---

Civil Aviation Bill

My Lords, my noble friend the Minister is the most courteous and charming of men. Even he, however, must have groaned inwardly—I suspect possibly even audibly—when he saw some of the names on the speakers’ list for this debate. He will have been well aware of the axes that were about to be ground in his presence, and has heard most of them ground already. I fear they will go on being ground throughout the passage of this Bill, because there is, quite obviously, mounting concern across all parties and the country about the impact of aviation on our environment and quality of life. Much as I should like to brighten the Minister’s day by greeting this Bill with glad cries, he will not be surprised to learn that I am not going to. I can promise him, however, that I will not go on at great length because I only have two points to raise, which have already been raised by others. I am indebted to the Stop Stansted Expansion campaign, which has provided excellent briefing on the Bill. However, I can also add personal testimony to the general arguments that they have brought to my attention. I live on the patch of the noble Lord, Lord Hanningfield, in Uttlesford. If Uttlesford does not mean much to your Lordships, it is a beautiful part of rural north Essex, often cited as one of the best places to live in the UK. I can testify to that. Uttlesford district has within it a number of historically important buildings and settlements, including the towns of Saffron Walden and Great Dunmow, and the famous villages of Finchingfield and Thaxted, where I live. These are not, however, mere heritage showpieces preserved in architectural aspic for the benefit of tourists and inhabited by part-timers in green wellies driving 4x4s. They are living and breathing, with shops, pubs, schools, hospitals and many thriving small businesses, together with the usual range of problems which go with being a dynamic community. Sleepy they are not. The reasons for their wide-awake state, however, are not all good. They are all within 15 miles of Stansted, and some of them, like my own village, are directly under the approach path into the airport. The issue of aircraft noise, and night flights in particular, is therefore of acute importance, as a number of noble Lords have already pointed out, not only to the people who live near Stansted, but to everybody who lives or works near any airport. As my noble friend the Minister and others have noted, Clause 2(2) of the Bill amends Section 78(3)(b) of the Civil Aviation Act 1982 in such a way as to empower the Secretary of State to discontinue applying limits to the number of night aircraft movements at Gatwick, Heathrow and Stansted, replacing them with noise quotas alone. Under current law, there is both a movements limit and a noise quota applied to night operations, providing a complementary set of protections for local communities. The Government appear to believe that the number of movements can be allowed to increase because aircraft are becoming less noisy. We have already heard from a number of your Lordships that that is not conspicuously true, and I can assure your Lordships that even the most modern aircraft can be pretty noisy when it is right over your head in the middle of the night. Even if it were true, however, any benefit we might gain from the development of quieter engines would be lost if the numbers of flights were unrestricted. All night flights disturb, as my noble friend Lord Faulkner of Worcester graphically pointed out. They are particularly disturbing, oddly enough, in rural areas, where the general level of ambient noise at night is low. We must retain limits on their numbers, as well as on aggregate noise output. Furthermore, a movements limit is far easier to understand and monitor than noise quota limits, as the noble Lord, Lord Bradshaw—who I see is no longer in his place—noted. It provides vital protection to those who live very near an airport, although not necessarily directly under a flight path, and are especially disturbed by ground noise at night—another issue which has come up during this debate. Will my noble friend consider—I know what the answer will be—either deleting Clause 2(2) from the Bill or alternatively amending it so that movement limits remain in place? It is only fair to say that my noble friend has given the House an assurance today that night movement limits at Heathrow, Gatwick and Stansted will remain in place at least until October 2012 and that assurance is welcome. But under the arrangements proposed in the Bill as it stands, the Secretary of State could begin a public consultation immediately, as the noble Lord, Lord Hanningfield, has pointed out. An assurance was given that the Secretary of State had no intention of using Clause 2(2) to abolish local airport limits on daytime aircraft movements, but this Bill would provide the Secretary of State with statutory authority to do just that. Could my noble friend say why, if the Government do not intend these powers to be used, they are included in the Bill? Alternatively, could he say how the assurance given by himself and his honourable friend in another place are to be incorporated into the Bill so as to prevent it being used in ways the Government do not intend? Finally, I draw my noble friend’s attention again to the fact that the prevailing system of independent monitoring of the environmental impacts of air traffic, currently the responsibility of the owners and operators of airports themselves, are viewed with deep suspicion and mistrust by communities in the vicinity of airports, who believe that their fairness, transparency and objectivity cannot be relied upon. The Bill presents an opportunity for the 1982 Act to be amended to give the CAA the responsibility to act as regulator and overseer of environmental standards, as the noble Lords, Lord Hanningfield and Lord Bradshaw, noted. I know that there have been issues about the resource implications of such a change and I cannot believe that these would be impossible to overcome. Are the Government prepared to consider this matter again? I am aware of the importance of air transport to the economy of this country and I am not so na&-uml;ve as to imagine that the benefits it brings can be secured at zero cost to local communities and to the environment, despite my profound personal wish that individuals and governments would wake up fast, as my noble friend Lord Faulkner has suggested they should, to the frightening long-term implications of our love affair with cheap flights and out-of-season asparagus. There is a limit, however, to what people should be expected to tolerate by way of disruption to their daily lives and their nightly rest in the name of economic growth. As it stands, this Bill does nothing to rebalance that equation—indeed, it has the potential to make matters worse. When my noble friend comes to reply, I hope that he will be able to allay some of our worst fears.