---

Civil Aviation Bill

It gives me the most inordinate pleasure to pronounce the word ““logarithm”” for the first time for more than 40 years. Such is the cultural limitation of those of us on the arts side of the House, spent too much of our time in politics and not talking to scientists, such as the noble Countess, Lady Mar, who I see in her place, who told me long since of the advantages of such knowledge. I just about understand what the noble Lord is pressing for, and he is correct in stating that the A-weighted decibel scale used to measure sound energy is logarithmic.  However, I do not agree with him that airports which establish a noise control scheme should therefore be required to charge penalties on a similar scale. Where we are in agreement is that it would be reasonable for an airport to set a penalty scale for breaches of the noise control scheme that was proportionate to the degree of nuisance caused by a breach. I also suggest that an airport might wish to be able to set penalties that recognised the frequency with which an aircraft operator made breaches, so that persistent offenders were given an additional incentive to mend their ways. These principles are already reflected in the penalty charges made by airports that run such schemes. But the Government believe that decisions on these penalties should be for the airport concerned, as they will be closely linked to the aspects of the noise control scheme that the airport sets up to address the effects of its operations on its locality. The powers of airports to set up noise control measures under Clause 4 do not extend solely to measures such as a noise limit—which was the burden of the noble Lord’s remarks—when the degree of excess can be measured. Clause 4 also permits the enforcement of operating procedures, such as observance of noise preferential routes, or continuous descent approach. In such cases, where it might be difficult to assess the effect of a degree of non-compliance with the procedures or to do so in non-noise specific terms, such as distance, penalties that recognised the frequency with which breaches were made would be much more relevant than the actual count of the breach itself. I understand the noble Lord’s attempt at greater precision and therefore more effective enforcement, but the amendment would actually limit the bad procedures that operators were pursuing, which the airport would be able to penalise. For that reason, I ask him to think that he has made a good try but has not hit the objectives that both he and I share.