§ Mr. David Taylor (North-West Leicestershire)I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to require airport operators to reduce operational noise and pollution levels in consultation with local authorities and communities near airports; to enable local authorities to enforce noise and pollution mitigation agreements; to involve communities near airports in the shaping of balanced planning frameworks controlling the operation of those airports; and for related purposes.There is little effective legislation to control the levels of noise and pollution generated by aircraft and airports. Indeed, the Environmental Protection Act 1990 specifically exempts aircraft noise and emissions from the general nuisance controls that it contains, irrespective of whether an airfield is small and unlicensed or a major national airport.Tranquillity and air quality are environmental Cinderellas, whose interests have been continually damaged by their ugly sisters, noise and pollution. The aim of my Bill is to give much needed protection to airport communities against the incessant noise and growing pollution that they daily endure.
No hon. Member who has a sizeable airport in or near his or her constituency will be unaware of the impact on the local economy. The industry estimates a contribution of £10 billion to the United Kingdom's gross domestic product, and half a million direct and indirect jobs. Only last month, the number of jobs generated by East Midlands airport in north-west Leicestershire went through the 5,000 barrier, and numbers are still rising rapidly.
Nevertheless, the aviation industry tends to overplay its future economic potential. It is apparent that the successful and expanding businesses of the new century are more likely to depend on smart communication systems than on the physical movement of goods, which characterised the industries of the past century.
As with all economic activity, aviation has an environmental downside, which needs to be tackled in the interests of sustainability. As the number of air travellers has grown and the volumes of freight moved have increased, the loss of open countryside, higher pollution levels and the perpetual noise intrusion are the price being paid by the many thousands of people living around and on the flight paths to the nation's airports.
It is in no one's interest to ignore the increasingly widespread anxieties about the environmental impact of air travel. For too long, aircraft noise and air pollution have had a seriously adverse effect on the quality of life of hundreds of airport communities. Projected new laws by the previous Government were shelved time and again. That must not continue. The time is right for the Government to act, and the Bill includes some suggestions for action.
I welcome today's introduction by the Government of a national air quality strategy and I support their existing commitment to drawing up a 30-year airports policy, about which consultation begins soon. However, I urge the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions to widen the brief to devise a comprehensive air transport policy.
868 There is already a specific target of expanding regional airports to take the pressure off the south-east—from where two thirds of passengers fly and where three quarters of airline and airport jobs are located. However, any such expansion should be accompanied—or, indeed, preceded—by a far more effective regulatory framework spelling out the rights and responsibilities of airports, planners and local communities.
All that is underpinned by the pressing need for the Government to accept that there are limits to the number of aircraft movements that the system can tackle and the effects that communities can tolerate. In short, we should abandon the predict-and-provide principle, which has seriously flawed our air transport planning for a generation. We must also abandon the stock DETR belief that the current local plan process is adequate for resolving airport issues. It is not and does not.
Using a projected average annual growth rate of 6 per cent. in demand for flights would lead, over the 30-year strategy period, to a tripling in size of every regional airport. Down that nightmare flight path lies an environmental disaster of unimaginable proportions for already beleaguered airport communities. Air travel and air freight are significant players in our economy. They must be allowed to grow, but only in a responsible and responsive way.
A key principle in environmental policy formulation is that the polluter must pay. However, the aviation industry seems to be excluded from that. It allows—even requires—the wider society and economy to bear the burden of its environmental costs. The aeroplane is the most polluting form of transport, and is responsible for around 10 per cent. of all greenhouse gas emissions, yet it is exempt from tax on its kerosene fuel. That problem requires urgent, Europe-wide action.
Airport communities are almost powerless to protect their quality of life against excessive airport noise and must often rely on the good will of their powerful and important neighbour. However, business pressures are such that any voluntary codes of conduct can steadily become ineffective and unsustainable.
The focus of the Bill is raising airports' operating standards, especially in relation to noise limitation. Apart from the designated airports of Heathrow, Stansted and Gatwick, which are subject to specific noise legislation, all the others depend on the lottery of local agreements. The Bill would superimpose a minimum framework, which specified common and enforceable limits that airports would have to observe for renewed Civil Aviation Authority licensing. Those limits would not be part of a voluntary agreement, or reluctantly conceded for planning permission, and they would not lack independent means of monitoring and verification. They would be part of a comprehensive deal, which would aim to protect the quality of life of airport communities.
What needs to be contained in the framework? A prime requirement is the financing and installation by the airport of an appropriate noise monitoring system, relevant to the pattern of noise that it generates. The system would have to be managed independently, with penalties for operators who violated noise, route and other restrictions. The proceeds would be distributed to local organisations by an independent local panel.
Secondly, the airport, local authorities and airport communities would collectively agree noise-preferential routes, especially for departing aircraft, with appropriate 869 restrictions on turning and overflying. Comprehensive mandatory pilots notes on the agreed local regime would have to be produced and incorporated into relevant publications.
Thirdly, there would be a collective agreement about seasonal night flying quotas, with a complete ban on chapter II aircraft, whether hushkitted or not, and on chapter III aircraft above a specified weight, as the heavier ones can be even noisier than the older aircraft that they replace. Fourthly, an independent executive forum of airport owners, operators, local authorities and community groups would monitor and try to resolve any airport environmental problems.
Finally, the framework would include a range of provisions such as ground running, property soundproofing, complaint logging, public safety zones and control of further development.
The patchwork quilt of regulatory bodies means that a national approach is needed to obtain higher environmental standards for all airports. The comprehensive action needed for noise and pollution mitigation has to be part of a national aviation policy, which is itself the basis of discussion with international aviation bodies and other Governments. Technological and operational measures alone will never obtain that limitation of aircraft noise and disturbance levels which is so necessary for so many people.
My Bill is a meaningful, reasonable and enforceable measure that would produce a more satisfactory framework within which airport operation and development could occur. It would provide a level runway for airports so that they could raise standards in parallel with their competitors and improve relations with the people affected by their operations. It spells out to local planning authorities an unambiguous and enforceable regime based on environmental considerations and would achieve a better balance between commercial airport needs and legitimate local requirements. Finally, it offers to airport communities no less than an environmental charter to control the noise and pollution generated by the aerial motorway over their homes. I therefore commend it to the House.
Question put and agreed to.
Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. David Taylor, Liz Blackman, Mr. Colin Burgon, Mr. Jim Cunningham, Mrs. Janet Dean, Mr. Paul Flynn, Judy Mallaber, Mr. John McDonnell, Dr. Nick Palmer, Mr. Andrew Reed, Mr. Gareth R. Thomas and Mr. Mark Todd.