 Adam
Afriyie
MP
|
MP Helps Win
Heathrow Flight Limit
12-Oct-06, Press Release.
The government has agreed to reinstate the limit
on flights at Heathrow in the Civil Aviation Bill
debated this week.
Windsor MP Adam Afriyie made a robust argument and
impassioned plea for the explicit limit on flight numbers to
remain in place beyond 2012 during recent debates.
The Parliamentary under Secretary of State for Transport,
Gillian Merron MP has confirmed that the Government will no
longer seek to remove the existing aircraft movements limit
and this signals a major retreat following pressure from MPs
and the Lords’ refusal to back down.
Adam Afriyie commented:
“I am relieved that the government has finally conceded
this key point.
“It was a sneaky part of the Bill and I, and other
responsible colleagues and Lords, were forceful in arguing
the point at length during debate.
“My thanks to The Royal Borough or Windsor and
Maidenhead, local councillors, fellow MPs and campaigners
who have all been working hard to achieve this result.
“This is a great victory for local residents and HACAN
who have been campaigning so hard with me to keep the
explicit limit on flights in place.”
ENDS
Contact Details: Telephone: 0207 219 8023 Email: afriyiea@parliament.uk
Editors Notes
Full text of Adam Afriyie’s speech in House of Commons
debate on Civil Aviation Bill from Monday 8th May 2006:
“As I am the Member of Parliament for Windsor, thousands
of my constituents live under flight paths, which is also
true of many other hon. Members, and as a member of the
Standing Committee that scrutinised the Bill, I am aware of
the sleight of hand contained in the legislation. As an
advocate of reasonable measures to protect the environment
for people living under flight paths and close to airports,
I am pleased to speak in favour of Lords amendment No. 5. I
am also pleased to have the chance to speak against
Government amendment (a), which is not only illogical, but
sneaky, unworkable and underhand; it seeks to remove
protections and open up the night skies to a flight bonanza.
Let us be clear that the frequency of noisy flights ruins
the sleep of residents. The economic benefit associated with
the use of airports for business activity is certainly
desirable, and if air traffic needs to expand, perhaps we
can allow for it in the long term with quieter aircraft,
provided that air quality is kept within tight limits and
access to airports is available. However, it is a sobering
thought that our tourists spend £16 billion more abroad than
incoming tourists spend visiting the UK, which is perhaps an
issue for the Chancellor of the Exchequer.
The Civil Aviation Act 1982 empowered the Secretary of
State to limit the number of flights at designated airports.
A straightforward limit on the number of flights is easily
understood by everyone; for example, 16 flights are
currently allowed at Heathrow during the night period and,
despite the disturbance, affected residents know what that
limit means. If the noise associated with a particular
flight is louder than 90 dB on the ground, people are likely
to be rudely awakened. It is the noise created by individual
aircraft combined with the number of flights during the
night that disturbs residents' sleep.
Government amendment (a) is strange. It proposes that at
some future point the noise made by individual aircraft and
the number of flights during the course of the night will be
ignored. Instead, the Government want to rely on a
complicated scheme based on average noise levels during a
night period. Average noise levels have never woken anyone,
because it is the absolute noise and frequency of flights
that disturbs people. We must ask ourselves why the
Government propose to scupper Lords amendments Nos. 5 and
11, which are sensible. Let us take a quick look at how the
Government's scheme will operate. The night noise quota
scheme ranks aircraft types according to their noisiness on
take-off and approach for landing. For example, if the noise
is above 101.9 dB, the quota count for that aircraft is
assigned as 16. If the noise is between 99 dB and 101.9 dB,
the quota count for that aircraft is halved and becomes
eight—the scale is exponential. If the noise is between 96
dB and 98.9 dB, the quota count for that aircraft is halved
again to four. The quota count continues until the noise
level falls below 90 dB, when the aircraft is assigned a
quota count of a half—I hope that hon. Members are still
with me. The Secretary of State then sets a limit on the
total quota count points for the average across a season or
a night period, which translates into a number of flights.
If we were to use the pure quota count system that the
Government are seeking to introduce today, twice as many
flights would be allowed at night with planes rated at 95 dB
than with planes rated at 96 dB. The system is complicated,
and complicated systems are often designed to hide simple
truths.
Why have the Government introduced an amendment to remove
the flight limit, after indicating in writing to many hon.
Members that they would support the Lords amendment? There
is only one explanation, and I have heard no other so far:
the Government want to allow an increase in the number of
flights at night. As I have said, they have argued that the
measure will not be introduced until 2012, but hon. Members
should not be deceived. That is not a concession, because
the arrangements until 2012 will be announced in the next
week or so, and it is simply not possible for the Government
to change that agreement before 2012. The Government are
trying to appear reasonable by making a semi-concession,
when they are in fact behaving completely unreasonably—it is
a phantom concession.”. |
I
believe
People are happier
when making their own decisions.
Business is the
engine of the economy that generates our jobs, incomes and
taxes.
Government should
not interfere in our lives beyond protecting and defending
us.
|
