---

Lord Lucas: Yes, that entirely answers the first part. I tabled the amendment in the main to listen to the noble Baroness's reply. I will think on it, but I cannot think of any practical way of taking it forward. However, I should be grateful for a reply on subsection (2). The Minister raised that in her letter to me and implied that the countryside ought to be full of notices excluding liability for slipping down slopes, of which there are plenty of precipitous ones surrounding me. It is ridiculous that landowners should be liable if people
 
15 Dec 2005 : Column GC243
 
are injured as a result of taking exceptionally obvious risks—risks that cannot be removed by the landowner in any sensible way.

Baroness Ashton of Upholland: I am sorry I did not address that part effectively. On children, for instance, a child is necessarily involved in the activity and risks are involved. The child has undertaken to do that activity and in my view the notice should not be sufficient in all cases. In some cases, it might be, just as a verbal warning to say, "Don't run down that pathway because it's dangerous", might be sufficient, but it might not be in the particular circumstances. That was my difficulty with that element.

I am not sure that I could have read out to the noble Lord, "It does it for me and never mind the noble Lord", so perhaps I may come back to him in writing on the point. He explained it in his earlier remarks and subsequently and I need to look at it again. However, my main thrust is to be clear that for people engaged in such activities, yes, there is risk but would we, by
 
15 Dec 2005 : Column GC244
 
including this provision, be saying that there were mitigating factors, meaning that the courts could not look across the whole range of circumstances? We need to look at that issue.

Lord Lucas: I am grateful to the Minister for that reply. We are down to subsection (2) which does not involve circumstances in which notices are required to transfer the risk. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Baroness Ashton of Upholland: This may be a convenient moment for the Committee to adjourn until Tuesday at 2 pm.

The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Brougham and Vaux): The Committee stands adjourned until Tuesday next.

The Committee adjourned at two minutes before six o'clock.

Written Statements

Thursday 15 December 2005

 
15 Dec 2005 : Column WS137
 

Air Transport: Night Flying Restrictions

Lord Davies of Oldham: My honourable friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Karen Buck) has made the following Ministerial Statement.

On 10 June 2005 I launched stage 2 of a two-stage consultation process about setting the night restrictions regime at Heathrow, Gatwick and Stansted to run to October 2012. The consultation paper explained that we intended to continue the present night restrictions regime for a further year from 30 October 2005 until 29 October 2006.

We stated that, during that year the current regime should continue unchanged. The consultation document then invited comment on whether the specific movements limits and noise quotas to apply for summer 2006 should be the same as those for summer 2005. I also announced that the movements limits and noise quotas for winter 2005–06 should remain the same as those for winter 2004–05.

After careful consideration of the responses on this subject to the stage 2 consultation on night flying restrictions which we launched in June, we have concluded that the movements limits and noise quotas for the summer season 2006 should be the same as for summer 2005.

The reasons for adopting this approach remain as set out in the consultation paper and were not disputed by those responding to the consultation.

We are continuing to consider carefully the full responses on the other issues outlined in the recent consultation exercise and will make an announcement in due course on the night restrictions regime to apply from 29 October 2006.

The consultation also invited comment on a range of issues including the length of the night quota period (currently 11.30 pm until 6 am), the specific movements limits and noise quotas, proposals for environmental objectives and specific noise abatement objectives and possible noise insulation schemes or criteria in respect of night disturbance.

Although there was relatively little comment on the specific point about the summer 2006 movements limits and noise quotas, there has been a greater response about other issues raised in the consultation. We are continuing to analyse those responses and carry out the associated assessments including a full regulatory impact assessment.

Air Transport: Regional Access to London

Lord Davies of Oldham: My right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Transport (Alistair Darling) has made the following Ministerial Statement.
 
15 Dec 2005 : Column WS138
 

The Government have today published guidance on the Protection of Regional Air Access to London, copies have been placed in the Libraries of the House. This guidance was foreshadowed in The Future of Air Transport White Paper (December 2003) and follows extensive consultation with stakeholders.

The aim of the guidance is to clarify how the Government will interpret the criteria in the relevant European Regulation (EC 2408/92) when assessing applications for public service obligations (PSOs) to protect existing regional air services to London. A more precise definition of the criteria will provide a firmer basis for the discussion of individual cases with both airlines and regional bodies.

The Future of Air Transport White Paper recognised the concern of regional stakeholders about the availability of landing and take-off slots at major London airports. It stated that the Government were prepared to intervene in well defined circumstances to protect slots at the London airports for regional services through imposing PSOs. Where services already exist from UK regional airports to London (defined as City, Gatwick, Heathrow, Luton and Stansted airports), this intervention would guarantee a minimum level of scheduled air services on these routes.

The criteria for PSO imposition are set out, but not precisely defined in EC Regulation 2408/92. In 2004, the Government consulted on interpretations of these criteria and the agreed definitions are set out in the guidance. The Government consider that in order to justify intervention in the market, a PSO application must illustrate the benefits to the regional and national economy that would otherwise be lost if a service was withdrawn. It will be the responsibility of regional bodies to make a case for a PSO against the criteria. In order to assist regional bodies in assembling the evidence required to demonstrate wider benefits, the guidance contains an annex which provides a common methodology for assessing the economic benefits of maintaining an adequate air service to London, so as to ensure transparency and comparability.

Final judgment on the eligibility of a route for PSO imposition rests with me, as Secretary of State for Transport, and would be based on the merits of each case set against the criteria in Regulation 2408/92. If an application is supported, the department would notify the European Commission and air carriers operating the route, and a PSO would be imposed to the extent necessary to ensure on that route the adequate provision of scheduled air services satisfying fixed standards of continuity, regularity, capacity and pricing. After a PSO has been imposed on a route, European law (Regulation 95/93 as amended) allows member states to reserve slots at airports on that route so that an airline cannot use them for a service to an alternative destination. The reservation of slots is at the discretion of the member state and can take place only at airports designated as "co-ordinated", which in London are Heathrow, Gatwick and Stansted.
 
15 Dec 2005 : Column WS139
 

The Government think it unlikely that the imposition of a PSO on a route to London would require subsidy. All regional routes to London are currently commercially viable. Should subsidy be required, however, it would be the responsibility of the relevant regional body to reimburse the department for these funds. PSOs will be reviewed every three years to ensure that their imposition is still appropriate and the obligations set out are being met.

In addition to clarifying the interpretation of the European regulation, the guidance also supports a voluntary early warning system for airlines operating regional routes to London. This invites airlines to provide as much notice as possible, preferably at least four months, of their intention to withdraw from, or reduce services on routes to London. While I recognise that airlines operate within a competitive commercial environment, I believe that the early warning system strikes a good balance between the need to maintain an adequate level of regional services to London, and limiting government intervention in the market. The system offers regional partners together with the Government the time and opportunity to explore all potential solutions to ensure continuity of regional services into London.

---