---

Civil Aviation Bill

I have several significant points to reply to on this very important debate. If the Committee will allow me—I was going to say ““I shall demolish the canard”” but I suppose you shoot canard—I shall destroy the canard that we are changing things from the present position in the period up to 2012. We are not. We have undertaken consultation on the regime that runs from 2006 to 2012. We are committed to not changing those arrangements, so anything in this Bill does not apply to the current regime. Any change that would affect it will come into being after that period. I sought to make that clear at Second Reading, but it is worth reiterating it today so that we can concentrate on dealing with formidably significant issues which relate to the longer-term future—not too long in airport and aircraft terms, but long enough for us to be fully involved, to consult as necessary and to get the position right. We should take the opportunity to clarify our powers to control aircraft noise at the designated airports. Our intention to legislate in this way was announced in the White Paper The Future of Air Transport. At the same time, we said that that did not signal any intention to make controls less stringent. That remains the case. It is clear to us, and every Member who has contributed to the debate today and at Second Reading emphasised, that tight controls on night flying will still be needed. The issue is what kind of controls. In the Bill, we are seeking a future definition of such controls. The changes that the Bill would make in no way prevent movement limits being set in future. They just permit different approaches. We want different approaches because we think that different approaches will be more effective. We do not want to dilute or weaken but to render more effective the way in which we regulate night flights. The Government have no immediate plans to change the way in which they currently set restrictions. The period up to 2012 is clearly set. We recently consulted on it and we do not intend to renege on that. I reiterate that point. I also emphasise that if a future government established a night restriction regime that controlled noise by noise quota alone, which has been the burden of several contributions to the debate, that would not necessarily result in a dramatic increase in night flying as planes become quieter. It would be open to that government to lower the quota count accordingly, perhaps so that, with the quietest planes flying, no more movements would be made available than had been the case previously. We are taking into account new technology. All past experience shows us, and all pressures are being exerted to ensure, that new technology improves the quietness of aircraft. We then need the flexibility to consider what that means in terms of movements. The noise quota will limit the number of operations that can take place during the night quota period, even if there are no explicit movement limits; for example, airlines using noisier aircraft would use up the allocation of the noise quota more quickly than quieter aircraft. Therefore, an even lower number of operations could take place. In other words, it would provide a very strong incentive for airlines to use the very quietest aircraft, which must be what we all wish to see develop in the future. A movements limit is a less targeted method of setting controls at night as it has no influence on the type of aircraft operating. Although I appreciate that the advantage of considering movements gives a degree of certainty to local stakeholders because people can monitor the situation more effectively, a future government would have to carry out a full public consultation on any future night-flying regimes that came into operation after 2012. There has been a long-standing convention to hold full public consultation on proposed restrictions. Of course, how could it be otherwise? We are all too well aware of the salience of the issue for those who live near airports.