With permission, Mr. Speaker, I would like to make a statement about the tragic crash of the Lynx helicopter in Iraq on Saturday and the immediate aftermath.

As the House will be aware, on Saturday 6 May at 1350 hours local time, a Lynx mark 7 helicopter on a routine flight came down in Basra city, crash-landing on the roof of an empty building. Five UK personnel on board the aircraft are missing believed killed: Wing Commander John Coxen; Lieutenant Commander Darren Chapman; Flight Lieutenant Sarah-Jayne Mulvihill; Captain David Dobson, Army Air Corps; and Marine Paul Collins. Their next of kin have been informed. I am sure that the whole House will join me in sending my deepest condolences to their families and friends. I also express my sympathy to the families of all those killed in Iraq over the weekend, including those from coalition forces.

I know that there is a natural tendency when such awful events occur to speculate about possible causes. I caution that such speculation is not only unhelpful but can be very distressing to the loved ones of those involved. As is routinely the case in such circumstances, a detailed technical and Royal Military Police investigation is under way. An air accident investigation team is in place, and a full board of inquiry is being conducted. I can, however, confirm at this stage that the helicopter was fitted with a defensive aids suite, as are all our helicopters in Iraq.

British Army units in Basra deployed immediately to the scene of the crash and secured the area with the help of the Iraqi army and the Iraqi police service. A crowd swiftly formed on the streets surrounding the crash site, and the House will have seen television coverage of the volatile situation that developed over the next few hours. I am very grateful to the Iraqi authorities for the assistance provided by the Iraqi army and police to bring the situation under control, including the imposition of a curfew by the provincial governor.

British troops and Iraqi security forces came under attack with a variety of weapons, including stones, gunfire, petrol and blast bombs, rocket-propelled grenades and mortars. It is entirely right that our troops take action to defend themselves in such circumstances. I can confirm that British personnel fired baton rounds and a limited amount of live ammunition. Seven UK personnel were injured as a result of the disturbance. According to the information that I have, none of those injuries was serious.

Local reports and our own sources indicate that five Iraqis may have died, and approximately 28 were injured during the civil disorder that followed the crash. The full extent of UK military responsibility for any of those casualties will be clarified in due course, following completion of the post-incident review. In circumstances such as these, such a review is normal.

I know that some commentators have concluded that the television footage that we saw on Saturday is evidence that southern Iraq is rising up against the British presence and that we should withdraw all troops immediately. I do not share that assessment, but, more importantly, nor do the commanders on the ground, including Major-General John Cooper in Basra.

To put that in its proper context, the disturbances on the ground involved a crowd of 200 to 300 people. Although magnified by the media images we saw, the incident was an isolated incident in a city of around 1.5 million people. Crucially, it was brought under control by the Iraqi security forces themselves in a few hours. Since then, the city has remained calm. That is testament to the commitment and bravery of the Iraqi personnel and to the work that we and other members of the coalition have been doing to train the Iraqis to prepare them for taking on responsibility for the security of their country, where more than 12 million Iraqis showed courage in voting for a new Government.

The House will be aware that relations with the Basra provincial council have been difficult over the past eight months or so. Yesterday, the governor of Basra announced a return to full co-operation and dialogue between the council and British forces. Indeed, members of the council expressed their profound regret for the incident and extended their condolences to the families. That reinforces our belief that the majority of the people of Basra want to work with us to develop governance and security in the region.

That is not to say we should be complacent—far from it. The crowd on Saturday appears to have included elements that were armed with mortars and rocket-propelled grenades, and were prepared to use them against British forces. Major-General Cooper has confirmed that he is content with the numbers and capability of the troops at his disposal but I assure the House that we keep force levels under constant review.

I am also aware that some have called for the Government to set out our exit strategy from Iraq. That strategy has been set out before the House many times, most recently on 13 March by my predecessor, now the Home Secretary. However, let me be clear. We are still committed to remaining in Iraq for as long as we are needed and the Iraqi Government want us to stay, and until the job is done. That job is to assist the Iraqi Government and their security forces to build their capabilities—military and civilian—so that they can take on full responsibility for the security of their country. Achieving that objective is the exit strategy—nothing more, nothing less.

Multinational forces continue to train and mentor the Iraqis to develop operating effectiveness. Currently, there are more than 250,000 Iraqis in their security forces, including 115,000 in the Iraqi army.

The incident was serious, but, despite that, we can draw some encouragement from the fact that local forces worked with us to restore order on Saturday.

I express again my deepest condolences for and sympathy to the families of those killed on Saturday and to the colleagues they leave behind in the Royal Navy and Royal Marines, the Army and the Royal Air Force, especially those who continue to serve with such bravery to help the people of Iraq build a secure and stable future for themselves.

I echo the condolences that the Secretary of State expressed and extend Conservative Members' sympathy to the families and friends of those who were killed.

This tragedy has seen our most senior servicemen so far and our first servicewoman killed in action in Iraq. It is worth remembering that they are not there as an army of occupation but represent hope for the majority of the Iraqi people, who want to live in a democratic system, with a fair rule of law and under a constitution that they designed. In paying tribute to those who were killed, we should remember that they were there fulfilling a noble purpose.

I welcome the Secretary of State to his new job but I am sorry that such a sombre occasion brings him to the House. I should like to ask him about four broad matters. Many of those who have been in Iraq recently say that the Army's footprint in Basra is so reduced that we seem more like visitors in the city than in control of it. The Secretary of State said that Major-General Cooper is happy with the number of troops at his disposal. Is he happy that sufficient reinforcements are available to deploy quickly to deal with the unexpected? Will the Secretary of State assure us that there will be no further troop withdrawals until he has satisfied himself on the point?

There was speculation over the weekend that the helicopter may have been brought down by a rocket-propelled grenade or similar device. Like the Secretary of State, I do not see any point in speculating further on that. Will he, however, look into the operational capability of the Lynx helicopter, especially its speed and its ability to operate in hot weather, as those factors could contribute to its vulnerability? Will he also look into the early procurement of more Lynxes to ensure that we minimise the risk to our servicemen and women not only in Iraq but in the read-across to Afghanistan?

The House will be pleased that the Secretary of State talked about the restoration of co-operation with the local authorities. Given that our servicemen are putting themselves at risk for the people of Iraq, however, most people in the United Kingdom would be horrified by the idea that they were not getting the full co-operation of those authorities. Will the right hon. Gentleman take the opportunity to ask the new Foreign Secretary to raise with the Iraqi Government the role of the governor of Basra, because maintaining security and safety on the ground is one of the ways of maximising the protection of those in the air?

The Secretary of State mentioned a number of weapons that are available to insurgents and terrorists in Iraq. Does he have any information on the origins of those weapons? His predecessor—now the Home Secretary—told the House that there was evidence that weapons were coming in from Hezbollah. I want to know whether there is further evidence of any weapons coming directly from Iran, either from the Government there or via Hezbollah, because that also has a major read-across to what is happening in Afghanistan.

Mistakes have been made in Iraq that have made our involvement there more difficult and probably longer than needed. However, I completely agree with the Secretary of State that early withdrawal is not a solution for the people of Iraq or for stability in the region. The Government have a duty to maximise the success of the mission in Iraq, and to minimise the risk to our servicemen and women. I hope that the Secretary of State will take advantage of his new position to look into the issues that I have raised today, and to ensure that he is confident that he is fulfilling both those tasks.

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his expressions of condolence. I also thank him for his manifest support for our objectives in southern Iraq and for his often-articulated appreciation of the dedication and courage of our armed forces. He has raised a number of issues, and I shall endeavour, within the state of my current knowledge, to respond to them. Incidentally, I also thank him for welcoming me to my new position. We shall have the opportunity to share the challenges that we face together at some time in the future, and I look forward to working with him.

The hon. Gentleman asked about the sufficiency of troops. He can be reassured that my first task on Saturday morning, as the tragic circumstances in Basra started to unfold on my television screen—as they did on others across the country—was to make inquiries about the sufficiency of our troops. Having spoken directly to those who command our troops in southern Iraq, and to the service chiefs, I have confirmed that none of them believes that our armed forces are insufficient for the operations with which we have tasked them in southern Iraq.

The hon. Gentleman also asked about support, should it be necessary. I commented on that issue in the media over the weekend, and I can reassure him that there are dedicated reserves available for Iraq, should they need to be deployed. The deployment of troops to Iraq, or to any other theatre, will depend on the advice of those who know best, namely those who lead our armed forces.

The hon. Gentleman mentioned the capabilities of our equipment, and in particular of the Lynx helicopter. As I said in my statement, a board of inquiry will ensue, and it will be informed by the investigation that is now taking place. I am not in a position to pre-judge that inquiry, and I would not seek to do so to any extent at the Dispatch Box. I will say to the hon. Gentleman, however, that we will respond to the recommendations of the board of inquiry in the same way that we have sought to respond to the recommendations of any such board in the past. I can also give him an assurance that we will implement the recommendations of any such board of inquiry. However, it would be speculation at this stage to suggest that anything relating to the capability of the equipment made a contribution to the circumstances of the incident. The hon. Gentleman asked about our relationships with the provincial authorities, and I am clearly able to say that they are improving. They were improving in any event, never mind the incident that took place on Saturday. It is of some reassurance to me that, despite the incident on Saturday, the meetings that were planned to progress those relationships took place in any event and had the outcome that I have described to the House.

The hon. Gentleman asked, in particular, whether my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary will raise with the Iraqi Government the issue of the provincial governor in Basra. I assure the hon. Gentleman that the former Foreign Secretary raised this very issue on more than one occasion with the provisional Government in Iraq, and I have absolutely no doubt that my right hon. Friend the current Foreign Secretary will do exactly the same thing should she have the opportunity to do so.

Finally, the hon. Gentleman asked about the provenance of the weaponry that may have been in the hands of the crowd. We are still in the early stage of the review of the circumstances and, as I understand it, the troops who were present have not been fully debriefed, so I am not in a position to speculate on that issue. However, when my right hon. Friend the former Secretary of State for Defence discovered the provenance of improvised explosive devices, he told the House and the public of the United Kingdom of their provenance. I would intend to do the same if such information became available to me.

I echo most sincerely the words of condolence to the families of those who have lost their lives. This is certainly the news that all families of personnel on active service must dread.

I entirely accept that it is unhelpful at this stage to speculate on the cause of the helicopter coming down. However, can the Secretary of State assure us that he will return to the House, when it has proved possible to find more information, so that we can have a greater discussion when we know the picture of what happened and the implications for our operations in southern Iraq? Can he tell us also whether it has been possible to secure the accident site satisfactorily in order to carry out the investigations necessary?

Helicopter operations are intrinsically hazardous, and I suppose that such an incident could have occurred at any point in the past. Given that helicopters will play a vital part in our operations in Iraq and in Afghanistan, could the Secretary of State acquaint himself with the problem of the shortage of transport helicopters and trained personnel? Is he aware that the Minister responsible for defence procurement, acknowledged the 15 per cent. shortfall and said in answer to a question in another place that it might take 18 months for decisions to be made? Given the fact that the likely attrition rate of helicopters cannot be ignored, will the Secretary of State take steps to accelerate consideration of that issue?

The Secretary of State referred to an exit strategy and he restated the objective. He said that the job is to assist the Iraqi Government and their security forces to build their capabilities so that they can take on responsibility for the security of their own country. I think that everyone shares and understands that objective. He said that achieving that objective is the strategy. With respect, a strategy needs to be rather more detailed and comprehensive than simply the desire to achieve the objective. If we do come back to discuss these matters again when a little more is known about them, will he undertake to bring a more detailed strategy so that Parliament can probe the progress that is being made, so that the British public can have an understanding of the progress that we think that we are making and so that the Iraqis understand it too?

I welcome the Secretary of State to his new post and congratulate him on his appointment. It is regrettable that his first duty in the House should be in such tragic circumstances but, when he has had a chance to assimilate more information about the issue, will he return to have a broader debate about the progress that we are making in Iraq?

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his welcome, but more importantly I thank him for his expression of condolences to the families who have lost their loved ones and the friends of those who have been killed.

The hon. Gentleman asks specifically whether the results of the investigation into the cause of the incident will become known. A full board of inquiry is in progress. At this stage, an investigation is taking place by a highly qualified team of expert investigators, and the results will inform the board of inquiry. As I understand it, the process is that its results will be made public, to the extent that they can be without undermining the security of our personnel in theatre. He has my assurance that the board of inquiry will proceed in a way that is no different from any other in such circumstances.

The hon. Gentleman can be reassured that thanks to the support of the Iraqi army and police force, which put themselves on the front line between those in the crowd who were intent on harming our forces and, indeed, did harm them, the accident site was secured. The information I have is that although it was a very difficult and complex site, the necessary investigations were able to take place. I am unable to inform the House whether investigation of the site has concluded, but in any event all that information will be brought together and inform the board of inquiry's determinations.

The hon. Gentleman raises a question on the sufficiency of equipment, in particular helicopters. I assure him that we keep the amount of equipment and the nature of equipment under review, and we will respond to requests from theatre. In the context of this statement and the circumstances that have brought me to the House, it is far too early to say what the implications of the incident are for equipment or indeed the operating procedures of that equipment. It would be pointless to speculate at this stage.

On the exit strategy, having succeeded the former Secretary of State for Defence, I come to the House at least with the assurance that nobody can suggest there is a lack of clarity about the communication of the Government's position, which he explained and repeated on a number of occasions. The response of the Iraqi forces, particularly the army and the police, on Saturday, in very difficult circumstances, is an indication not only of the direction of travel towards that exit, but of the progress that we have made, some of which would have been unthinkable only a matter of months ago.

I add my congratulations to those given to my right hon. Friend at this sombre time, when we have lost five more dedicated service personnel.

Accepting, as my right hon. Friend said, that more information is coming in on the confrontation that took place after the helicopter came down, is it none the less the case that two Iraqi youths were shot? If so, should we be concerned about the effect those deaths might have on the attitude of the local population to the British forces?

I thank my right hon. Friend for his welcome. Certainly, it would not have been my wish to be welcomed to my new position in these circumstances.

On the specific point, I cannot confirm that a child or children were killed or wounded, and it would be unhelpful to speculate on such matters. Those who were at or about the scene in the immediate aftermath of the crash saw a large proportion of relatively young children in the crowd. However, I am not able to confirm at this stage that a child or children were killed or wounded.

I welcome the right hon. Gentleman to his new position and wish him all the best.

The right hon. Gentleman was rather cynical about the coverage by broadcasters of the uprising that may or may not be taking place. I join him in that cynicism, but I draw his attention to one matter of concern. I hope that he will be able to comment on it, but if not, he will certainly be able to focus on it in the coming days. It is not the number of people on the streets, with which I am sure we can deal, that is the major concern, but the widespread use of anti-air missiles. Will he confirm that there have been previous attacks on helicopters using such weapons?

I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his welcome, and for his overt and often-expressed support for our troops.

I had not sought to raise the issue of cynicism in my remarks about the media coverage. The point that I wished to make was probably better expressed by General Cooper in his interviews on Saturday evening and late at night. He said to the BBC reporter interviewing him that the film being repeated in relation to the story was now some hours old. Basra city had been calm for some time, and as it turned out, it was calm overnight, calm yesterday and calm overnight again. My point was that those who are interested in these matters and who will pay attention to what I say at the Dispatch Box ought to know—this is no criticism of the media authorities—that the repetition of historical footage, even if only hours old, can give an impression of repeated and continuing disorder on the streets, when the fact is, as I understand it from our people on the ground, that everything was brought under control within about four hours.

The right hon. Gentleman asked me to confirm what he already knows. As I understand it, helicopters have been brought down in Iraq, although not in our area of operation, in the way that he describes. It would be inappropriate and unhelpful to speculate at this stage of the inquiry into the incident as to how this particular helicopter came to crash.

I echo the condolences offered by the Secretary of State to those who lost loved ones over the weekend. Is he aware that 109 British personnel, more than 2,000 Americans and tens of thousands of Iraqis have died since war was declared more than three years ago? Can he set out a timetable by which he expects British and American troops to withdraw from Iraq, as their continued presence seems increasingly to be part of the problem rather than the solution?

My hon. Friend puts into the public domain a figure that is burned into my mind, and that figure will be with me for all the time that I do this job and for the rest of my life. He does not need to remind me of that figure or of the tragic consequences of these circumstances. If he seeks to persuade me, in my new-found responsibilities, that early withdrawal from Iraq is an objective for which I ought to argue, he has not found an ally. As those whom we charge with the responsibility for doing this difficult job told us from southern Iraq this morning, in an interview through their representatives, they have a job to do and it needs to be seen through. In my view, we have a commitment to remain in Iraq as long as we are needed and the Iraqi Government want us there, and until the job is done. In my new-found responsibilities, I will do everything to support and help those whom we have asked to do the job at the front line.

Three of those missing came from royal naval air station Yeovilton in my constituency. The words of shock and loss expressed by the Secretary of State will be shared by those associated with the squadron, which I had the privilege of visiting only a few months ago, and by the entire Yeovilton community. He was kind enough to say to my hon. Friend the Member for North Devon (Nick Harvey) that he would report further to the House once he had the results of the board of inquiry. Will he also take testimony from those who know best the hazards of this sort of flying—the air crew who engage in it day in and day out, week in and week out, on behalf of this country—and make sure that their views are fed into any future action that he takes?

I welcome the opportunity to pay tribute to the hon. Gentleman's constituents based at RNAS Yeovilton for the work that they do. I fully understand the tremendous sadness that there will be at the loss of colleagues. However, what we expect of our armed forces, and what we have got over the past 24 hours, is a renewed commitment to continue to do the jobs with which they are tasked, even in these difficult circumstances. Although there is sadness, I have experienced over the past 24 hours a degree of dedication and courage that is a manifestation of why our armed forces are the envy of the world.

The hon. Gentleman asks who should give evidence to the board of inquiry, and my current state of knowledge is that it would be expected that evidence would come from the sort of sources that he indicates. I apologise for this, but I cannot at this stage tell him for certain whether his specific question about the procedures involved in the inquiries can be answered in either the affirmative or the negative. I would be astonished if the board of inquiry, whose procedure is not in my control, did not take evidence of that kind, but I shall look into the matter. If there is any additional information that should be given to the hon. Gentleman or the House, I shall take the necessary steps to ensure that that is done.

May I associate myself with the condolences that have been expressed? My right hon. Friend described some of the Iraq casualties as youths, but two were reported to be children aged 10 and 11. Will that be considered by the inquiry, and will the Iraqis be able to contribute to it? The exit strategy announced by the Secretary of State was lamentable. If it is a question of whether the police are ready, it should be borne in mind that it was the British troops who, I am afraid, inflamed the crowd and the police who helped to quieten it. Unless there is a proper time scale, there can be no real exit strategy. May I ask the Secretary of State to think about that again?

My hon. Friend can be reassured that since I began this job, our commitment to Iraq has been at the forefront of my mind. It is constantly in my mind. Whatever our respective positions may be on whether we should have engaged in the war in the first place, the fact is that we are in Iraq now, under the terms of United Nations resolution 1637, and we have a specific job to do in that context, along with our allies. I look to my hon. Friend, and other Members, to support those whom we charge with the responsibility of carrying out that task in very dangerous circumstances.

The four elements of the exit strategy set out by my predecessor, the present Home Secretary, in the House and elsewhere appear to me to provide a template for an appropriate withdrawal, and not to lend themselves to demands, such as my hon. Friend's, for a specific timetable. I am sure I shall learn more about whether this is the case, but I suggest to my hon. Friend that it is arguable that we would put our troops in danger if we did what he has invited me to do.

With respect, I must correct my hon. Friend, in that I am not aware that any part of my statement reflected, in any sense, the ages of any possible casualties in the group who were involved in the disorder surrounding the incident. I give my hon. Friend the answer that I have given others: I am not in a position to confirm the age, or any other details, of anyone who may have been a casualty in that crowd.

In welcoming the Secretary of State to his new position, may I warn him that he has a hard act to follow? He has, however, made an excellent start, not only in coming to the House so quickly to make his statement but in his expression of the sympathy that we all feel for the families of those who have died. It is difficult to find the good news in statements such as this, but the news that the governor of Basra has resumed co-operation with the British authorities is undoubtedly good news. Will the Secretary of State tell us what form he expects that co-operation to take? Does he regard it as a signal that the Iraqi authorities are unlikely to wish to break off relations again, despite the challenges that he, we and they will face?

I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his welcome. I am all too aware of the comparisons that will be made between my predecessor and me, and of what will be said about the skill with which he carried out his duties. I am a great admirer of my right hon. Friend who is now the Home Secretary—as, obviously, is the right hon. Member for North-East Hampshire (Mr. Arbuthnot)—and I think that he did an admirable job as Secretary of State for Defence. Despite the challenge that that poses, there could be no better person to follow. I shall observe the template that my right hon. Friend established for the job as far as I can, but I shall try to be my own person as well. Even in these early days, it is clear to me that the working relationship between my right hon. Friend and the right hon. Gentleman and his Select Committee was productive and supportive, if challenging. I hope to continue that relationship.

The right hon. Gentleman asked me a question that, unfortunately, I cannot answer specifically, except to say that we are pleased that the relationship to which he referred has been remade against the plan that we had set out, despite the fact that this incident occurred in the past couple of days. That relationship will be a partnership, the whole purpose of which will be to sustain that relationship towards transition. I am sure that the challenges that the right hon. Gentleman set out are only too well known and accepted by those on the ground in Basra with whom we charge those responsibilities. The extent to which they have moved the position with the council and the governor, despite the pressures that must have been generated by the events of the past couple of days, is testimony to the robustness of that relationship.

I add my condolences to those expressed to the families concerned, and I welcome my right hon. Friend to his new post. As someone who has been to Iraq four times in the past three years, most recently in March, I concur with my right hon. Friend's view that southern Iraq is not on the brink of civil war, and I agree that the capacity of the Iraqi armed forces and police in southern Iraq has been increased. But can he assure the House today that British troops will not be withdrawn before those security services have the capacity to ensure that the security that local people need can be delivered?

I thank my hon. Friend for his welcome. His support for our forces in Iraq, which he has expressed by visiting that country, is very welcome and much appreciated. I can give him an unequivocal and positive response to his question; indeed, the answer to it is implicit in the conditionality set out by my predecessor—to which I adhere—concerning the transition and the draw-down of troops from Iraq. However, that is but one aspect of one of four conditions; the others will also have to be met before we proceed.

The Secretary of State referred to the television footage, but notwithstanding the dreadful events and shocking scenes that we witnessed, does he not agree that the television camera is of necessity a distorting lens, and that for the most part, the huge majority of the people of Basra had an ordinary day?

The hon. Gentleman makes a very good point. If, in a city of 1.5 million, 200 to 300 people of a very obvious age range are involved in a disturbance, it is clear, by a process of elimination, that others are not. My understanding is indeed that the rest of the city was going about its normal business on that day. The hon. Gentleman's point about media coverage is partly true. I was brought up to believe that the camera never lies, which is probably right; it is how one deploys what the camera produces that may well give—sometimes inadvertently—a distorted picture in its totality. But we live in an age of 24-hour news and visual news, and it is incumbent on us to accommodate that fact when communicating information ourselves. I take this opportunity to express my personal thanks to General Cooper and others, who, in very difficult circumstances, made themselves available to the media in order to give an authoritative voice from the theatre and to explain what was happening on the ground. I had no doubt, as I watched the coverage unfold on Saturday, that that was very helpful in shaping the development of later coverage.

Like others in all parts of the House, I want to pay tribute to those who lost their lives this weekend and to welcome my right hon. Friend to his new position. I was in Basra in March, along with my hon. Friend the Member for North Durham (Mr. Jones), and I spoke to senior military officers, who agreed that there is a fine line between our presence there being part of the solution and being part of the problem. However, they are much of the opinion that our presence is still part of the solution, because we are training the Iraqi forces to manage their own security and thereby reducing the need for the British presence in the long term. Given the support given by the Iraqi forces to the British troops to quell the unrest after the crash, does my right hon. Friend agree that that is yet another indication that we are still part of the solution, not part of the problem?

I agree, and I am all too acutely aware—as are those who lead our armed forces—that there is a constant tension between being seen in a positive light and getting to the stage where that becomes a difficulty. It is the very appreciation of that tension that has instructed the way in which we approach the whole issue of transition.

I congratulate the Secretary of State on his appointment. As a former Secretary of State for Defence, I have no doubt that he will find working in the Ministry of Defence and with the armed forces both a privilege and a pleasure. With regard to his statement, I am less impressed than he appears to be by the announcement by the governor of Basra that he is willing to resume co-operation with our security forces. Does the Secretary of State agree that it is intolerable that, at a time when our armed forces are not only risking their lives but—as we have sadly heard today—losing them, that the governor of Basra and his colleagues should consider it a matter of choice whether they co-operate with British security forces? Will the Government impress on the Government of Iraq at all levels that unless we get the fullest co-operation from the Iraqi security authorities as a matter of course, it will be impossible to sustain a British military presence in that country?

I thank the right hon. and learned Gentleman for his welcome. He can be assured that in the short time that I have been in the Ministry of Defence—and I have been in the Ministry itself for practically all the time that I have been the Secretary of State for Defence—I have already come to the same conclusion that he urges on me. In relation to the conclusion that he draws about the necessity of co-operation with the provincial authorities in reaching the joint objective of being able to hand over, he is right—and he can rest assured that we will take any opportunity to impress those arguments on the Iraqi authorities. I do not suggest that the steps that have been taken over the past few days are the eventual solution to the challenge, but they are certainly a step in the right direction. Because of the significant hard work by people on the ground in relation to the authorities, those steps are in a direction that would have been unthinkable a comparatively short time ago.

I add my personal condolences to all the families who lost dear ones, on behalf of myself, my party and the Scottish National party. I was in Basra last year and I picked up much anger and some resentment about the infrastructure that still needed repair, such as sanitation, clean water and electricity. I appreciate the fact that the right hon. Gentleman has only just come into his post, but I urge him to see whether more can be done to reinstate those necessary services.

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his expression of condolences on behalf of the parties for whom he speaks, and I accept and welcome them on behalf of those for whom they are intended. I am in no doubt that as well as the military objectives that we set ourselves, the reconstruction objectives are very important to pacification and the restoration of normality of life and opportunity for the people of Iraq. The hon. Gentleman does not need to remind me of that, but he makes a valuable point. I know that the long-term pacification of Iraq and the opportunity for its citizens to live a full life in a democratic society—as they want to do—depends on both coming together.

In paying tribute to the sacrifice of the Lynx crew, two of whom came from RAF Benson in my constituency, I wish to ask the Secretary of State whether he agrees that the risks to British forces seem to have increased considerably in the past year. If he does agree, could he give a political analysis of why that might be the case and what we can do about it?

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his contribution. Because of his constituency interest, I am aware that he will face some responsibilities in relation to the consequences of the incident. If we can give him any support, he need only ask. He asked me to make a comparative analysis of the level of risk. Given the time that I have been at the Ministry of Defence, it would be inappropriate for me to accept his invitation to do that. However, on the assumption that the assessment is correct, it would seem to me to be a reflection of the response of those who want to stop Iraq moving and making a transition to where we all want it to be, because the progress—albeit tentative—that I have been talking about from the Dispatch Box today must be as manifest to them as it is to us.

I welcome the right hon. Gentleman to his new post and wish him well. On behalf of my right hon. Friend the Member for North Antrim (Rev. Ian Paisley) and my hon. Friends in the Democratic Unionist party, I express sincere sympathy and extend our condolences to all the families who have endured such loss. No one can understand the grief or pain that they are going through, and our hearts go out to them. I assure the Secretary of State that the people of Northern Ireland will stand four-square with our soldiers who have gone to the front line in defence of freedom, and assure them of our support while they fight the battle in Iraq.

All I can do is express my thanks to the hon. Gentleman for his contribution. Because of the tragic experiences in the all too recent past of the people whom he represents, there is a certain poignancy in his remarks. I know that they will be even more greatly appreciated by those for whom they are intended, because they are informed by the experiences of the hon. Gentleman and others in Northern Ireland.

The Secretary of State will be aware that in the next few days the bodies of the dead will come back to RAF Brize Norton in Oxfordshire, where the Oxford coroner will have to carry out inquiries into the deaths. A coroner's inquiry has yet to be mounted in more than 60 cases, and it is no exaggeration to say that the families of the dead cannot complete the mourning process until those inquiries have been carried out. Will the Secretary of State assure the House that the coroner will have the assets that he requires to make sure that the families of those heroes and that heroine receive their due reward?

The hon. Gentleman raises an important matter, of which I have to confess that I was unaware when I came to the Dispatch Box; he brings it to my attention entirely appropriately. However, because of information that I received as he was asking his question, I am able to assure him that we have already identified additional resources and that we are actively looking at ways to achieve the objective that he sets out. I can understand the effect that such delay would have on those who are grieving, and from my period as Minister with responsibility for victims in Northern Ireland, I know how important it is for people suffering such losses to have closure for certain stages of the grieving process. The hon. Gentleman can rest assured that I shall look at the matter with some urgency.

Having marked the right hon. Gentleman in his first ministerial job, I give him my genuine personal congratulations on the assumption of a great office of state, while deploring the appalling circumstances that bring him to the House of Commons so early in his tenure. May I draw his attention to the fact that he did not challenge the assumptions underlying the question from my hon. Friend the Member for Henley (Mr. Johnson) about the deterioration of the security situation for our troops in southern Iraq? In an incident completed in four hours, rocket-propelled grenades, mortars and small arms were concentrated against our armed forces and the evidence suggests that the situation with regard to popular opinion towards our armed forces in southern Iraq has gone from relatively benign in 2003 to quite difficult. Will the Secretary of State bear that in mind, and apply the lessons to Afghanistan, where in Helmand province the situation is likely to be much more malign?

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his kind remarks; I know that his expressions of congratulation and support are genuine. With respect, he may have misunderstood my response to his hon. Friend's question, although they are genuinely in the same area. I sought not to respond to the question from a basis, effectively, of ignorance, I concede: his hon. Friend asked me to draw a comparison about the risk, and I do not feel able to do so—but what I can say, of course, having spoken to those who on the ground, is that, in the parlance that they use, we appear to be going though a spike of violence. Their assessment of that, however, was reflected in the answer that I gave his hon. Friend, which was that it is an expression of the determination of those who want to stop Iraq becoming a democratic and free country, because they can see the direction of travel that is going on. I am afraid that I must disappoint the hon. Gentleman in response to the peroration of his question, because he invites me into a whole other theatre of conflict, and if the House does not mind, I will restrict myself to questions about the incident and Iraq at this stage and not be drawn into discussing Afghanistan at the moment.

As a former guardsman who served in a unit when one of my colleagues went missing in action, whose body has never been found, I am deeply concerned that the Secretary of State's statement said "missing believed killed". Can the Secretary of State let us know where the remains of our heroes are? Are they in the British Army's possession, so that we can bring them home and let them rest with their families and loved ones?

The hon. Gentleman draws me into a level of detail that I have been urged not to be drawn into by those who are responsible for the health and welfare of the families of those missing, presumed killed. Over the past 48 hours or thereabouts, Ihave been schooled in the vocabulary of these announcements, but I can give the hon. Gentleman the assurance—he will know this from his own experience—that the armed forces are giving the families of those whom we believe were killed in the incident the level of support that would be expected. I have absolutely no doubt that there is a level of communication going on there that would be entirely inappropriate in public.

The loss of five brave servicemen and women is truly a terrible event. I should have thought that the immediate crowd on the ground would have been there to see whether they could help our servicemen. As the Secretary of State has stated, 200 to 300 people appeared to celebrate the downing of the helicopter. Will he explain or give some indication of what he thinks the motives of that crowd were?

With respect, I am probably the last person on earth to be asked about the motives of a crowd in Basra, but I can tell the hon. Gentleman about my own professional experience prior to my election to the House, when I practised for some time in the criminal courts in Scotland. Unfortunately, on occasion, serious violent incidents arose from the behaviour of mobs and/or crowds. The one thing that I learned during that time was that it was very difficult to try to get to the bottom of the behaviour of a crowd of people. Sometimes crowds of people come together for perfectly innocent reasons, and then behave in mob ways that are difficult to fathom. That was my experience. I was reinforced in that analysis by comments that have come directly from officers in Basra in communications and interviews over the weekend. I have heard, I think, Brigadier Everard—if I have identified the wrong officer, I apologise—express exactly the same emotions in response to a question that he was asked in an interview—on the BBC, I think. It would be unhelpful to speculate about why things may have happened—but one can hope that the investigations will reveal some information that will enable us to ensure that they do not happen again.

I join the Secretary of State in echoing the condolences to the families. My local regiment was part of the response unit that went to help with the helicopter crash. However, wider questions are raised about how Iraq is progressing, as was mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Reigate (Mr. Blunt). What we endured here in the UK, in London on 7/7, would be an average day in Iraq. We lost about 50 civilians on that day. In Iraq, 1,300 civilians are lost every month; there is an average of 60 attacks a day, and about 30 bodies are found on the streets every day. How high must the death toll rise until the Secretary of State agrees that there is a state of civil war? How long must we endure the hostilities between the Shi'ites and the Sunnis before the Secretary of State acknowledges that Iraq might be better off if it were encouraged to divide peacefully into three separate states?

I think that the hon. Gentleman seeks to encourage me to give a figure—which, of necessity, would be arbitrary—for a point at which we would automatically change our position. I do not wish to repeat what I have already said in the House: I have made my position as Secretary of State for Defence clear, and it is entirely consistent with the Government's position and that expressed previously by my right hon. Friend the present Home Secretary when he was in this post. In my view, wherever we come from as regards the endeavour in the first place, we are there now, and we are mandated by the United Nations to carry out a job. That job needs to be done. My objective in this post is to support those whom we have tasked with that job. The issues that the hon. Gentleman raises have been responded to many times from the Dispatch Box, and I can add nothing to the clarity of answer that he has no doubt received in the past.

On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I seek your advice because of my concern for the reputation of the House. During Question Time the Minister for Pensions Reform mentioned Barlow Clowes, a company that operated in my constituency. I believe that he and the House should know that that company went bump, and that the Government paid out substantial sums of compensation to the investors, which was not the implication of his response to the question. I hope, Mr. Speaker, that you feel that it was appropriate to make the position clear, because of the matter relating to my constituency.

That was not a point of order, but the hon. Gentleman has put the matter on the record.

On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. About an hour ago I approached the Table Office to find out about Deputy Prime Minister's questions on 17 May, and whether there had been a change. I was told that there had been no change, but one was expected. I seek your guidance on this matter, because I note that when Lord Heseltine was Deputy Prime Minister, without any other responsibilities, between 1995 and 1997, he came to the House to answer questions. The current Deputy Prime Minister will have Government responsibilities. Is it your opinion that he should therefore come to the House to answer to it for those responsibilities?

These matters are about arrangements that have yet to come. As I have said to the hon. Gentleman and the House before, we are best to worry about today, and look after tomorrow when tomorrow comes.

On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Have you received notification of the Foreign Secretary's intention to make an urgent statement to the House and to answer questions on the extremely good news for the relatively safe and secure Kurdish region of Iraq? The Kurdistan Prime Minister Barzani today presented the region's new unified Government and Cabinet, who are pledged to protect and respect all citizens of the region with transparency and democratic accountability. With so much bad news, we should be able to make time for good news of such historic importance.

The hon. Gentleman has given us the good news, and we will move on from there.

I beg to move, That this House disagrees with the Lords in the said amendment.

With this it will be convenient to consider Lords amendment No. 2 and the Government motion to disagree thereto, Lords amendment No. 3, and Lords amendment No. 4 and the Government motion to disagree thereto.

Lords amendment No. 1 was made by the Lords in the belief that aerodrome operators would not voluntarily make use of the provisions in the Bill to fix their charges by reference to the noise or emissions of aircraft. The Government take a different view. The power to charge by reference to noise has been available to airports since 1982 and many of the larger airports already use it, such as Heathrow, Gatwick, Stansted, Aberdeen and Edinburgh. The provisions of the Bill have been brought forward to provide clear powers for airports to fix their charges by reference to aircraft emissions as well as aircraft noise. I am confident that airports will, again, make use of these provisions when appropriate, with no need for compulsion from the Government.

The Government's policy for many years—not solely under the current Administration—has been that the local issue of the environmental impact of an airport should be resolved locally whenever possible. That policy reflects the diverse nature of airports and their operations. There are more than 140 licensed aerodromes in the United Kingdom to which the provisions of clause 1 will apply. They range from the busiest international airport in the world—Heathrow—to airports with only a handful of flights a day.

Lords amendment No. 1, which would place an absolute duty upon airport operators to fix their charges with reference to the noise or emissions of aircraft, would run the risk of placing an undue regulatory burden on some airports, especially small airports. Not all airports are located or used in such a way that nuisance is caused to others. It will not always be appropriate to charge by reference to noise, for instance if the airport is used by only one class of aircraft causing comparable amounts of noise.

I am grateful to the Minister for giving way so early in his speech, but astonished by what he has just said. He talks about an airport that is used by only one class of aircraft, but surely one of the reasons for giving the powers is so that airports can encourage operators to use more noise-efficient and emission-efficient aircraft in the longer term.

I was trying to make a comparison between larger and smaller airports and different classes of aircraft. Of course, we want airports to encourage the use of quieter aircraft. More modern aircraft are quieter than others.

Clause 1, as it stands, allows the flexibility to account for the cases that I outlined, just as it will allow larger airports, such as Heathrow or Manchester, to reflect in their charging schemes the environmental impact of the aircraft that use them. However, I understand that hon. Members may be worried that some airport operators might not wish to take up the powers, even if local circumstances meant there was a strong case for doing so. Proposed new subsection (4) of section 38 of the Civil Aviation Act 1982, which is contained in clause 1, gives the Secretary of State the power to direct, by order subject to the negative procedure, specified aerodromes to make use of the powers in the clause. That provision might be used in cases when the voluntary measures prove ineffective.

I note that proposed new subsection (3) of section 38 of the 1982 Act refers to "taking off or landing". The noise or emissions requirements are thus concerned with aircraft taking off or landing at the aerodrome in question. Will the Minister tell me whether the expressions "taking off" and "landing" are defined anywhere in the Bill? For example, would they cover aeroplanes that were coming in to land, but some miles away from the airport—I am thinking of aircraft flying over my constituents as they come into Nottingham East Midlands airport—or aircraft that take off from Nottingham East Midlands airport and then climb into the skies above my constituents?

I do not think that that is the case, but I will confirm the correct position to the hon. and learned Gentleman.

I hope that my explanation of the Government's thinking behind making the provision a power, rather than a duty, will convince hon. Members to disagree with the Lords in Lords amendment No. 1.

Lords amendments Nos. 2 and 4 would affect the way in which the charges should be set. Although the Government agree that it is reasonable that airport operators should be expected to set noise charges that are proportionate, we do not agree that that is something that needs to be provided for in the Bill. Airports have been making use of the power to set noise-related charges for more than 20 years and there has been no suggestion that they have not done so in an appropriate or proportionate way. However, if there is a problem with the charging scheme, the Secretary of State will have the power that I mentioned to direct an airport operator regarding the manner in which its charges are to be fixed. The airport should be subject to the control scheme that it sets up to address the effects of its operations on the locality. There areother considerations on airport charging, such as international guidance that noise-related charges should be non-discriminatory between users and should not be established at levels that are prohibitively high for the operation of certain aircraft. Again, we did not think it necessary to make those considerations statutory requirements. The existing provisions function well, and they do not need to be altered in any way.

Lords amendment No. 3 is a minor technical amendment to clarify the provisions of clause 1, which inserts a new section 38 into the 1982 Act. New subsection (3) defines noise and emissions requirements. The amendment simply ensures that cross-reference is made to mention of those requirements in both subsections (1)(d) and (2)(d), rather than solely to subsection (1)(d).

rose—

I am about to conclude, I am afraid. I urge hon. Members to accept Lords amendment No. 3.

May I begin by welcoming the Under-Secretary of State for Transport, the hon. Member for Halton (Derek Twigg) to the Chamber and, indeed, the hon. Member for Lincoln (Gillian Merron)? I look forward to our exchanges across the Dispatch Box, although I do not know how many there will be, because few people think that the noise of 1,000 soundbites has settled anything for long.

Lords amendment No. 1, which the Government seek to overturn, replaces the word, "shall", with "may" in the provisions on charging on noise and emissions. As the Minister explained, Lords amendment No. 2 makes those charges proportionate to the noise made. The remaining Lords amendments are relatively minor amendments on noise. There is all the difference in the world between the compulsion expressed in the word, "shall", and the vague non-committal aspiration in "may". This is an almost completely empty Bill, and in tabling those amendments the House of Lords sought to tweak the Government's tail so that they would do something about the problem. The amendments try to tease out an explanation from the Government as to whether the Bill will, in fact, do something or is just another eye-catching initiative.

The Government recently admitted that their domestic target of reducing emissions by 20 per cent. by 2010 will not be reached. The Conservative Government cut emissions of carbon dioxide by 7 per cent. in their last seven years in office, but CO2 emissions are higher now than they were nine years ago. Aviation on its own explains why they have risen since the Government came to power. [ Interruption. ] My right hon. Friend the Member for Wokingham (Mr. Redwood) has pointed to another possible source of rising emissions. The Bill, however, does not include any targets, sliding scales, rewards for airlines and airports for successfully tackling noise and emissions, or measures of success. Indeed, there is not even an obligation to measure, let alone report, progress or success. Above all, there is no compulsion at any point. In Committee, the hon. Member for Regent's Park and Kensington, North (Ms Buck), who then had ministerial responsibility for aviation, said that

"the provisions in the Bill have been introduced specifically in response to some airports—I name Manchester airport in particular—that have made it clear that they seek legal clarification of the powers that they wish to use. Manchester airport may want to fix its charges by reference to aircraft noise or emissions, and it seeks the cover of legislation to do so."

The Bill therefore aims to close a legal gap identified by Manchester airport's lawyers.

Clause 1, the main clause of the Bill, does not require anyone to do anything, but BAA has already introduced emissions charging schemes which it negotiated with the Civil Aviation Authority two years ago, and the Minister admitted that some airports have operated arrangements relating to noise for 20 years, so what are the Government introducing the measure for? Without an amendment requiring a degree of compulsion, as Lords amendment No. 1 does, the Bill does nothing, except remove the noise gap, which we will debate when we reach the next group of amendments.

The Government should not preach environmental concern, then waste a golden opportunity to do something about it. It is clear that the Government are not sure what the Bill is about. I feel for the hon. Member for Halton, who has had it dumped in his lap towards the end of its course. From the way that he delivered his speech, I suspect that he, too, is not certain what the Bill is for, and that is not an attack on the hon. Gentleman. He did not draft his speech and had nothing to do with the Bill's origins.

In Committee I said to the hon. Gentleman's predecessor, the hon. Member for Regent's Park and Kensington, North (Ms Buck):

"Surely one of the purposes of an emissions-related charging scheme would be to encourage operators to use aircraft which emit less emissions and noise at that aerodrome. I simply do not follow her logic on that."—[ Official Report, Standing Committee B,5 July 2005; c. 6-7, 28.]

The Minister chose to raise again today the idea that smaller airports will have only one class of aircraft operating from them. Surely the provisions should encourage airports to provide incentives for their operators to use aircraft that are quieter and which produce less NO2 and less CO2 emissions. The Government are uncertain what they are trying to achieve.

In December 2003 the Government produced a White Paper on the future of aviation in the UK. Summarising the purposes of the White Paper, the then Secretary of State said that

"we have to balance those benefits against the serious environmental impact of air travel, particularly the growing contribution of aircraft emissions to climate change, and the significant impact that airports can have on those living nearby. That is why the Government remain committed to ensuring that, over time, aviation meets the external costs"—

by which he meant environmental costs—

"that it imposes."—[Official Report, 16 December 2003; Vol. 415, c. 1434.]

In Committee the Minister said:

"There is no question that aviation has an impact in environmental terms, and we need to rise to the challenge that it presents. Those living close to airports have genuine anxieties, which the Government and I recognise absolutely and we must move forward in responding to it".

My hon. Friend has been following these matters with previous Ministers. Can he tell me what the Government are doing to try and get emissions and noise down? Most of my constituents would like something to happen on those counts.

I would dearly love to be able to answer my right hon. Friend's question, but the answer is very little. I hope I have made it clear that clause 1, which the amendment seeks to beef up, offers nothing in its present form. It gives airports powers that they have been using for years.

The Environmental Audit Committee described Ministers as being "superficial and vague" about the environmental damage and the Government's unwillingness to tackle it. In Committee the hon. Member for Southport (John Pugh), speaking for the Liberal Democrats, pointed out that

"the Bill seems to allow even quite a large airport to have no scheme at all. Although there might be a case for some small airports that have very little traffic or very little international traffic not having a scheme, there is surely a good case for all big airports having some sort of scheme, but the Bill simply does not require that."—[Official Report, Standing Committee B, 5 July 2005; c. 6, 8.]

I see no reason why any airport should not operate a scheme, but the priority is obviously the bigger ones. The Minister responded by stating that the proposed new section of the Act in clause 1 gives the Secretary of State power to direct specified aerodromes to use the powers in the clause, yet not once has the Minister said when that will happen. It is not reassuring. For example, what is to stop an airport operator with multiple operators using, under the guise of environmentalism, emissions and noise charges at one airport to provide a hidden subsidy to subsidise another in its portfolio by offering lower charges?

We are opposed to cross-subsidy. For example, we know from extensive meetings within the airline industry that there is great unease about Stansted being the site for the next runway in the south-east.

Has the hon. Gentleman noticed that it is usually the case that the bigger the airport, particularly if it is a designated airport, the lower the costs? Some of us think that it would be a good idea to spread around the United Kingdom some of the flights that currently go into the cheaper, larger, noisier airports. Is that his view, or is he suggesting that we should not undercut the financial viability of airports such as Heathrow?

I agree with the hon. Lady on that point, but I am concerned about cross-subsidy between airports in the south-east, which, as she knows, is the big issue. The key point about the new runway at Stansted concerns cross-subsidy, and, in theory, the new power for the Secretary of State could be used to encourage further cross-subsidy—we already have a differential charging system. In practice, however, the Government have not pledged to use that limited power. The real issue is that clause 1 does so little, which means that the Government, who are committed to tackling emissions and noise, are doing almost nothing in this Bill.

My final point often comes up either on Report or in Lords amendments. The Government have made it clear that there are technical defects in the wording of the amendments. Indeed, House of Lords Hansard makes it clear that the drafter of the amendments knew that there were technical defects in the wording, which is why I shall not seek to press the matter to a vote. The amendments were tabled out of sheer frustration in the Lords, where there were no more answers on what the Government will do about environmental problems than we have received in this House. They seek to introduce an element of compulsion into clause 1, and when the Minister winds up the debate, I hope that he will indicate what the Government are actually going to do on noise around our airports and on emissions of oxides of nitrogen and of CO2.

I welcome my hon. Friends the Members for Halton (Derek Twigg) and for Lincoln (Gillian Merron) to the Front Bench and to their new responsibilities. They deserved promotion, although they have been passed a poisoned chalice.

In the past few months, the political parties have vied with one other to prove their green credentials. I am pleased that this Bill has appeared so soon, because one does not need to sledge across the Arctic while looking up the tails of half a dozen huskies or convene a summit of world leaders to identify an environmental issue, when there is one within 13 miles of this House, namely the impact of Heathrow airport in terms of noise and emissions. What worries me about the Government's failure to accept the Lords amendment and the Minister's failure to elaborate how the Government's system would operate effectively is that nothing is being done on tackling noise emissions and NO2 emissions.

I hoped that even if the Government were not to accept the amendment, they would explain how they would subsequently designate aerodromes which are not complying with a basic standard of emissions control, but we have received no information on that point. That is why the debates in the other place and in this place have moved further towards compulsion than some would have liked. It is often said that we have reached the stage with the aviation industry that we reached on the control of emissions from cars 30 years ago, when we had a long debate, which led us to incentivise research and development on improvements to engines and overall design and to control the usage of cars through either vehicle taxation levies or fuel duties. That is exactly where the amendment stands with regard to aviation.

We thought that there would be an opportunity to introduce legislation that placed a duty on aerodromes and then enabled them to adjust their charging policies if necessary. That would incentivise the aviation industry to reduce emissions by way of research and development, better engine design and improved flight practices. It would not only encourage good practice in the industry overall but incentivise individual companies by not placing a duty on them. The vague power that the Secretary of State will have, with no clarification of how it will be exercised, lets them off the hook. That means that we will progress no further and that areas will still be blighted by emissions from the aviation industry. From my own perspective, this proves that yet again the aviation industry has dominated the policy-making network that surrounds the Department for Transport, while the voices of environmentalists and of constituents who are suffering as a result of these emissions have not been heard.

It has been argued that the Secretary of State would be able to intervene at a future date. However, it would be invaluable if we could have a description of sorts as to how he would do so. What criteria would beused? How could representations be made to the Government to ensure that that mechanism was exercised by Ministers? What representations could be made by local communities? What would be the forum in which they would make those representations? What would be the role of individual MPs representing their constituents? At what stage would the consultation take place? How will these matters be brought before the House? At the moment, they are subject to the negative procedure, so there will be no opportunity for Members to trigger debate or even to comment on any decision that is made by the Government.

I am afraid that I fully support the Lords in this amendment, because compulsion is the only way forward, not only to bring the industry to a realistic assessment of the impact that it is having on our environment, but to force it to take some action. Without compulsion, we will go on for decades without having a real and direct impact. As a representative of the constituency in which Heathrow is sited, I am aware that even with existing legislation and voluntary agreements, my constituents' quality of life is directly affected by the noise and emissions that pollute the atmosphere. It was recently estimated that 5,000 of my constituents are being poisoned by air pollution from the airport.

The existing system is not working. The amendment would introduce an element of compulsion and put some pressure on the industry, and we would be able to move forward in a consensual way, since every party wants to be the greenest party in the land at the moment. I ask the Minister at least to describe how he envisages that the system will work and have an effect in the absence of the amendment.

I, too, welcome the Under-Secretaries to their new responsibilities. I have previously worked with them both in different roles. I am sure that our working together will be as fruitful in this role as it has been in the past.

Having said that, I am afraid that I do not have much positive to say about the Government's view on noise and emissions. They have talked a tough game, but their proposals in the Bill are timid, to say the least. The amendments made in the other place would go a long way towards putting spine into these measures, and they are exceptionally to be welcomed. I regret the fact that the Government are asking this House to disagree to them.

The mechanism of compulsion, for which the amendment provides, appears to be the only means whereby we can hope to achieve the sort of consistency that will be necessary to attain the meaningful controls that are needed on noise.

What do the Liberal Democrats believe to be the minimum charge that one would have to impose on aircraft landing and taking off to make an impact on the problem that the hon. Gentleman identifies?

I am delighted to tell the right hon. Gentleman that I have no idea what the figure would be. As Ministers normally say in such circumstances, I shall make inquiries and write to him. However, the point is that, instead of setting a figure, we are considering establishing a structure.

When my noble Friend Lord Bradshaw moved the amendment on Report in the other place, he drew attention to the position that persists in Birmingham and Coventry airports. He explained that Birmingham has exceptionally good noise monitoring arrangements, which are vigorously enforced and benefit the nearby residents. On the other hand, Coventry, which shares the same airspace, has no such noise monitoring in place. Consequently, the older, noisier, principally freight-based aircraft use Coventry airport because it is not subject to the same controls. By resisting the amendment, the Government appear to be inviting us to visit that position on the rest of the country.

Lords amendment No. 2 proposes that the charges on noise should be proportional to the noise emitted. I cannot understand why the Government continueto resist that. It is a no-brainer. In the other place, Lord Davies of Oldham prayed in aid smaller airports and the regulatory burden that would be visited on them. He specifically mentioned Tiree airport. I am delighted that, at last, the so-called peripheral communities are getting their fair share of say in Government policy on the matter, but I do not believe that working out the charges for noise and emissions at Tiree airport would be especially onerous. It would take most people approximately five minutes. I know from the operation of flight information services at Tingwall airport in Shetland in my constituency that the Government have previously showed precious little regard for the regulatory burden on small aircraft and, frankly, small airports have more pressing concerns than what we are discussing.

Does my hon. Friend agree that the smaller airports are something of a red herring because it is obvious to one and all, including, I am sure, the Under-Secretary, that general aviation and general business aviation involving smaller aircraft, of, for example, five tonnes, do not cause the emissions and the noise about which he is concerned? He does not need to worry about them. He could discuss the points that my hon. Friend makes without threat to the small airports.

My hon. Friend is uncharacteristically restrained when he says "something of a red herring", because the matter is a total red herring. It shows the general weakness of the Government's case that they resort to producing such examples in support of their arguments. I do not understand why they are so resistant to fairly simple, straightforward commonsense measures, which could make a genuine difference to the people who live near the major airports, especially those in the south-east of England whose lives are blighted by noise. The Government have a chance to act. The Under-Secretary must tell us why he chooses not to take it.

I shall speak briefly. I should declare an interest because London Luton airport brings considerable benefits to my constituency through employment and payments to the local authority, which contribute to local spending. The environmental effects do not affect my constituency so I could say that I do not mind what the impact is because I get all the benefits and none of the difficulties. However, that would be irresponsible and selfish.

I have spoken in favour of expanding London Luton airport, but largely on the basis that it might obviate the need to expand Heathrow. If Luton airport could be expanded, some medium-haul and short-haul flights could be transferred from Heathrow, which would benefit us and the constituents of my hon. Friend the Member for Hayes and Harlington (John McDonnell).

I am disappointed that the Government have chosen to reject the Lords amendments, although I shall acquiesce in their decision. Is it not time that we started to incentivise airport operators and others in the aviation industry to get their act together?

My hon. Friend and I have shared a similar point of view in many aviation debates. Does he accept, however, that the debate on this amendment lacks context—namely, that the noise contours around almost every airport are getting smaller, and that the noxious emissions from aircraft are reducing?

I agree entirely; I simply want to offer the industry incentives to do better.

Emissions might be decreasing where airports are not expanding. However, where airports are expanding, the increase in emissions is having a much greater impact.

Indeed. Anyone who lives near an airport will suffer in that respect, and there is everything to be gained from making it as difficult as possible for the industry to spew out noxious emissions.

Will the hon. Gentleman clarify his response to the previous intervention? Not only are the aggregate CO2 emissions from aviation rising fast, as flight numbers rise much faster than the rate at which efficiency improves, but that rise has more than accounted for the rise in CO2 emissions that is one of the sadder achievements of the past nine years of this Government.

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his intervention. I wanted to respond to the intervention made by my hon. Friend the Member for Crewe and Nantwich (Mrs. Dunwoody). She mentioned the distribution effects of charges relating to emissions and noise. I welcome the Under-Secretary of State for Transport, my hon. Friend the Member for Halton (Derek Twigg) to his place. Has he looked at the impact of distributing traffic between airports? Such a distribution could have a significant impact on south-east England, especially on London Luton. I hope that traffic will shift from London Heathrow to London Luton, as that would benefit Luton and Heathrow. We know that there will be an increase in air traffic, although I think that it will be smaller than is being predicted, for all sorts of environmental and political reasons. Nevertheless, such a shift would be beneficial. Has the Department considered the distribution effects of such constraints on noise and emissions?

My hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Blackley (Graham Stringer) mentioned noise footprints. A new generation of aircraft will soon come into existence. Some hon. Members might have seen the presentation on the so-called Dreamliner, which is made of composite rather than metal. It is much lighter, has a bigger payload and can fly much longer distances. Most significantly, however, it is much more fuel- efficient and has a much smaller noise footprint. If we can offer the industry incentives to move as quickly as possible towards adopting such aircraft—which I believe are the future—we shall do everyone a great service in regard to the environment. It would also make life easier for the industry, as it would be less under pressure than it would otherwise be.

We should also press what is left of the British aircraft manufacturing industry—there is not too much left, but what is left is Airbus—to go in that direction as well. It should follow Boeing in making aircraft that are much more fuel-efficient and generate far fewer emissions and less noise.

Having made those few remarks, I shall acquiesce in what the Government decide on this amendment.

I am sorry that the hon. Member for Luton, North (Kelvin Hopkins) will acquiesce with what his Whips require. He is missing a point. The clause will do nothing to protect the interests of his constituents—whether they live right under the flight path or gain from the economic advantages that Luton airport brings them. None of us wants the economy to be damaged, but equally I think that all of us, including Labour Members, want the airline, aviation and airport industries to consider the interests and lives of those who live under flight paths and near airports.

I was interested to learn quite recently that 86 per cent. of all noise complaints about arriving aircraft relate to Heathrow or to Nottingham East Midlands airport. Heathrow is the country's premier airport for passengers and freight. Nottingham East Midlands airport is not covered by clause 2 because it is not a designated airport under the Civil Aviation Act 1982. My constituents do not live—to use the words of clause 1—"in the vicinity of" Nottingham East Midlands airport, which is not in Nottingham. Very few people from outside Britain know what the east midlands is like as a destination, and the airport is wholly within Leicestershire but happens to have a Derbyshire postcode, and I see the hon. Member for South Derbyshire (Mr. Todd) in his place. I also see the hon. Member for Manchester, Blackley (Graham Stringer) in his place, and he is a former director of the Manchester Airport Group, which wholly owns the airport. We have the absurd situation in which more and more people are getting more and more cross with the way in which Nottingham East Midlands behaves towards its neighbours, but they can do less and less about it.

I thought that the new Civil Aviation Bill would give my constituents and the residents of greater Leicestershire some purchase on the decision making of an airport whose headquarters are in Manchester. That would have improved the quality of life of my constituents who live between 20 miles and 50 miles from the airport.

The hon. and learned Gentleman seems to making a case for the municipalisation of all airports so that they are democratically owned and controlled by the people who live in their area.

Not only was I not seeming to make that case, but I was not making it. I am asking the Government to get a grip and to understand the damage that, on the face of it, a beneficial operation could wittingly or unwittingly have on those who have least control over the operation.

Nottingham East Midlands airport might have much to recommend it. It sells itself as the freight hub of the east midlands and as a good place to do business from which freight carriers can distribute goods throughout England within four hours of their being landed. That is fine, and we are told how wonderful it will be that new jobs will be created in the Castle Donington area. However, we have no evidence of those jobs; they are simply assertions.

Furthermore, as a direct consequence of an increase in traffic aeroplanes will, over the next decade, land once every 90 seconds between 11 pm and 7 am—that is the aim and the way in which the airport is being sold—but we are never told that, because the airport is not designated under the 1982 Act, the Government and the Secretary of State can do nothing about it. The Bill does not address that point and, despite their warm words about wanting to be green, Ministers will do nothing to control aircraft movements. If people think that the Government are going to do something about that, they are sadly wrong because they want to have "may" instead of "shall", and I think that the constituents of the hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington (John McDonnell) will suffer as much as my constituents do. The only hope that my constituents who are affected by a non-designated airport have is that the management of the airport group, based in Manchester, would at least be compelled to enter into a regime to control the noise and air pollution aspects of the business.