---

Civil Aviation Bill

My Lords, I thank all those who have taken part and, indeed, the Minister. The noble Lord, Lord Clinton-Davis, threw out a challenge about inefficient aircraft. My response to him is that, under the Government’s proposals, there is more chance of inefficient and hence more polluting aircraft being used than under the amendment that we are discussing. I thank the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh of Hudnall, for her support. I agree that we should take this issue more seriously. I was amused to think that she is a NISEBY, which means ““not in somebody else’s backyard””. The noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, was to my mind certainly right when he said that a voluntary scheme becomes a form of self-denying ordinance, particularly on a new airport. He also raised the issue of economics versus pollution. I agree that if we are serious, for example about rail substitution for domestic airlines, then this amendment will definitely help. At the end of the day, this amendment is an argument about ““may”” and ““shall””. I cannot see terribly much compromise between the two and I think that the House will be quite glad to know that I wish to test its opinion. On Question, Whether the said Motion (A1), as an amendment to Motion A, shall be agreed to? Their Lordships divided: Contents, 178; Not-Contents, 150. On Question, Motion A, as amended, agreed to. 5   Clause 2, page 2, line 41, leave out subsection (2) 11   Clause 13, page 12, line 25, at end insert— ““(   )   But an order under subsection (2) may not provide for subsections (2) and (3) of section 2 to come into force before 1st June 2012.”” 11A   The Commons disagree to Lords Amendments Nos. 5 and 11, but propose Amendment No. 11A in lieu— Page 12, line 25, at end insert— ““(3A)   But an order under subsection (2) may not provide for subsections (2) to (4) of section 2 to come into force before 1st June 2012.””