---

Civil Aviation Bill

I have not got that information to hand, but I will write to my hon. Friend following the debate. The study of how people would price nuisance from aircraft noise is designed to improve our understanding of the value that people give to relief from noise. We expect that the study, which has been guided by the steering group of a wide range of interests including environmental organisations who are represented, to be completed by about the middle of the year. The work is divided into two phases. Phase 1 has now been completed and has developed a stated preference methodology by carrying out a number of pilot surveys—[Hon. Members: ““You can stop now.””] I think that hon. Members will bear with me a few more moments, because there are other issues to discuss. Phase 2, which is the main survey and has recently been completed, applies the methodology and is reassessing the validity of the Leq family of noise indices as a proxy for relative community annoyance. I know that the hon. Member for Windsor has a particular interest in that aspect of aircraft noise. Finally, the hon. Gentleman referred to the Government writing to Members in support of the Lords amendments. The Government did not write to support the Lords amendments to abolish clause 2, but we did write at that time about tabling an amendment in the Lords to explain the clause. I thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, for your forbearance and urge the House to reject the Lords amendments. Question put, That this House disagrees with the Lords in the said amendment:— Lords amendment disagreed to. Lords amendment: No. 6.