---

Civil Aviation Bill

I am grateful to Members of the Committee who have spoken, especially my noble friend who introduced the amendment constructively and said that it was probing. I shall try to give him as positive a response as I can to his probe, but I ask him to withdraw the amendment at the conclusion of this short debate. Of course, I accept the general proposition voiced from the two Opposition Front Benches in support of my noble friend that airport noise is a significant issue and I recognise the concern for those so affected. However, it is only fair to point out that there has been considerable improvement in the environment around many of our airports in recent years, a reflection of the new and quieter aircraft technologies that have been introduced. My noble friend will recognise that many people have moved into the vicinity of airports in recent years, with the full knowledge that the airport is there, active and presents that problem. Many people move into properties that have benefited from previous insulation when the noise levels were higher, so the requirement for insulation was greater. However, I recognise the good faith with which my noble friend has identified an issue that is important to the Bill and I am grateful for the chance to respond to the amendment. Ultimately, the Secretary of State already has the power to require individual airports to provide acoustic insulation using his powers under Section 79 of the Civil Aviation Act 1982 and he has designated both London Heathrow, to which my noble friend made particular reference, and Gatwick airports for that purpose in the past. Currently, however, those insulation schemes are provided on a voluntary basis by airports—sometimes supported by local planning agreements. On the whole, we want that framework to continue. Where agreement is arrived at locally and that can be done voluntarily, it is not for the heavy hand of the Secretary of State—not that my right honourable friend ever uses a heavy hand, but a hand that may be identified as heavy—to be employed. That was stated clearly in the White Paper, The Future of Air Transport. We wish to see specific measures adopted, either as an adaptation of existing schemes or when new schemes are brought forward, and we need to be assured that they are fit for purpose. The Government are well aware of the desirability of noise mitigation for sensitive buildings such as hospitals and hospices. My noble friend also identified the issue of schools and the question of education. Those factors are already taken into account in forming our policy on aircraft noise. That is why we expect aircraft operators to offer households that are subject to a high level of noise, under the 69 decibel measure, assistance with the costs of relocating, and offer the acoustic insulation that applies to residential properties to other noise-sensitive buildings, such as schools and hospitals, that are exposed to medium or high levels of noise of more than 63 decibels. My noble friend has assembled an impressive list of such buildings in the amendment, but he would probably say that that list was by no means exhaustive. We have also suggested that the airports where such criteria may bite may wish to begin noise contouring to check their current noise levels, when they do not already do that, so that they can apply the criteria accurately. As airports develop, we expect them to offer to purchase those properties that suffer from both a high level of noise above 69 decibels and a large increase in noise, and offer acoustic insulation to any residential property that suffers both from a medium to high level of noise and a large increase in noise. We are all aware that we need the duel measure which takes into account both the impact of the single event, as it were, and the accumulation factor. These more generous provisions recognise that residents in such areas may have chosen to live there because they did not expect such development to take place. All Members of the Committee will recognise the reasonableness of making a distinction between those who have lived there and could not have anticipated such a development and those who move in fully aware of the airport’s development. It is also possible that appropriate planning conditions may be imposed where it has been necessary for an airport to seek planning permission for its expansion. The British Airports Authority is taking forward these policies with regard to both existing noise and their plans for future growth. Of course there will be well-articulated and identified anxieties about airport expansion and the relationship between airports and their local communities, but I want to reiterate a theme that I have tried to develop in other aspects of the Bill when we have considered such issues. Airports want to be able to co-exist effectively with their local communities. It is in their interests. That is why, when we discussed consultation measure in earlier amendments, I was seeking to stress the extent to which we expect airport operators to take full account of the interests of those who live and work adjoining any airport. The requirements are minimal, and airports may decide that they wish to offer more generous insulation, particularly in relation to the important issue of night noise, which was emphasised by my noble friend Lord Berkeley. As regards the designated airports, the Government’s recent consultation on applying night-flying restrictions at Heathrow, Gatwick and Stansted included proposals for a noise insulation scheme, so I reassure the noble Lord, Lord Bradshaw, that noise insulation schemes are integral to the issues surrounding night flying. Among the proposals was a provisional proposal that the insulation scheme criteria should apply to non-domestic buildings where people sleep on most nights, covering buildings such as hospices, nursing homes and hospitals. I am confident that the airports will meet the Government’s criteria on a voluntary basis, but I assure the Committee that, if necessary, we would use our statutory powers to ensure that appropriate insulation schemes are introduced. I hope that I have indicated to my noble friend that he has highlighted, as have others in relation to other parts of the Bill, the importance of the noise factor to people who live and work close to airports, but I hope that he will recognise that we have a comprehensive set of policies in place to deal with noise insulation across a wide range of buildings—wider than he has been able to identify in his amendment, comprehensive though that is, and I applaud his diligence and his work in that area. We have a power of enforcement which we will use if voluntary measures do not prove sufficient. I hope that he feels reassured on that point and is therefore prepared to withdraw his amendment.