§ 2.42 p.m.
§ The Question was as follows:
§ To ask Her Majesty's Government why they have decided to re-route North-bound jet aircraft from Heath-row over Amersham and Chesham towns and villages without prior consultation with the Member of Parliament and local authorities.
106§ Lord WINTERBOTTOMMy Lords, the re-routing is part of a Civil Aviation Authority plan for revision of the London Terminal Area to be implemented in April and is regarded by the Authority, which is responsible for such matters, as essential to the maintenance of vital flight safety standards. Detailed study by the Department of Trade, in conjunction with the Authority, revealed no alternative route which would satisfy the safety requirement and this severely limited the scope for public consultation. However, Members of Parliament, local authorities and others concerned were informed of the proposals, and their comments invited, by an information document circulated in September last; and there has since been opportunity for detailed discussion at meetings arranged by the Authority. A public meeting is to take place at Amersham on 29th January.
§ Earl HOWEMy Lords, I thank the noble Lord for his Answer. Would it not have been more courteous and possibly more helpful if instead of, as I understand, issuing a statement from the Civil Aviation Authority and the appropriate Government Department, consultation had taken place? This would not have enraged the public quite so much as the statement has done. Furthermore, if it is considered unsafe to fly on the present route, I do not see why the same problem does not arise over the proposed new air path, because there the jets will be flying over some 30 schools and colleges and a hospital, which I should have thought would present the same difficulty.
§ Lord WINTERBOTTOMMy Lords, regarding the question of courtesy, it has been said that the same manner of consultation should have been applied to this air route as might have been applied to a motorway. Unfortunately, that is not a correct analogy, for the simple reason that whereas standards of safety on a motorway are not altered by the route chosen, standards of safety on air routes are affected.
After a very long and considered study, this is thought to be the safest way of moving the large number of aircraft involved Northwards from London. For this reason it was decided that there is only one route, and all that the Civil Aviation Authority and the Department 107 of Trade could do was to issue a statement and ask for comments. As a result of the comments which have been received, I am glad to tell the noble Earl that the aircraft will now fly 1,000 feet higher over the area of Amersham and Chesham, which means that they will be one mile high when they pass over that area. That is the first point. At that height they will not cause any major inconvenience to the people living under them. As regards the technical side of safety, I could give an answer, but I am certain your Lordships' House would be bored by it.
§ Lord HARVEY of PRESTBURYMy Lords, while recognising that safety must come first, is it not a fact that the beacons around Greater London are moved from time to time? Would it not be possible for those beacons to be moved at given intervals, sparing the local population some of the inconvenience and spreading the load more evenly?
§ Lord WINTERBOTTOMMy Lords, unfortunately, this is not a simple matter, as it involves airlines other than British ones. Aircraft of all nations are moving in this air space, and for this reason one wants as little change as possible of existing routes, because changes might very well lead to accidents. However, although consultation in the accepted sense is not possible, information has been provided with a view to obtaining the views of people affected and abundant time has been given. I suggest to the noble Earl that perhaps he might attend the meeting at Amersham on the 29th January, and encourage others to do so so that they can hear the whole facts of the situation.
§ Lord LEATHERLANDMy Lords, does my noble friend agree that this re-routing might make it very dangerous indeed to increase considerably the air traffic at Stansted?
§ Lord WINTERBOTTOMNo, my Lords. This planning depends upon the movements at Heathrow and will not affect other airfields. To answer the noble Earl very briefly, the two lines of aircraft would not cross under this new arrangement, as they do at present.
§ Lord CARRINGTONMy Lords, while not condoning the Government's manners, but with the object of seeing that this is not all one-way traffic, may I ask the noble Lord whether he is aware that there are some of us to whom this change of plan will give great relief, and who will welcome it?
§ Earl HOWEMy Lords, is it possible to find some flight path less damaging to the environment than the one which is proposed? Surely in the whole of Buckinghamshire that might be possible.
§ Lord WINTERBOTTOMNo, my Lords. Someone must always be offended.