| Previous Section | Back to Table of Contents | Lords Hansard Home Page |
Lord Rooker: My Lords, the noble Lord's latter point is a fair question, but I am not sure that it is relevant to the issues here. The noble Lord is quite right that as a society we have dined out on the Victorians' infrastructure for too long—not just water but everything else as well—because of a flat refusal to invest. It has to be said—not tongue in cheek—that, since my party vigorously opposed water privatisation, £55 billion has been invested by the water industry, which would not have happened under the previous rules of public ownership.
28 Jun 2006 : Column 1195
Lord Blackwell: My Lords, has the Minister seen the Thames Water advertisement stating that, although the reservoirs were replenished by the rains in May, it is applying for drought orders just in case we have a long, dry summer? If so, does that reflect the Government's advice to the water companies?
Lord Rooker: My Lords, the application for the drought order is precautionary; it will give Thames Water an opportunity to put further restrictions on use, possibly industrial use. If things get really bad, which they are not expected to, it can apply for a special drought order. In some ways this is an issue for the south-east—"uniquely" is probably too strong a word—as the reservoirs in the north-east and the north-west are fine. The major issue is in the south-east, where most of the water comes from bore holes.
Regulation of Investigatory Powers (Communications Data) (Additional Functions and Amendment) Order 2006
Regulation of Investigatory Powers (Directed Surveillance and Covert Human Intelligence Sources) (Amendment) Order 2006
3.31 pm
The Minister of State, Home Office (Baroness Scotland of Asthal): My Lords, I beg to move the two Motions standing in my name on the Order Paper.
Moved, That the draft orders laid before the House on 5 June be approved. [29th Report from the Joint Committee and 37th Report from the Merits Committee] [Considered in Grand Committee on 19 June].—(Baroness Scotland of Asthal.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
Northern Ireland Act 2000 (Modification) (No. 2) Order 2006
Recovery of Health Services Charges (Northern Ireland) Order 2006
The Minister of State, Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Lord Rooker): My Lords, I beg to move the two Motions standing in my name on the Order Paper.
Moved, That the draft orders laid before the House on 24 May be approved. [Considered in Grand Committee on 19 June].—(Lord Rooker.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
28 Jun 2006 : Column 1196
Piped Music and Showing of Television Programmes Bill [HL]
Lord Beaumont of Whitley: My Lords, I beg to move that the Bill be committed to a Committee of the Whole House.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
Civil Aviation Bill
3.32 pm
Lord Davies of Oldham: My Lords, I beg to move that the Commons amendment and reason be now considered.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to. LORDS AMENDMENTS
1 Clause 1, page 1, line 7, leave out "may" and insert "shall"
2 Page 1, line 8, leave out from "in" to "by" and insert "proportion to the noise made by aircraft and"
4 Page 2, line 31, at end insert—
"( ) Charges, in relation to noise, shall be proportional to the noise emitted."
The Commons disagree to these amendments for the following reason—
Because it is not appropriate to require aerodrome authorities to fix their charges in the manner proposed
Lord Davies of Oldham: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do not insist on its Amendments Nos. 1, 2 and 4, to which the Commons have disagreed for their reasons 1A, 2A and 4A.
As I am sure the House will recall, Amendment No. 1 was moved in the belief, which I readily accept is shared by others in this House and indeed in another place, that aerodrome operators would not voluntarily make use of the provisions in the Bill to fix their charges by reference to noise or emissions of aircraft. During proceedings both in this House and in another place the Government have gone to some lengths to explain why they view the situation in a very different light. Although the Government have of course considered most carefully the arguments that have been put forward, I regret that I cannot see a case for imposing a duty on more than140 licensed aerodromes to introduce noise or emission-related charges for all aircraft. Noble Lords will be aware that aerodromes can range in size from London Heathrow to a tiny airport in the Orkneys and Shetland Isles which has very few aircraft movements in any one day. Yet the effect of this legislation would impact on all aerodromes irrespective of their size.
As noble Lords will recall from earlier debates, the power to charge by reference to noise has been available to airports for almost 25 years and many of our larger airports have regard to noise when setting their charges. But one of the key elements of our policy on aircraft noise is that, wherever possible, local
28 Jun 2006 : Column 1197
controls are the best way to manage the local environmental impact of aviation. Imposing a blanket requirement that an airport's charges must be set by reference to noise and emissions would undermine airports' ability to reflect their own local circumstances.
I want to assure the House, once again, that the voluntary approach does not mean that the Government are powerless if an airport were to disregard its responsibilities. The existing Section 38 of the Civil Aviation Act 1982—which was passed, of course, by a previous Administration—already gives the Secretary of State the power to direct specified aerodromes to make use of the charging power as regards noise. This power is to be found—it is now, of course, extended to cover charging by reference to emissions as well—in subsection (4) of new Section 38. No Government, of whatever political complexion, have found it necessary to use this power to date but I can assure the House that if it appeared to Ministers that it would be appropriate to make use of this power to deal with the noise and emissions-related charging practices, or lack of them, of any airport, that is a step that we would take, just as we have said that if there is evidence that a major noise problem at a non-designated airport is not being dealt with adequately through local controls, we will consider designating it for the purposes of Section 78 of the 1982 Act. The House will recognise that, at present, the designated airports are the three London ones of Heathrow, Gatwick and Stansted, but we have the power to bring other airports within the same framework of designation if it should prove to be necessary.
Lord Mawhinney: My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for giving way. Both of us know from our time in the Department for Transport that, for example, Heathrow has ignored the complaints about noise of those who live in the penumbra of the airport, especially noise relating to the early landing of flights. Given the knowledge that he and I have just shared with the House, what makes him think that local control with respect to noise is actually working?
Lord Davies of Oldham: My Lords, Heathrow needs to take its local environment very seriously, particularly in an age when the issue of emissions as well as noise comes very much to the fore. It will be recognised, for instance, that any debate which obtains with regard to expansion at Heathrow and which brings in local pressures about the use of the airport is very much part of the public debate on whether there should be an extension of facilities. This issue, of course, obtains to our other airports, of which Stansted has the most immediate expansion plans.
A balance must be struck between emissions, noise and other unattractive features of airports and the need for some expansion. We cannot deny the obvious fact that our fellow citizens greatly value air flights. In fact, it may even be that many noble Lords from time
28 Jun 2006 : Column 1198
to time avail themselves of aircraft—and I am afraid that aircraft only fly from airports. I will give way again to the noble Lord, of course.
| Next Section | Back to Table of Contents | Lords Hansard Home Page |