---

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."

Lord Davies of Oldham: 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
 
28 Jun 2006 : Column 1209
 
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.

Lord Clinton-Davis: My Lords, have not the Government taken action for the long term at the WHO? The situation which the Minister described has to be tackled at an international level. Should not the Government be complimented on doing that?

Lord Davies of Oldham: My Lords, the Government certainly take pride in the initiative that they are taking
 
28 Jun 2006 : Column 1210
 
internationally. As the whole House will recognise, there is a limit to what UK legislation can achieve regarding travel that is intrinsically international. As I mentioned in our previous debate, our major airports are in competition not only with each other but with airports in Europe. International action is what is required, and I am glad to take the point that my noble friend has made.

It will be for a future Secretary of State to consider any changes to the basis on which night-flying restrictions are set after October 2012 and, in doing so, to choose to make use of the more flexible provisions that we are seeking to bring in. Any changes that we propose as a result will of course be subject to the fullest public consultation, and the eventual decisions on both the structure of the regime and the actual limit set will need to win public support and be reasonable. There is nothing in the current legislative powers, which Amendment No. 5 seeks to preserve, to prevent a future Secretary of State setting movement limits as high as he pleases or even deciding not to use these powers at all. So any suggestion that Amendment No. 5 offers some defence guarantee that goes beyond what the Government are offering at the moment is a misconception.

Baroness Tonge: My Lords—

Lord Evans of Temple Guiting: My Lords, it would be sensible for the Minister to finish his statement. Then we can have a debate on it. Thank you.

Lord Davies of Oldham: My Lords, I was about to emphasise that it is not the legislation that counts but the policy decision in the exercise of the existing legal powers which determine the effect of the restrictions on the ground. The provisions in Clause 2 would do absolutely nothing to increase night-flying limits or to make the night noise around airports worse. We believe that they would prove useful in the future in allowing limits to be set in different ways and not only on aircraft movements, but if the policy choice was a continuation of current policy, then they could be.

Amendment No. 11 changes the commencement provisions and prevents the relevant changes in the existing legislation being brought into force before June 2012. This has given additional legal force to the commitment that I already mentioned. In other words, we have said that there will be no change to our policy of setting night-time limits on both aircraft movements and noise quotas at each airport before 2012. Amendment No. 11A, which has been offered in lieu, will correct the numbering of the provisions in Clause 2, which cannot be commenced before June 2012. Therefore, Amendment No. 11A gives effect to the commitment that the Government announced two months ago.

The Government seek to continue a balanced approach to controlling and mitigating the noise impacts of night flying at Heathrow, Gatwick and Stansted. We are not seeking more flexible powers to use immediately, but we believe that it is right to ensure that they will be available if and when needed. Nor do
 
28 Jun 2006 : Column 1211
 
we believe that any future Government would use them unreasonably. If they did, they would be subject to legal challenge. The Government remain convinced that Clause 2 is the correct way to move forward. The way forward is not to increase night movements and night traffic. It is to create flexibility in the necessary controls. The number of movements is too blunt an instrument in an age of rapid technological change. On that basis, I commend Motion B to the House.

Moved, That this House do not insist on its Amendments Nos. 5 and 11 and do agree to Amendment No. 11A proposed by the Commons in lieu.—(Lord Davies of Oldham.)

---