---

Civil Aviation Bill

My Lords, I welcome the opportunity to speak on this small yet highly significant—and, dare I say, contentious—Bill. It follows the Government’s aviation White Paper, although, as we have just heard from the Minister, there is a hotchpotch of measures, some better than others. Sadly I do not think that the Bill has a strategic shape or clear purpose. It will be a difficult job to follow its ultimate consequences. The Bill gives the Secretary of State the authority to do quite a lot of things but it is not clear what he will end up doing. There are provisions on noise, emissions and ensuring against corporate failure, but there is no comprehensive policy on either noise or emissions. The aviation industry has seen dramatic wholesale changes in the past decade. We have witnessed a significant increase in air travel, combined with the emergence of new carriers, low ticket prices and Internet purchasing. At the same time, airports have attracted significant levels of internal investment, with BAA investing some £6 billion since privatisation. The number of passengers has risen dramatically, from 51 million in 1982 to 189 million in 2002, and by 7 million in 2001–02 alone. The Government estimate that there will be 500 million air passengers by 2030. That has a significant and substantial impact on the environment. Research by the Tyndall Centre for Climate Change claims that, at the present rate of growth, aviation emissions would wipe out all the emissions savings made by other sectors of the economy. It would be almost impossible for the Government to meet their stated objective of reducing CO2 emissions by 60 per cent from 1990 levels by 2050. Aviation emissions alone explain why CO2 emissions have increased since the Government came into power. Yet the Government concluded in the White Paper that there was a desperate need for additional runway capacity in the south-east. With developments at Gatwick scuppered until 2019, the burden of expansion will be placed on the other London-centric airports, particularly on a second runway at Stansted. I declare an interest: as noble Lords may know, I am leader of Essex County Council. Although there are no provisions in the Bill on a second runway, it was dealt with in the White Paper. Existing runway capacity in the south-east should be developed without building any further capacity. I am sure that that issue will be discussed in Committee. Nobody believes that Stansted could possibly finance out of its own revenues the hugely expensive infrastructure expansion required for a second runway. I wonder where the cash would come from for the new roads, dedicated high-speed rail line and M11 junction, not to mention all the infrastructure requirements for the growth in workforce required to operate and service a vastly expanded airport. Many of us cannot help but think that the Government’s entire thinking on the future of aviation is misguided and confused. In the case of a new runway at Stansted, and possibly one at Heathrow, the market probably does not want it and environmentally it would be disastrous for all concerned. In short, the Government have a piecemeal approach to that, but they have no overall strategy, which presumably is why there is nothing about runways in the Bill. The Bill is a case in point: it is neither one thing nor the other. It clearly illustrates the confusion on those issues, which we will explore further in Committee. As regards some of the specifics in the Bill, I shall turn, first, to noise. We know that airports have had the power to fix their charges with reference to noise since the Aviation Act 1982. But for the resident on the ground the current methodology for the measurement of noise is highly unsatisfactory. While noise is measured in decibels, the equivalent continuous sound level is an index of exposure to aircraft. It is a measure of the equivalent continuous sound level averaged over a 16 hour day from 7 am to 11 pm, and can be taken in the peak summer months from mid-June to mid-September. The continuous level system underestimates aircraft noise in three key areas. First, averaging out the noise can be misleading; secondly, low frequency noise is ignored; thirdly, continuous level classifications underestimate the level at which noise annoys people. In short, decibels are an unsatisfactory measure of nuisance. It is the drone and roar of aircraft that disturb people. The entire methodology desperately needs an urgent review. I should be grateful if the Minister could give us some indication of whether the Government are entirely content with the existing regime or whether there are any thoughts on conducting a review into noise. Clause 2(2) empowers the Secretary of State to discontinue applying limits to the number of night aircraft movements at Heathrow, Gatwick and Stansted and to replace them with noise quotas alone. The current position is that a movements limit and a noise quota apply to night operations. A night noise quota alone would produce a lesser standard of protection because, as I have tried to explain, the present methodology of monitoring noise is decidedly unsatisfactory. In addition, as aircraft become less noisy more flights could be accommodated within the same noise quota and there would be no real benefit to the local community. Again, as I have already mentioned, there is no such thing as a quiet aircraft: there is noise from all aircraft. Virtually all night flights disturb the peace. Therefore, it is important to retain the limits on the number of night flights as well as the aggregate noise output. During the Second Reading debate in the other place, the Parliamentary Under-Secretary gave an assurance that the Government would consult stakeholders before making any changes to the current arrangements. However, I cannot help but think that this is a Government merely going through the motions. On this issue, they seem to have made up their mind. I should like the Minister to comment further on that. The Under-Secretary additionally gave an assurance that night movement limits at the three London airports would remain in place until at least October 2012. However, if Clause 2(2) remains as presently drafted, the Secretary of State could commence consultation immediately after Royal Assent. It would be possible for night movement limits to be abolished as early as October 2006. Therefore, we need to amend that part of the legislation. It is thoroughly disingenuous for the Government to try to portray that as offering greater protection for local communities by encouraging the use of quieter aircraft through noise quotas. I give notice that we will seek during the passage of the Bill to remove that relaxation in regard to restricting night flights. Airport operators are responsible for monitoring and reporting on the environmental impact of their operations—acting as judge, jury and policeman. In addition, at all UK airports, except Heathrow, Gatwick and Stansted, the airport operator is responsible for deciding which environmental noise objectives should be adopted. There is considerable mistrust among local communities in relation to the fairness, objectivity and transparency of the current in-house arrangements for reporting on aircraft noise, emissions and track keeping, and for recording and handling complaints from members of the public regarding aircraft noise and other environmental impacts. Instead, would it not be preferable for an independent body such as the CAA or even the trading standards departments of local authorities to take on this role thereby restoring trust, confidence and integrity back into the process? Indeed, the CAA is perfectly capable of taking on this role and Section 5 of the 1982 Act empowers the Secretary of State to require the CAA to exercise the role of environmental watchdog. The resource implications could be minimised if the CAA were simply charged with overseeing the monitoring and reporting of environmental impacts at airports and, of course, it already has the necessary expertise as well as a reputation for fairness and integrity. Another area of concern in the Bill is the powers that it gives to airport operators to fine an aircraft operator who breaches any noise abatement requirements imposed by the Secretary of State. We found it odd that the Bill then allows the manager of an airport to spend those,"““penalties for purposes which appear to him to be likely to be of benefit to persons who live in the area in which the aerodrome is situated””." That gives the manager of the airport the discretion to spend that money. He could have a passion for golf and might build a golf course in the vicinity of the airport. That could happen because of the way in which the Bill is currently drafted. How would that benefit the people in the vicinity of the airport? I would welcome an explanation from the Minister about the circumstances in which the fines could be spent. The other main issue in the Bill is emissions. In principle, the idea of allowing airports to take into consideration aircraft emissions when levying landing charges is reasonable. However, the Bill simply allows emissions conditions to be included in contracts; it does not determine on what basis they should be included. Whether airport operators are necessarily the best people to possess this duty and how it will work in practice are points on which we will want to probe the Government in Committee. There are several other matters in the Bill that the Minister mentioned which I will not go into today but which we will explore in Committee. In conclusion, we feel that this is a rag bag of a Bill that lacks overall strategic direction. It has missed an opportunity.. Many of its measures are questionable in their benefit to the ordinary user of air travel.