Nicholas Winterton (Macclesfield, Conservative)

I remind the Committee that with this we are discussing the following:

No. 35, in clause 2, page 2, line 43, at end insert

', and may also issue penalties on aircraft, otherwise legally permitted to take off or land, which exceed the maximum take-off noise limits, specified by the Secretary of State,'.

Justine Greening (Putney, Conservative)

I think that I will start with a reprise of the comments that I made before lunch, to set in the context of the amendment. The amendment would remove the part of clause 2 that gives the Secretary of State the powers to remove the movements limit. As I was explaining, at present, noise at designated airports is controlled via a mix of controls. On the one hand there is a quota count system, which examines the absolute estimated noise that people have to bear on the ground, and on the other there is the control exerted by the movements limit, which limits the absolute number of aircraft able to land during periods such as the night-time period, during which, currently 16 flights come into Heathrow.

My argument is that, while we have the next regime of the night flights consultation, which will run up until 2012, we should use that time to get the real facts and data that is needed to make an informed assessment of whether the Secretary of State should have the powers to remove the movements limit. By that I mean several things. First, we need to start to measure the actual noise, as we have already discussed in the Committee. Close to the immediate Heathrow area, for example, there are noise sensors, but further out—in the hinterland, where local people are very much affected by aircraft noise—there are far fewer controls in place to manage what they have to put up with. There is a similar situation with regard to many of our airports. We must therefore start to look seriously at measuring actual noise on the ground.

Secondly, returning to the speech that I made on Second Reading, we must look at how that noise affects people. I believe that it is something like 20 years since the last large-scale study that examined the impact of prolonged and sustained aircraft noise on people who have to bear it day to day and, in my constituents' case, every night.

Thirdly, we need to examine whether there is an economic case for continued night flights at Heathrow. There are currently 16 night flights, transporting 2,000   to 3,000 passengers every morning, each of which will manage to wake up several hundred thousand Londoners, who also contribute to the London economy. I am not aware of any robust public work that has been done that adequately stacks up whether there is an economic case for those night flights that outweighs the economic benefit that my constituents, and many others who are woken by night flights, contribute to London's economy.

Finally, I believe that before we confer any further powers on the Secretary of State to remove the movements limit, we need to be clear as to what the Opposition's and the Government's policies are on excessive noise. We touched on that matter earlier today, and it has been made all the more relevant by our earlier discussion on targets. I urge the Minister, if she is not able to give us further information on that policy today, to give us the information on Report, or to issue some guidelines about what might constitute excessive noise. I would be happy to discuss that matter further with the Minister at a meeting, when we could address face-to-face some of the issues that my constituents have to put up with on a day-to-day basis.

Julian Brazier (Shadow Minister, Transport; Canterbury, Conservative)

I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Putney (Justine Greening) on her cogent defence of her constituents in this matter. Putney, as she has reminded us already, is under the flight path for Heathrow.

The provision that amendment No. 14 would strike out is one of the most controversial bits of the whole Bill. We spent time discussing it in a more general way on Second Reading, but my hon. Friend has given us the opportunity to focus closely on it. It is worth quoting one or two of the protestor groups. For example, Mr. Steve Charlish, the leader of a group of Leicestershire residents, who is concerned about noise from Nottingham East Midlands airport, comments:

''The Civil Aviation Bill is looking at discretionary powers to allow a greater number of relatively less noisy aircraft into London airports. This surely is going to lead to more night flights, not only around the airports but along flight corridors nationwide where these aircraft will be transiting through night time hours, destroying tranquillity over very wide areas.''

That view is echoed by the Stop Stansted Expansion campaign, which has made a number of points:

''As it stands, this amends the Civil Aviation Act in such a way as to empower the Secretary of State to discontinue applying limits to the number of night aircraft movements at Heathrow, Gatwick and Stansted and replace these with noise quotas alone.''

I am sure that we shall get a technical explanation from the Minister and that we shall be reassured that the Bill will do no such thing. However, looking at the wording, I can understand why the protestor groups are concerned at the idea of replacing a straightforward cap on numbers with a concept of noise restriction. That could mean, effectively, that if aircraft were a bit quieter, there could be more of them at night.

The Secretary of State has said that there would be consultation before there were changes on this issue, although I am not clear about what form of consultation that was. The fact is that flights at night are perhaps the number one concern of people who   live near airports. I support the concerns raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Putney in such an articulate fashion. I shall be looking carefully at the Minister's response on what the proposal that my hon. Friend seeks to strike out would do if it were left in the Bill, and at the Government's plans in that area.

Amendment No. 35, in my name, is grouped with amendment No. 14. There is a real concern about excessively noisy aircraft. On Second Reading, that was the issue that came up second most often, after the issue of the number of night flights. As somebody put it, ''You can hear any number of low background noises, but it is the one really shrieking sound that can ruin your afternoon and certainly your night.''

I shall quote a constituent of my hon. Friend the Member for Hertford and Stortford (Mr. Prisk):

''Maximum noise limits for aircraft taking off from designated airports have been set for many years, but have only been fully effective since the British Airports Authority was required to install monitoring equipment in the early 1990s. Maximum noise limits are extremely important because obviously it is the noisiest aircraft which cause the most annoyance and because they put a pressure on aircraft manufacturers to produce quieter aircraft. The present limits were set in 2001 and have not been reduced since the banning of chapter 2 aircraft in 2002. The fact is that the limits are very little lower than they were in the early 1990s because some old types of aircraft are still flying. When it is suggested to the Department for Transport that the limit should be reduced and that the penalties should be reduced and that the penalties should be regarded as a charge on noisier aircraft in line with Government policy that airlines should cover their external costs, the civil servants' reply is always that they cannot impose penalties on aircraft which are otherwise legally permitted to fly.''

Hence the wording of the clause that aircraft that are otherwise legally permitted to fly but are exceeding the maximum noise limits should now be fineable. We seek to give the Government that power. The Government have been clarifying powers in a variety of areas that we dealt with this morning. We suggest that they should have an additional power which seems thoroughly justified. To summarise amendment No. 35, where an aircraft is landing and taking off completely legally, but exceeds the Government's noise limits, there should be a power to fine it. I look forward to hearing the Minister's reply to both points.

John Pugh (Shadow Minister, Transport; Southport, Liberal Democrat)

As I understand it, this is an amendment to an amendment to the Civil Aviation 1982. I read the original script fairly carefully. However one reads it, it appears that the sole, if not the main, tool with which one can mitigate the effect of traffic flights on people living near airports is by limiting the number of flights taking off, particularly at night.

The Government amendment appears to leave that tool there but to make it an option. The other option available is to limit the effect of noise on the surrounding airport by taking noise quotas into account. One is in effect replacing the clear criterion of movement—one knows how many planes have been in—by a less clear criterion. Presumably a quantum of noise is fixed and within that quantum there may be appreciable variation at inopportune times. That causes anxiety. It is not just a matter of what might be the subjective effect of particular noise, or how it might be felt in particular areas, but the fact that   within that quantum there could be a significant and disturbing variation.

There is the suspicion that the Government intend to make it easier for big carriers to have more flights late at night, perhaps on quieter airlines that use quieter planes, but none the less to increase the total volume of traffic. There is an argument against doing that. There is a quite clear environmental argument that says that we should give an incentive to carriers not to increase the number of flights but to ensure that planes are run full at night rather than, as often happens, at only 80 per cent. or 70 per cent. capacity.

The Government could quite easily get rid of the suspicion by adopting a belt and braces approach. They could keep the limit on flights but bring that limit further down if those flights do not fit in with the noise quota. They can get round the difficulties that they have had in court over setting noise quotas and at the same time keep the advantages of the current system. From a tactical point of view too, as the hon. Member for Putney (Justine Greening) pointed out, with consultation now going on about night flights, this is possibly not the right signal to send.

We support the amendment and would like some strong reassurance from the Government, which the public also wants, that this is not a kind of Trojan horse by which we can increase the total volume of air traffic under the excuse that it fits in with some overall noise ceiling.

Robert Syms (Shadow Minister, Local Government Affairs & Communities; Poole, Conservative)

I have some sympathy with the arguments advanced by the hon. Member for Southport (Dr. Pugh). Aircraft can be counted, but noise is rather more of an arguable proposition. As we all know, when a council gets its measuring equipment out, the noise is never as bad as the constituents who think they are victims of noise say that it is. Both proposals are needed in the Bill, as belt and braces.

If the Bill is to be relevant, significantly more monitoring equipment is needed to reassure constituents who are under the flight path of busy aerodromes. Some of the concerns raised by the hon. Member for Putney might be met if the constituents knew that there was a much more robust system for measuring noise.

I presume that there is a noise level; let us call it X. Aircraft are getting quieter because of technology and the noise may fall below that level. Is it the Government's intention to reduce the noise over a period of time? Or will they keep the noise level at X and allow aircraft technology to move noise below that level but not necessarily reduce the levels of noise for people who live around aerodromes?

Is there a different measurement of noise during the night? We all know that when there is traffic, when the television is on and when people are doing things at home, their tolerance of noise is different from at night when things are quiet and people are in bed. Noise tends to travel further at night and night noise is the biggest problem for people who live adjacent to aerodromes or under a flight path. I hope that as the Bill progresses through the House the Minister will reassure us about investment in measuring   equipment—over the years we will get much better at measuring levels of noise and understanding the problem—and how one measures noise.

On Second Reading the Minister mentioned different types of noise. If Government money were to be invested in universities or anywhere else, investigating people's tolerance to noise and types of noise might, in these more environmentally sensitive times, be a good investment.

Karen Buck (Parliamentary Under-Secretary, Department for Transport; Regent's Park & Kensington North, Labour)

As with so much else that we have discussed today, the proposal exemplifies the need to strike a balance between economic and other national interests that are served by the aviation industry and the need to bear down on noise and protect the interests of our constituents and the general public. I say that first because it is important to remind the hon. Member for Putney that as part of the current night flights consultation issued by the Government we are asking airlines for their illustrations of the economic benefits of night flights. The hon. Lady raised that point, and it is a fair one. Although we try to do what we can to protect members of the public from noise it is important that we ask for the case to be reviewed and for the airlines to give us advice.

I repeat that is important for people to recognise that the Government have no sinister intent in tabling the clause. The existing powers date back to a time when limiting the number of movements was the only feasible means of controlling noise. However, other methods such as noise quotas are now possible. We therefore believe that the legislation should be amended to ensure that the most appropriate method, or methods, of noise control can be used in any given case.

Clause 2 gives the Secretary of State the option—I stress the word ''option''—to impose other controls that would provide a continuing incentive to switch to quieter aircraft at night while permitting movements to grow with the accompanying economic benefit. The Secretary of State will be able to impose noise quotas and other restrictions relating to aircraft taking off and landing as appropriate and will not have to specify the number of movements as at present.

The present situation is based on section 78(3). It enables the Secretary of State by notice to prohibit aircraft of descriptions specified from taking off or landing during periods specified in the notice, and to stipulate the maximum number of occasions on which specified aircraft may be permitted to take off or land at an aerodrome during specified periods. That power is used for avoiding, limiting or mitigating the effect of noise and vibration connected with the taking off or landing of aircraft at night at a designated aerodrome.

Rather than setting out the maximum number of occasions on which aircraft can take off or land, under the powers in the Bill the Secretary of State might wish to introduce noise quotas, the effect of which will be to limit the number of aircraft movements, even though the maximum number of movements is not explicitly stated. The imposition of such a noise quota or noise   contour would mean that a limit on noise exposure was fixed, and the existence of that limit would mean that there was an attendant limit on the number of aircraft movements at an airport.

If I have correctly understood the example of the hon. Member for Canterbury (Mr. Brazier) about the one noisy aircraft that could destroy a night's sleep, I would argue in response that it provides a strong argument for using the noise contour or noise quota approach, because it is precisely through that noise measurement that one would be able to bear down on individual aircraft that are excessively noisy.

Julian Brazier (Shadow Minister, Transport; Canterbury, Conservative)

On Second Reading, it was stressed that the method by which we measure noise is laid down by various conventions to which we have signed up. Can the Minister confirm that her argument is about not the actual noise as experienced by an individual on the ground or by an independent noise monitor, but the putative noise as per the out-of-date method of calculation used in the relevant treaties?

Karen Buck (Parliamentary Under-Secretary, Department for Transport; Regent's Park & Kensington North, Labour)

I will not be drawn to respond in the way that the hon. Gentleman's slightly loaded question invites me to. As he is aware, there is a recognised form of measurement that has been extant for some time. He will also be aware, because it was discussed on Second Reading and today, that the project for the sustainable development of Heathrow and the regulations that will be introduced in 2007 will study certain other aspects of noise measurement, including the differential impact that noise can have in different parts of the day. Therefore, work is being done to establish that the exact way in which noise is perceived is fit for purpose. I cannot make any statements as to what the outcome of that process will be, but I can say that work is being done to address some of the points that the hon. Gentleman and others have made.

John Pugh (Shadow Minister, Transport; Southport, Liberal Democrat)

I am trying to follow the argument, and I think that I might have a better handle on it now than I had at the start of this debate. Under the current system, if a plane makes an horrific noise when it starts off but that instance of noise is within the number allowed for that night, then so be it. Is it the case that if at the start of an evening a plane taking off from Heathrow makes an inordinate amount of noise, when a noise quota system operates that will have consequential effects on the number of scheduled flights allowed to leave Heathrow that evening?

Karen Buck (Parliamentary Under-Secretary, Department for Transport; Regent's Park & Kensington North, Labour)

I am not sure that I can answer that detailed question on my feet; I would hate to answer it incorrectly. I will establish what the right answer is. Clearly, there would have to be a consequential impact, or else the whole point of the quota system would be undermined. However, I will answer the hon. Gentleman's question later.

Justine Greening (Putney, Conservative)

I think that I can answer that question. It goes to the heart of why relying purely on the noise quota system is problematic: namely, that it is based on estimate noises. The hon. Gentleman is right. Currently, we have no mechanism to address the case of a landing plane that is significantly louder than its estimate. That is my fundamental concern about relying on the noise quota system; it is impossible to address what the people on the ground experience   versus what we would expect via the system, which is why I ask the Minister to agree to the amendment. It would give us a second lock on the door of noise management.

Karen Buck (Parliamentary Under-Secretary, Department for Transport; Regent's Park & Kensington North, Labour)

In terms of an overall noise framework, a movements limit would not have any impact, even if the hon. Lady is correct in the way she presents it. A movements limit would have no impact at all on that excessively noisy aircraft, so it still makes sense to consider the option of a noise quota or noise contour as part of the means of control.

I should like to repeat the confirmation that I gave on Second Reading. The next night restriction regime, running until 2012, which is currently being consulted on, will be based on current legislation and will continue to incorporate movements limits. That is, as I mentioned earlier, a matter on which HACAN has expressed its approval. There has been a long-standing convention that proposals to change to the night restrictions regime for designated airports and the other main noise controls, such as the departure noise limits, are subject to public consultation. There is no question of any future removal of night movements limits being sprung on to the communities affected. I hope that that explanation has provided the hon. Lady with some comfort, although I suspect that we may still have a disagreement on the matter.

As for amendment No. 35, no amendment is needed to enable the Secretary of State to set departure noise limits at designated airports. The present departure limits at Heathrow, Gatwick and Stansted are set, and will continue to be set, under the existing powers of section 78. However, previous Administrations and the current Government have accepted that it would not be compatible with the UK's international obligations to set a daytime limit so low that most of the large long-haul aircraft, certificated to ICAO standards and legally entitled to operate in the UK, would not be able to be operated.

Similarly, the night-time and shoulder period departure noise limits must be broadly compatible with the night flying restrictions that we set under section 78(3). Any new departure noise limits that acts as a restriction in its own right would be subject to directive 2002/30 on noise-related operating restrictions, which we have incorporated into UK legislation by the Aerodromes (Noise Restrictions) (Rules and Procedures) Regulations 2003. I therefore ask the hon. Lady to withdraw the amendments.

Justine Greening (Putney, Conservative)

I will withdraw amendment No. 14, but I am not satisfied with the Minister's response. I understand that my hon. Friend the Member for Canterbury will return to the subject on Report. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Julian Brazier (Shadow Minister, Transport; Canterbury, Conservative)

On a point of order, Sir Nicholas. Forgive my ignorance of procedure—I should know this after all the years that I have been in the House—but at what stage do we take the vote on new clause 6, which was deferred earlier? Is it taken at the end of the sitting?  

Nicholas Winterton (Macclesfield, Conservative)

The hon. Gentleman has given the answer to his question. It will be at the end.

John Pugh (Shadow Minister, Transport; Southport, Liberal Democrat)

I beg to move amendment No. 30, in clause 2, page 3, line 30, leave out '10%' and insert '20%'.

This is a simple and straightforward amendment, with which we need not detain ourselves for too long. It puts up the rate of fines from 10 per cent. to 20 per cent. It is a probing amendment, the thrust of which is to understand where the figure of 10 per cent. comes from. We do not want to end up with a situation where the penalties and costs of both pollution and generating noise are simply read into passengers' bills and the costs are passed on down the line and become part of trading practice. They must be effective, and we are not entirely convinced that a 10 per cent. level is completely effective.

Statistics for Birmingham international airport, which currently has a system, show that it collected £9,448 in fines in 2003–04, accounting for 15 infringements of the code then in place. That works out at £630 per offence, which is a sizeable chunk. About 22,000 people in the vicinity of Birmingham international airport are affected by each of those infringements. Their recompense—if I can put it like that; their trouble—is 3p per person. It makes minimal difference in terms of the penalty that they see delivered, and it probably makes a limited difference to the operational costs of the airlines. The suggestion that the fines be increased from 10 per cent. to 20 per cent. is throwing the gauntlet down to the Minister, and is questioning whether that 10 per cent. is sufficient, and if it is thought to be sufficient, how its sufficiency was established.

Robert Syms (Shadow Minister, Local Government Affairs & Communities; Poole, Conservative)

The hon. Gentleman made a brief point about the levels of fines. He gave us information specific to one airport, and I should like to hear from the Minister whether the CAA collects from all airports the information on fines allocated first to airlines and secondly to particular aircraft. Is there a league table? Is there an aircraft that has been fined the most? Beyond the daily fining of aircraft, do we try to use that information? The relevant point is not whether the fine is £500 or £600. To be honest I am not too worried about the levels of fines; I am worried about what we do with the information. Do we have nasty aircraft and quiet aircraft lists? Do we know which carriers specifically are better and which are worst, so we can differentiate the regime? If we do not have that information, is it not something that we ought to hold?

I should be interested to know what we do with the information about noisy aircraft, because if one or two make the most noise and one or two carriers are the worst noise polluters, we should hit those who cause the most nuisance, rather than those who cause the least nuisance but occasionally make the odd infringement. When we discuss the penalty system in more detail, it would be better to set it to hit airlines that transgress the most, rather than those that by and large undertake to respond reasonably to their environmental records.  

Julian Brazier (Shadow Minister, Transport; Canterbury, Conservative)

This is a good probing amendment, as it simply tries to get to the bottom of the scale of the fines. I thoroughly agree with the remarks made by my hon. Friend the Member for Poole (Mr. Syms). It would be interesting to know what is done with the information. I stand to be corrected, but as I understand it a level five fine is only £5,000. When reference is made to the manager, it is actually the airport that will end up paying it, and for a particular offence the effect of the amendment would be to raise the maximum fine from £500 to £1,000. It seems rather a modest amount, particularly for the persistent offender.

The hon. Member for Southport (Dr. Pugh) made it clear that this is a probing amendment, and I shall not go into the appropriate amount for a fine. However, what seems to be missing is the discretionary power to levy a substantial fine against the sort of persistent offender whom my hon. Friend mentioned.

The airlines are not cash cows, and I shall develop that point shortly in another debate in which I shall seek to restrain an amendment. However, it would seem reasonable to allow greater discretion in circumstances involving a particular persistent offender.

Karen Buck (Parliamentary Under-Secretary, Department for Transport; Regent's Park & Kensington North, Labour)

It may be helpful if I set out the purpose of the power in section 78(9) of the Civil Aviation Act 1982 to impose fines on the operator of a designated aerodrome. The fines are payable by the manager of an aerodrome designated under section 78 if he fails to perform the duties set out under section 78(8) when the Secretary of State requires him to do so. Those duties are to provide, maintain and operate noise measuring equipment in the vicinity of the aerodrome, as specified by the Secretary of State, and to report the noise measured by the equipment to the Secretary of State and to permit the inspection of equipment. There is no fine for noisy aircraft. There may be some misinterpretation of this element of the Bill.

The powers in section 78(8) have never been required, as BAA has voluntarily provided noise monitoring equipment and reports at the designated airports of Heathrow, Gatwick and Stansted. As a result, fines have never had to be levied. The Government's reasoning in providing for a daily fine of up to £500 in the new provisions is that a daily fine equal to that imposed for the first offence appears disproportionately high. I believe that we may be dealing with different issues and on that basis I ask the hon. Member for Southport (Dr. Pugh) to seek leave to withdraw the amendment.

John Pugh (Shadow Minister, Transport; Southport, Liberal Democrat)

We have had an interesting debate. Of course, it was tangential to the clause, but we will have words with our researcher. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 2 ordered to stand part of the Bill.