Don't let money rule skies

My attitude to aircraft noise was once simple. If you do not like it, do not live next to an airport. If someone builds an airport on your doorstep, sue for compensation and get out. Airplanes are lovely for flying, but ghastly for listening.

This week the citizens of Heathrow, who have long disregarded my maxim, were told by a group of European judges in Strasbourg that they had no "human right" to a night's sleep.

Supported by Hounslow, Richmond and Wandsworth councils, they had sued the Government over its concession of 16 flights, mostly by British Airways, at Heathrow between 4.30 and 6.00 in the morning. They point out that, once woken, they cannot get back to sleep. Their life is hell.

These residents have long been treated by the Department of Transport as mere ants beneath the steamroller of economic growth. They were denied a suspension of the flights by the British courts and took their case to the European Court of Human Rights at Strasbourg - bizarre though a "right" to a night's sleep might seem. In a celebrated ruling in 2001, they won. They cheered.

They had reckoned without New Labour. The Government went back to the European Court and demanded it change its mind. The night flights were alleged to generate a fantastic £240 million in "annual profits", an absurd figure but one that hugely impressed the European judges.

They gasped, rolled over on their backs and capitulated. Justice, not to mention human rights, must take second place to such quantities of cash.

At this point I start to change sides. Yes, light sleepers should not live near airports. But a million citizens across west London now suffer the noise of these jets, at a time when it is reasonable to assume that noise should be suppressed.

If I race an unsilenced motorbike up and down my street at four in the morning, the police will rightly stop me. All I need do now, presumably, is prove that my motorbike noise earns me oodles of money, the law being applied equally to the highest and lowest in the land.

The rights of minorities have always had to be set against the wider public interest. That is true of the siting of prisons, the erecting of pylons and the banning of speedboats on canals. Cities need airports and airports make noise. In extremis, this even applies to aircraft noise.

We are not in extremis. I recall the evolution of the Heathrow dispute. Each expansion is "the last". West Londoners were told at the time of the Terminal Five debate that it was the only alternative to night flights and to a third runway. By both insisting on night flights and now suggesting a third runway, the Government has broken two promises. It may consider itself not bound by promises of its predecessors, but in that case a government's word is worthless.

The Heathrow ruling is based on a nonsense, that night flights are "vital" for British jobs and British prosperity. The congestion of airports in the South-East of England is caused by one phenomenon alone: the explosion of cheap flights caused by the government policy of cheap air travel. This travel is not business but overwhelmingly second, third and fourth holidays a year taken by British citizens abroad.

Aviation fuel bears no tax and air flights no VAT, with only a small air passenger duty brought in by the Tories. As a result, a litre of car petrol costs roughly 80p and of aviation fuel roughly 20p.

This, and the Government's high rail fares policy, means that a holidaymaker can get to Spain for £20-£30, far less than a train ticket to any British seaside resort. To claim that maintaining this disparity is "vital for the jobs and prosperity of Britain" is barking mad.

It must do far greater damage to the domestic tourist industry than it benefits British Airways. Are there no economists working in Whitehall these days? The Transport Secretary, Alistair Darling, is now working as unpaid lobbyist for the British Airports Authority (BAA) and BA.

He is widely regarded as putty in their hands, arguing for private profit over human rights or environmental standards in a court of law. His favouritism to the airlines has naturally resulted in a boom in air travel and led to intense airport congestion.

His only response is to "predict and provide" more runways, especially round London. He would not dream of restricting demand, in airlines any more than on the roads.

Mr Darling argued at Strasbourg that night flights were needed because businessmen would otherwise go elsewhere. This is like BAA's claim that ending European duty-free would "cost 30,000 jobs and raise holiday prices by 20 per cent", a prediction that was pure drivel.

Other cities, such as Amsterdam, currently ban night flights. They are awaiting the outcome of the Heathrow decision to break that ban.

There will now be a flood of competitive night flying across Europe. Rather than co-ordinate a Europe-wide respect for nocturnal peace, the British Government is seeking a short-term competitive advantage, allowed by law, which will soon be eliminated. Mr Darling will then argue for flights earlier than 4.30am.

Worse even than this decision is the principle that underpins it. That principle is that the London environment is now susceptible to any interest group which can argue a big enough profit and lobby a sufficiently malleable minister.

On this basis I could demand the right to land helicopters on platforms in the Thames, to build villas for tycoons in Hyde Park or extend suburban estates into any part of London's green belt.

This is a stupid government not thinking through the consequence of its decisions. To Mr Darling the residents of Heathrow are like the peasants the Russian government recently cleared around St Petersburg airport.

At least that clearance was to create a better environment. Mr Darling is out to create a worse one.