---

Civil Aviation Bill

My Lords, I declare an interest as a director of Manchester Airports Group, which has been mentioned on numerous occasions today. I was appointed by the Greater Manchester local authorities, as the airport company is still publicly owned. Noble Lords will not be surprised, therefore, that broadly I welcome the Bill as I did the White Paper The Future of Air Transport. Without a successful, growing air transport industry, this country’s economic prospects would be limited. If we are to continue to lead in the knowledge economy, improved connectivity is vital. The economic impact of areas where airports are located is well documented. Direct employment is probably at a ratio of 1,000 jobs per million-passenger throughput, and indirect jobs come through tourism, increased trade and indirect investment. I share some of the concerns expressed about climate change and sustainability, but aviation can become more sustainable. We cannot simply put a brake on aviation development in the UK because the impact on the country would be severe. As airport operators we recognise that there are environmental and other disadvantages for those who live near airports, and wish to minimise the impact of airports as bad neighbours. All airports should work with their airlines and local communities to reduce that impact. The Bill’s powers will help to concentrate minds on the matter. In Manchester we have always tried to be at the leading edge in improving our environment and working with the community. We have put money into soundproofing schemes quite a way from the airport and we have continued those schemes as we have taken over other airports, particularly Nottingham East Midlands. At our two main airports, Manchester and Nottingham East Midlands, we are carrying out three of the four activities that the Bill will allow airports to do. We fine aircraft that exceed the noise limits that we set. We welcome debate about how we can properly define it. We are very happy at the idea of moving around monitoring arrangements. I was surprised that noble Lords seemed to think that the CAA is an independent body that can monitor aviation noise. The CAA is responsible for the allocation of air space, which has as much to do with aviation noise as the location of airports. We have had quite a dispute in Nottingham East Midlands airport because the CAA, acting outwith its powers, has decided to reallocate air space, creating new areas of noise. The CAA is as guilty of noise as airports; therefore it would not be an independent operator. We have voluntary schemes to incentivise aircraft to keep on track. The noble Lord, Lord Bradshaw, seemed to doubt whether those schemes worked, but with over 95 per cent of aircraft keeping to the tracks agreed with the airports and the CAA, we are doing quite a good job. There are always reasons why aircraft may go off track; they may be to do with safety and other factors. We monitor air quality around the airport. We support aviation’s inclusion in the emissions trading scheme. We do not charge penalties at the moment, but, given the powers in the Bill, I think that we will review that. As noble Lords have said, a substantial proportion of emissions around airports come, not from aircraft, but from people gaining access to the airport. It is therefore important that airports concern themselves with public transport. As an airport company we have contributed to the delivery of a new mainline rail link to Manchester airport and will contribute to the metrolink connection to the airport. We hope that the Government will sustain their contribution also. I am pleased at what has been achieved at Manchester and Nottingham East Midlands airports by voluntary activity. I welcome the Minister’s comments that a lot has been achieved through voluntary arrangements, and that much of the Bill may be used just as a last resort if those arrangements do not work. I also declare an interest in Clause 5. On two previous occasions, I tried to table an amendment introducing that clause to government legislation. The noble Lord said that the provision was introduced in the 1986 Act solely to try to make local authorities privatise their airports. We were restricted on what we could do and on what we could borrow. The noble Lord, Lord Hanningfield, wondered how Stansted would pay for a second runway. Manchester managed to pay for a second runway from its own resources as the company did not have access to public borrowing, so it can be done. In July 2000, I tried to add that clause to a transport Bill, but I was told that it was more appropriate to a local government Bill. When I introduced it in the Local Government Bill in June 2000, in his own inimitable style, my noble friend Lord Rooker expressed sympathy at my predicament but could not agree to its inclusion in his Bill. He asked me to withdraw it and promised that, when a suitable opportunity occurred, the Government would include it. Off message, he promised that that was a firm commitment, so I am pleased that three-and-a-half years later, the Government have done it. It means that airports like Manchester will be able to do the same as other airports, such as Heathrow, and the British Airports Authority. It will give us a level playing field. I would have preferred a much simpler clause saying, ““Get rid of Section 17(4) of the Airports Act 1986””, but I understand the Government’s intention. I welcome the opportunity to discuss with interested parties the regulations that are needed. They need to be as clear and as wide as possible in order to allow those airports to have the same freedom as other airports. I hope that the Minister will assure me that I am not just being paranoid. Under Clause 5(3)—new Section 17A(1)—the word ““may”” is used rather than the word ““shall”” in terms of introducing regulations. I am sure that that will be dealt with. Finally, on a totally different point, I am fascinated by the language in the Bill, which describes airports as aerodromes. The Shorter Oxford English Dictionary, defines an aerodrome in a literal sense as a course for the use of flying machines, which is amplified by saying that it is attractive level ground from which aeroplanes or airships can start. The earliest recorded use is 1902. Louis Blériot probably took off from an aerodrome, as did Biggles. Gatwick would have been an aerodrome when it was a flying school. I wonder whether we can describe Heathrow, Gatwick today or Manchester as aerodromes. They are complex transport interchanges. The word ““airport”” is a simple, modern one. I would welcome the Minister’s assurance that, in line with the Government’s policy of simple, plain English that we can understand, they will bring forward amendments to replace the word ““aerodromes”” with ““airports””.