---

Civil Aviation Bill

My Lords, I accept that this is a limited Bill and not one that sets out the Government’s policy on civil aviation—it simply seeks to tidy up a few loose ends. One would assume—and perhaps the Minister will confirm this—that in due course we will be presented with something fairly substantial by way of government policy. However, it is useful that we mark down now the things that we will want to see in that policy when it comes to fruition. The noble Lord, Lord Hanningfield, mentioned noise limits and we are also worried by the fact that a noise quota may replace the noise number. The number of aircraft that are allowed to land at night can be counted fairly easily by people. If we get into a noise quota, we are then getting into the subjective area of how much noise each aircraft makes. I would hope, in any event, that whatever obligations the Government might have to the International Civil Aviation Authority or whomever we can still discriminate in favour of quieter aircraft. That is what people want. I am rather concerned about track keeping. I am concerned in two ways. First, there are few areas in this country that qualify for the description of tranquil areas. The maps are published by the CPRE and are in various colours, but fewer and fewer areas are not noisy. I would seek assurances from the Minister that the people who are responsible for routeing aircraft, whether in NATS or the CAA, when drawing up the aircraft routeing, will both prescribe the exact route that the aircraft will follow—so that they do not wander about and cause disturbance in tranquil areas—and also closely monitor the track keeping—the route that the aircraft takes on approaching and leaving an airport. I am not reassured by a piece of paper which has come into my possession from Manchester, saying, in respect of one of the airports—Manchester—that it has no legal powers to fine off-track aircraft. It has achieved an impressive 95 per cent compliance without resorting to financial penalties. I hope that there really will be financial penalties and that these will be invoked if people stray from the paths that they agreed to follow. There is not much evidence that aircraft operators are actually being fined. I want to draw the Minister’s attention to one point that I find very worrying. That is the reference to decibels. The noble Lord, Lord Hanningfield, referred to them in his speech. I quote from the Manchester arrangements, where the predefined noise level is 92 decibels during the day and 85 at night. The fine for breaching it is currently £500, which does not seem very much, and £150 per decibel thereafter. If anyone knows anything about physics, a decibel is a logarithmic scale. That means if you go up from 85 to 92 decibels, you have pretty well doubled the noise level. The fine is £150 a decibel. The fine should be logarithmic as well, if it is bear down on the noisiest aircraft. It is a clear error in the Bill, or in the arrangements rather, as it is not specified in the Bill. I think that people who are subjected to very noisy aircraft really expect the operators of those aircraft to be very heavily hit, because the business is not poor and it can afford the technology to be quiet. Another issue I want to raise—it was not raised by the noble Lord, Lord Hanningfield—concerns the EU emissions trading scheme. The trading scheme, as far as I know, depends on aircraft operators being allowed to continue to emit greenhouse gases provided they buy licences from somebody else—let us say, someone who is running a steel works in Czechoslovakia. So, the steel works in Czechoslovakia emits less and the aircraft here burn more. I believe that that is how it works. It seems to me there is a perverse incentive here—that someone in Czechoslovakia may have an incentive to keep a rotten old steelworks tottering along in order that he can sell the permit to an aircraft manufacturer here when logic would demand that the rotten old steelworks or coal plant or whatever should be closed down. But if you introduce into the balance sheet of that enterprise abroad the revenue from the aircraft permits here, it will be kept going. That does not seem to me to be very environmentally friendly . I hope that the Minister will address that matter. Otherwise, the Bill contains a number of very welcome additions. I support what the Minister said about health and the Air Travel Trust. I also support what he said about public airport companies. I see no reason why Manchester Airport cannot sell its services on the open market if they are produced competitively. However, I endorse some of the reservations expressed by the noble Lord, Lord Hanningfield. We on these Benches shall be very sceptical about plans to expand Stansted or any other airport unless they are accompanied by very thorough noise reduction and pollution reduction measures. We are worried about whether airports themselves should be the final arbiters in such matters as track keeping and noise. The CAA is independent and is seen to be independent. However, the material that the airports publish refers to the money which they put into the local community trust fund. That is probably welcome but it may cover up the fact that they are not really doing their job properly. Finally, one of the matters that gives me great cause for concern is the amount of energy which airports absorb at ground level. The surface access to airports, people driving to and fro, the heating, the lighting, the services at airports and the vehicles that the airport companies use constitute at least half the pollution which is associated with air travel. When further proposals are put forward I should like to see a real clampdown in that area as the scope for making savings there is probably much greater than it is with the aircraft themselves.