Proceeding contribution from Lord Hanningfield (Conservative) in the House of Lords on Wednesday, 8 March 2006. It occurred during Debate on bill on Civil Aviation Bill.
Civil Aviation Bill
My Lords, I can absolutely assure the noble Lord that a future Conservative government will. I want to respond a little to the noble Lord, Lord Clinton-Davis, in relation to something that the Minister said. Of course we believe in less regulation, but in things like noise and pollution emissions there has to be regulation. If we are to have the better environment that we all want, I am afraid that there has to be regulation to achieve that—and we have to have some different ideas and polices. Certainly, the Conservative Party under its current leader is determined to put some of those issues forward. I am putting forward some of them from the Front Bench today. In maintaining the movements limit, we do not inhibit any possible advantages to be gained from a noise quota system. Instead, we simply ensure against its significant disadvantages. As I have argued before, the two mechanisms must be seen as complementing each other. Together they provide the most effective protection for communities living near airports or under flight paths. I beg to move.
Secondary information
- Type
- Proceeding contribution
- Reference
- 679 c772-3
- Session
- 2005-06
- Chamber / Committee
- House of Lords chamber
- Subjects
- Aviation Air pollution Aircraft Airports Air routes Health Fees and charges Licensing Environment Noise National parks Safety
- Legislation
- Civil Aviation Bill 2005-06
- Link
- View this Proceeding contribution on www.publications.parliament.uk
Librarians' tools
- Timestamp
- 2024-01-26 17:41:01 +0000
- URI
- http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_306302
- In Indexing
- http://indexing.parliament.uk/Content/Edit/1?uri=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_306302
- In Solr
- https://search.parliament.uk/claw/solr/?id=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_306302