---

Civil Aviation Bill

I do not think that that is the case, but I will confirm the correct position to the hon. and learned Gentleman. I hope that my explanation of the Government’s thinking behind making the provision a power, rather than a duty, will convince hon. Members to disagree with the Lords in Lords amendment No. 1. Lords amendments Nos. 2 and 4 would affect the way in which the charges should be set. Although the Government agree that it is reasonable that airport operators should be expected to set noise charges that are proportionate, we do not agree that that is something that needs to be provided for in the Bill. Airports have been making use of the power to set noise-related charges for more than 20 years and there has been no suggestion that they have not done so in an appropriate or proportionate way. However, if there is a problem with the charging scheme, the Secretary of State will have the power that I mentioned to direct an airport operator regarding the manner in which its charges are to be fixed. The airport should be subject to the control scheme that it sets up to address the effects of its operations on the locality. There areother considerations on airport charging, such as international guidance that noise-related charges should be non-discriminatory between users and should not be established at levels that are prohibitively high for the operation of certain aircraft. Again, we did not think it necessary to make those considerations statutory requirements. The existing provisions function well, and they do not need to be altered in any way. Lords amendment No. 3 is a minor technical amendment to clarify the provisions of clause 1, which inserts a new section 38 into the 1982 Act. New subsection (3) defines noise and emissions requirements. The amendment simply ensures that cross-reference is made to mention of those requirements in both subsections (1)(d) and (2)(d), rather than solely to subsection (1)(d).