranford, why—with the change in technology associated with take-offs—can take-offs not also be considered for the area?
§ Mr. NorrisI shall reflect on the points that my hon. Friend has made, and I have listened with care to his arguments for the practical abandonment of the Cranford agreement. Abandoning the agreement would constitute a change to airspace arrangements, which would have a significantly detrimental effect on the environment, and would thus require the approval of the Secretary of State for Transport, whom I see in his place. I will reflect on my hon. Friend's observations.
Despite the absence of a formal written agreement, the undertakings were given in an entirely different climate when the airport and airlines were under nationalised control, but the commitments are honoured in the spirit in which they were made and on the understanding that they represent significant relief to the communities hardest pressed by their immediate proximity to the airport. Despite the need to operate into the wind, Heathrow operates a westerly preference. In other words, aircraft continue to operate to the west even when there is a small easterly wind component. That practice has been in place for at least 30 years, and was introduced for operational and noise-mitigation purposes. From an operational standpoint, it reduces the need to switch between westerly and easterly operations, which is a disruptive procedure from an environmental point of view, and which reduces the number of departures in an easterly direction over densely populated areas of west london and—as a consequence—reduces the number of landing aircraft overflying Windsor.
81 The air traffic control procedures operated at Heathrow, which my hon. Friend also raised, are, of course, those which are possible with current equipment. My hon. Friend suggested that the proposed microwave landing system might permit revisions to be made to landing procedures. That may be the case. As my hon. Friend said, the technology allows at least the potential for different approach paths, although it is doubtful whether that would be of any use closer to the airport. I assure my hon. Friend that the Government will consider all possible measures proposed by the national air traffic services in examining the potential of the system. However, as I hope my hon. Friend will appreciate, those are matters for the future and not ones on which I can give him any immediate comfort.
As my hon. Friend is undoubtedly aware, the royal borough of Windsor and Maidenhead has joined again with the London borough of Richmond upon Thames and four other local authorities in seeking leave to apply for further judicial review of the night flying restrictions. Obviously, as my hon. Friend generously assumed, that precludes me from commenting on the detailed points that he has made tonight or those made in another context. I shall say just two things on the subject.
First, I regret very much that the local authorities involved feel the need to pursue the matter further in the courts. I regret it very much if anyone was misled by the wording of the consultation paper that we published in January 1993, but we have attempted to set matters right, as it was proper for us to do. My hon. Friend will be aware from his association with the Department and its work that all the consultation papers were issued in good faith and without any intention to mislead the recipients. Indeed, the whole point of a consultation paper is to set out options and listen to what people say, whether they agree or disagree with the premise inherent in the original consultation.
I repeat what I said about a complete ban on night flights when I announced the restrictions on 16 August. A complete ban, as requested in some of the responses to the consultation, would not be justified. It would upset the balance that we aim to maintain between the interests of local people and those of the airline industry, including its customers. A ban was given serious consideration in 1976, but after consultation it was decided to allow night 82 flights to continue, while seeking to ensure that eventually they would be carried out by quieter types of aircraft. That policy was confirmed in the November 1987 consultation papers for Heathrow and Gatwick and again in the January 1993 consultation paper. I decided against a departure from that policy and it is continued by the arrangements that I confirmed on 16 August. Similarly, as my hon. Friend will know, I rejected the abolition of all restrictions on night flying because I was clear that that would be entirely unreasonable.
I have answered the specific questions that my hon. Friend addressed to me in his peroration. I assure him that we take aircraft noise by night or by day extremely seriously. Almost all current generation aircraft are typically half as noisy on departure, weight for weight, as their predecessors. They have greatly improved climb performance to limit their noise footprint. While natural retirement has removed older, noisier chapter 2 jet aircraft, tough action has been taken to hasten that process. Legislation is now in place to enforce the phasing out of those aircraft between now and 2002.
We can take credit for the part that we played in the many negotiations needed to secure international agreement to that. It will be the single most important contribution to improved future noise levels around airports. I assure my hon. Friend that our concern does not end with chapter 2. We are playing a full part in current discussions about further and tougher standards for noise and emissions. We intend to proceed with that policy vigorously.
I conclude by acknowledging the strength of feeling expressed by my hon. Friend and demonstrated by the presence of my hon. Friend the Member for Berkshire, East (Mr. MacKay) and my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State about noise levels, particularly in the environs of Heathrow. I hope that my hon. Friend will appreciate that we attempt to deal with such matters in as full and proper a way as possible, while acknowledging that the issue of noise is never likely to be one on which it is possible to satisfy all parties.
§ Question put and agreed to.
§ Adjourned accordingly at four minutes past Eight o ' clock.