---

Civil Aviation Bill

My Lords, I beg to move that the House do not insist on its Amendments Nos. 5 and 11 and do agree to Amendment No. 11A proposed by the Commons in lieu. We have covered this ground many times during our debates on the Bill. I shall therefore be brief. As the House will recall, Clause 2 makes amendments to Section 78 of the Civil Aviation Act 1982. That section enables the Secretary of State to take steps to limit or mitigate the effect of noise and vibration connected with the taking off or landing of aircraft at designated airports. The current legislation—Section 78(3) of the 1982 Act—does not require operating restrictions. If partial restrictions are set for this purpose, they must be in the form of a numerical limit on movements by aircraft of the types that it is intended to restrict. At present, the night flying restrictions at the designated airports—Heathrow, Gatwick and Stansted—comprise a numerical movements limit and a noise quota set for each summer and winter season. The noise quota is a supplementary measure designed to encourage the use of quieter aircraft. That is the structure of the regime that will apply at those airports from October 2006 to October 2012, as my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Transport announced on 6 June 2006. In the White Paper, The Future of Air Transport, which was published following consultation on our long-standing aircraft noise ban, the Government said that they would amend the current legislation so that operating restrictions could in future be set on a different basis—for example, one more directly related to the noise nuisance caused. That is exactly what Clause 2 set out to achieve. Amendment No. 5 removed subsection 2 of that clause and removed the requirement on the Secretary of State to set a movements limit as part of any operating restriction limiting aircraft noise at a designated airport. The Secretary of State would not be prevented from continuing to set movement limits, but could consider additional alternatives; for instance if they proved a more effective incentive to use quieter aircraft. In proposing Clause 2 we were not seeking to reduce restrictions. We were seeking to make the restrictions more appropriate to the challenge that we face. The Secretary of State could, for example, impose a restriction in the form of noise quotas or a limiting noise contour area without specifying a maximum number of movements. I emphasise that our intention in bringing forward Clause 2 was not, and never has been, to prevent Governments setting stringent controls on night flying at airports. It has been suggested by opposition parties that we are seeking to remove a statutory cap on movements. As I mentioned, the legislation does not impose an obligation to set operating restrictions. It is therefore misleading and inaccurate to suggest that we are planning to remove any restrictions. The suggestion that the Government intend to relax restrictions must be seen in the context of our recent announcement on night flights at Heathrow, Gatwick and Stansted, which did not provide for any relaxation of current limits and tightened a number of controls. The Government intend to act over the next six years without any suggestion of relaxation. That demonstrates our commitment to the effective management of noise impacts. We do not think that the Opposition have any basis on which to sustain the claim, voiced on a number of occasions, that we are manoeuvring to allow a significant increase in night flights. I hope the announcement on 6 June that the night flight restrictions will apply at Heathrow, Gatwick and Stansted until October 2012 will put an end to the equally groundless accusations that the Government intend to ignore the basis on which they consulted and bring in a new restrictions regime on a totally different basis once these provisions receive Royal Assent. That is not our intention, and that is not what the Bill provides. We understand the value of movement limits to residents presently around the designated airports. That is why we have announced that they should continue to be set as part of the next regime. But movement limits alone are a pretty blunt instrument, as they would not directly control the amount of noise permitted at night. Neither could they affect the types of aircraft used at night, because as long as the aircraft meet the numbers, it is immaterial what kind of aircraft they are. That is why noise quotas are set alongside the movement limits at present to drive the use of the quietest aircraft available. That is why we are concerned to emphasise that part of the policy.