---

Civil Aviation Bill

It is unfounded. I intend to develop the argument which establishes that point. I am grateful to my noble friend for that; I had seen that representation. We receive a plethora of representations in the department so he will not be surprised that I was not going to address any particular one. Some have greater wisdom attached to them than others. I am happy to concur broadly with my noble friend’s remarks. We foresee that after 2012 any government will be greatly exercised about this issue and will require the necessary legislation, which will deal with the representation raised by my noble friend with regard to Windsor and Maidenhead. We are concerned about the effectiveness of the regime—there is no hidden agenda. We are obliged to consult, and all future governments will be bound by the European legislation which implements the directive in UK law. That requires us to set out our proposals, the reasons behind them and our assessment of their impacts, and to consult interested parties when considering a decision on noise-related operating restrictions at an airport. We must also allow a reasonable time for consultees’ opinions to be taken into account before reaching a decision. Further to the point made by my noble friend Lord Clinton-Davis, that scarcely looks like a hidden exercise or a closed agenda. This measure will give stakeholders, including the airline operators and local residents, the opportunity to make representations on the specific details of how the government of the time propose to apply the noise-control powers available to them. The requirement for the government to consult applies to all noise-related operating restrictions made at the designated airports. Therefore, I appreciate the intention behind Amendment No. 10 tabled by my noble friend Lord Clinton-Davis, but I hope that he will accept the assurance that there is no need to place in the legislation a requirement for the Secretary of State to consult because we are obliged to do that under existing legal requirements. He asked me about that point blank when he spoke to his Amendment No. 10, which I hope he will not press. My noble friend also spoke to Amendment No. 12, which would require the Secretary of State to provide notice of operating restrictions made using his powers under Section 78 and to ensure that he had regard to all relevant considerations in deciding on those restrictions. I can also give him categorical reassurance on that point. The Government do not believe that it is necessary to include a requirement for a review of noise-mitigation measures—the burden of Amendment No. 47 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Hanningfield. We undertake an ongoing programme of policy development and evaluation, research and regulatory impact assessment. It will be for Ministers at the time of a future consultation to decide on the evidence base that they need for their proposals. But, as I indicated to the noble Lord, as they will be involved in an entirely open consultative exercise, the kind of consideration built into his amendment will, perforce, obtain by any government who wish to sustain public confidence in any action. I give way.