---

Lord Hanningfield rose to move, as an amendment to Motion B, leave out from "House" to end and insert "do insist on its Amendment No. 5, do not insist on its Amendment No. 11 and do disagree with Amendment No. 11A proposed by the Commons in lieu".

The noble Lord said: My Lords, I have listened to what the Minister said and the Government's suggestion of guaranteeing a postponement of action until 2012. That is not a concession. It offers little more than a postponement of the problem. In my time on the Front Bench dealing with aviation matters, I have not heard anything that arouses emotions more than the possibility of more night flights over London. We have to find ways of reducing night flights and not of increasing them. As the Minister said, we do not want to repeat our previous debates. However, people's health and their lives are being impaired. People need a sense of security regarding the whole problem of night flights. The Government, by adding the words of their concession, want the security of leaving the present policy as it is. If we are going to have a new policy, let us reduce night flights rather than increase them.

During the debate in another place, the right honourable Member for Halton stated by way of consolation that the Government had not decided to increase night-time movement limits at Heathrow during 2006-12. That may give a little reassurance now, but, as I said, it only postpones the problem and does not help anyone. That applies also to Heathrow. I should, however, declare an interest. We have already talked about Stansted today—but what about Stansted and Gatwick? The Minister's comments, like the Government's amendment, offer little comfort to those whose lives are diminished by aircraft noise.

Perhaps I may rehearse one or two arguments. Night-time aircraft noise is currently controlled by a combination of a movements limits and a noise quota system. Currently the two systems complement each other and offer a modicum of protection to those affected by airport noise. Yet, the Government have clearly indicated their desire to remove the current obligation to operate a limit on night movements at Heathrow, Gatwick and Stansted—even if it is after 2012. To do that would have devastating consequences
 
28 Jun 2006 : Column 1212
 
for the millions of people living under the major airports' flight paths. Alone, the quota system is comprehensible and ineffectual. Due to the absence of an official noise index for night noise in the UK, the noise limit is worked out by using Leq, which is recognised only during the day between 7 am and 11 pm. Consequently, it fails to take account of the fact that noise has vastly different implications at night. Leq—level equivalent—is a measure of noise energy and is worked out by averaging noise levels over a 16-hour day and then expressing it as a continuous level. Under the quota system, all aircraft are rated according to their noise on take-off and approach and then banded into the quota count categories. A limit is then placed on the total number of QC points in a six-month session. The fundamental conceptual flaw in this way of regulating aircraft noise is the assumption that the real disturbance and annoyance caused by noise depends on how much overall noise there is in the sound energy emitted.

When we last debated this issue I illustrated several examples. Today, I shall give only the example of Concorde. As noble Lords will recall, one Concorde on departure has the equivalent noise energy of 120 Boeing 757s. One Boeing 757 every two minutes for four hours therefore produces the same noise level as one Concorde. It is not about the noise of an individual plane but about how many planes there are.

I do not think that I need go into great detail on this. We want the security of the system as it stands. The Motion fails to take into account the importance of how many and how frequent the noise events are. The same total noise exposure can be achieved with a few noisy aircraft or a larger number of less noisy ones. Furthermore, it does not make any difference to the noise dose whether those aircraft are bunched together or spaced out at long intervals during the night. Less noise does not necessarily equal less disturbance.

The quota system is wholly inadequate for assessing the disruption of sleep caused by the impact of a relatively small number of noise events across the night. On the contrary, although those noise events may not break the noise quota, that offers little consolation to the family that have been awoken possibly once or twice or even three times a night. It is critical that we uphold the amendment. We must retain a movement limit on night flights. Not only is it effective; it is the only method that is both understood and can offer the transparency and security needed by people who live under flight paths. It provides protection for people living in close proximity to airports, though not necessarily under flight paths, from the associated problems of ground noise, something that the quota system alone would never properly address.

The Government's suggestion of simply changing the date is inadequate. It is essential to retain the movements limit. It would not only enhance the possible advantages to be gained from a noise quota system but, importantly, ensure against its disadvantages. Without it we risk further ruining lives that are already
 
28 Jun 2006 : Column 1213
 
blighted by aircraft noise. I have no doubt that your Lordships' House will join me in my resolve to reject the Government's proposal. I beg to move.

Moved, as an amendment to Motion B, leave out from "House" to end and insert "do insist on its Amendment No. 5, do not insist on its Amendment No. 11 and do disagree with Amendment No. 11A proposed by the Commons in lieu".—(Lord Hanningfield.)

The Earl of Mar and Kellie: My Lords, we, too, are concerned about the potential increase in night flights that the Bill seems to allow after 2012, and we want to respond to the major worries expressed to us by people who live in the various affected communities. The Government's concept of a "bag of noise" that can be spread further around quieter aircraft on take-off will lead to peri-airport communities suffering from an increase in noise events late at night and in the early morning. Each of the noise events will wake up more people. These noise events are the process of taking off, which is quieter than landing, because of the steeper ascent of the aircraft. There is no intention, of course, to control landing noise. Aircraft that are landing fly slower and at full power on a shallower flight path and so produce more noise over a wider and longer area.

Perhaps one day aircraft may be silent, but that is not today, tomorrow or any time remotely soon. There are good social reasons for opposing an increase in the number of night flights. An increase in the number of noise events will wake up more people more often, to the detriment of their health. I doubt that the Minister would believe that a grumpy people are an efficient people. For those reasons, we support the amendment.

Lord Gilmour of Craigmillar: My Lords, in the debate on this subject in the other place, a Member said that he thought that the Department for Transport was now a wholly owned subsidiary of the aircraft industry. The Government's behaviour over this Motion certainly bears that out. I understand that the Government originally said in letters to honourable Members in another place that they were going to accept the amendment; they then turned round at the last moment. I cannot help thinking that that was due to pressure from the aircraft industry.

I do not know whether Ministers and senior civil servants in Defra are hoping for appointments in the industry when they retire. I exempt the Minister from that, but it has been extraordinary to note over the years—and not only under this Government—the level of deference paid to the aircraft industry. That is particularly true in this instance because surely even the Minister must realise that noise measurement is bogus, inaccurate and incomprehensible. The only serious measurement we can use is the number of flight movements. So why on earth are the Government bringing in this clause instead of agreeing to our previous amendment?
 
28 Jun 2006 : Column 1214
 

4.45 pm

Baroness McIntosh of Hudnall: My Lords, I am sorry to rise again to challenge my noble friend on the Front Bench, but on this occasion I do so fully acknowledging my special interest: I live under a flight path into Stansted airport. Therefore there is no question but that I have personal experience to bring to bear on this point. I support what the noble Lord, Lord Hanningfield, and other noble Lords have said, not because I do not accept the Government's good intentions but because one does not have to be expert or well versed in this area to see that airport operators and aircraft operators are bound to aspire to an increase in the number of night flights because that is a way to get more value out of the infrastructure.

The consequence of additional night flights is already upon us; we experience it daily if we live within range of an airport. As the Minister rightly pointed out, the reality is that some aircraft are noisier than others, although I have to admit that some aircraft are surprisingly quiet, albeit that they are still a bit noisy. If you hear them in the middle of the night, they are considerably more obviously noisy than they are during the day. Therefore the issue of the number of aircraft flying overhead at night when people are trying to sleep is more significant than the amount of noise made by each individual aircraft, and much more significant than the aggregate made by all the aircraft put together. So I contend, as I have consistently throughout the passage of the Bill, that aircraft movement is a much more important indicator of noise pollution than anything else.

I also draw the Minister's attention to recent research indicating that aircraft movements at night have a more damaging effect on the environment than aircraft movements during the day. I do not pretend to understand the science underpinning the suggestion, although I hope to get grips with it as we learn more, but, if it is true, it is why it is much more important to limit the number of flights made at night than it is merely to address the quantum of noise produced by those flights.

---