---

Civil Aviation Bill

My Lords, first, I must declare several interests. At present, I am president of BALPA and have been so since about 1980. I have also been a Minister for aviation and the European Commissioner for transport and the environment. In all those positions, the most important feature is balance. We have not heard that spoken of today. The noble Lord, Lord Hanningfield, said that the Bill represented a confused approach—and he nods—but that applies to every civil aviation Bill and it cannot be otherwise. I go back a long way to when I entered the House in 1970 and I cannot think of a situation where a civil aviation Bill has been other than that. My noble friend was right to emphasise the contribution which the airline industry makes to the economy. It is often insufficiently appreciated in terms of the generation of wealth and employment, both direct and indirect, and of benefits to the public in enhanced leisure and business opportunities. On the other hand, while recognising those immense benefits we cannot ignore or neglect the environmental impact. Therefore, as I said at the beginning, it is vital that we strike a balance between the real problems confronting those on the ground and the aircraft industry. If we take noise, for example, while there is no doubt that today’s jets are less noisy than their predecessors, those living under or near flight paths still suffer. As we have heard from various speakers, they are kept awake at night and disturbed by day. It is of little comfort to them to be informed that the situation was even worse in the past and they rightly call for more action. There is a vital need for ongoing research to develop still quieter aircraft using designated and non-designated airports alike. So it is a question of balance, which the Bill seeks to achieve. There has to be a sensible environmental policy to protect people, coupled with the reasonable assurance that airlines can continue to operate from our national airports and not for some to be tempted to desert them in favour of a new home—or perhaps mirage would be a more accurate term—on the Continent. This Bill encompasses proposals to deal with salient environmental concerns with regard to noise and other forms of pollution. It brings in reasonable regulations to control other aspects of the industry providing for appropriate penalties where breaches occur. Local authorities and local communities have important roles in encouraging best practice and consultation in my view is the key. Airports’ residential neighbours, airport workers, suppliers of services and trade unions should all be involved and given a hearing. Out of that—I hope—constructive dialogue, conflict and tension may be reduced and new beneficial effects emerge. In this spirit, a memorandum of understanding was signed last March between the Civil Aviation Authority and the Health and Safety Executive. Under it, both bodies are committed to close co-operation and a guidance on good practice was drawn up. Unfortunately, the guidance to consult with employees does not extend to the CAA’s responsibility for the health and safety of crews when they are on the aircraft—a point I tried to make in an intervention on my noble friend. There are work at height regulations in force but they do not include some matters of crucial concern related to flying conditions. Therefore, pilots are seeking an extension of this guidance so that their expertise and professionalism can be drawn on to advise on occupational health and safety matters, such as cockpit design, ergonomic operations, training of crews in identifying hazards—for example, contaminated cabin air—and so on. Therefore, they believe that the guidance should include an imperative to consult about onboard issues as well as those external to the aircraft. That would also be welcomed by the operators. Pilots’ contributions, borne out of experience, could undoubtedly benefit crews and passengers alike. Therefore, while pilots broadly support the Bill, an amendment introduced in Committee into Clause 7 on health and safety to address the anomaly to which I have alluded would be worth while. I refer to this now to pray in aid the necessity of close consultation and co-operation, above all with the industry’s employees, but not confined to them. This matter is a question of health on board, but by addressing all concerns in a meaningful way, we can improve the health of the airline industry as a whole. The Government have endeavoured to foresee the possibilities of sustainable aviation up to 2030 in the White Paper introduced by them, The Future of Air Transport. The Government cannot anticipate all the problems but, in my view, they have done their level best. Subject to what I said and to planning permission, plans have been set out for all the airports including a second runway at Stansted by 2012; perhaps a third runway at Heathrow; maybe a new runway at Gatwick after 2019; a second runway at Edinburgh; and the development of Manchester, Glasgow and other regional airports. All these plans are vitally important but consultation is vital in every respect. There are three other matters that, although they are, understandably, not specifically mentioned in the Bill, are highly germane to it. The first is purely British. Today it was announced by BAA that there is to be a large number of redundancies at London airports. Can my noble friend enlarge on that? When will they take effect? Who will be the probable victims? What effect will they have on British aviation? What consultation is likely to take place with the people who are going to be affected or their trade union representatives? Then there are the issues of climate change and global warming. The United States, in particular, is being somewhat cavalier about the threats that are posed thereby. It has been joined by a few other countries. They all display selfishness and myopia in an extreme degree. We have obligations under the European Convention on Human Rights that are of huge importance to millions, nay, billions, of people. The Government propose to tackle these issues on the world stage. Therefore, I hope that my noble friend will be able to enlarge on this in his closing remarks. Precisely how will the Government go about this? In particular, how do they envisage that the issue of emission trading, with its acknowledged opportunities, will be dealt with? This is a sensible Bill. I hope that it will be possible to bridge the differences which have been voiced in the House and, more particularly, by the organisations outside. I hope also that we will be able to amend Bill if changing circumstances demand this. But all in all the Government should be proud of what they have done and I fully support the Bill.