---

Civil Aviation Bill

My Lords, I suppose that I should join the noble Lord, Lord Solely, in declaring the fact that I live under quite a few airplanes in West London. My speech ought to be received against that background—not to say that I am biased. I do not suppose that I need to point out to the Minister that the Bill has been received with rather muted enthusiasm both here and in the other place. But it has enabled us to have a pretty wide-ranging, if not always totally relevant, debate. As practically every speaker has drawn attention to, there is no doubt that aircraft noise is becoming one of the most serious complaints of residents within miles of any airport. With new airports being established and increased use of others, it has been estimated that in the very near future nowhere in the United Kingdom, not even the Outer Hebrides, will be without ambient noise. The sound of aircraft will be audible everywhere. We are a small island in flying terms. In London, the inquiry into the fifth terminal was beleaguered by such concerns about noise. As my noble friend Lady Flather said, the surrounding boroughs are still incandescent at the effect of night flights and the possibility that they may be deregulated. Anyone who lives anywhere near the descent or approach path of airlines is affected. It is interesting that although the Government are strengthening the central control on noise at the three London airports, control elsewhere is to be left to the discretion of the other airports, which can decide for themselves whether to implement sanctions against companies that do not have appropriate noise reductions. Since the policies already exist, and the airports can apply sanctions to the noise, it can surely be only the last throw to make it a statutory possible requirement. The noble Lord, Lord Soley, is of course correct that there are economic and environmental impacts associated with airports, and we should not ignore those. But noise is one of the major problems associated with airports, and it is sensible for everybody to look forward to see how it can be reduced so that we maintain the economic viability of airports in the future. A number of noble Lords referred to emissions. The discharge of emissions into the atmosphere is of particular concern because of their effect on global warming. The increasing number of airplanes in the upper atmosphere can scarcely be addressed if emission control is left to the future prospect of lower emissions. On the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Faulkner of Worcester, we accept that fundamental decisions will have to be made about the liberalisation and long-term growth of air traffic. Perhaps the Minister can tell us what discussions have taken place during the EU presidency, a point raised by a couple of noble Lords. In particular, what proposals were discussed on aviation emissions trading? Mr Darling, the Secretary of State, said that it was something that the presidency would deal with. Does the Minister have any news on whether those discussions have been successful? The Bill is silent on any review of compensation for those who are affected by both noise and emissions. We believe that compensation should be more generous and we will be looking into that at further stages. We will also want to test the local airport consultative arrangements and their effectiveness. As has also been said, local authorities have a major role to play in how their local airports operate and the issue of noise there. As I understand it, the air travel fund is bust and is currently being supported by the Government. However, it is clearly an important fund as it backs up the ATOL system on which—as noble Lords said—passengers do rely. I am not sure how many passengers who believe they have ATOL security and rely on it appreciate that support for it continues only as a gesture of the Government. It remains a significant protection. During our consideration we will need to test the best way of ensuring that, with these liberated air travel arrangements, there is appropriate security for passengers and travellers. Clause 7 and the health issue were significantly and succinctly referred to by the noble Countess, Lady Mar, who has enormous experience. The health of passengers is of great importance as the amount of air travel undertaken increases. There is still a sizeable question about whether the air within aircraft, in the cabin, is of suitable quality. There have been many discussions on the issue, and I remember a Health Select Committee on the subject in this House. Concerns were raised then and are still being raised that the air quality is inadequate to support passengers. There is also—and this becomes increasingly relevant—the danger of the spread of infection if the air quality is insufficient. At the very least, poor air quality makes travelling unpleasant. But the noble Countess has extended those concerns to describe the danger to crew as well as passengers. To what extent will Clause 7 cover any of those aspects, or will there be restrictions on what the clause means? Perhaps it will be restricted to enabling the spraying of the inside of cabins, to prevent infection when planes land. The noble Lord, Lord Clinton-Davis, drew attention to the valuable role that can be played by pilots, for example, in the design of such systems. After all, they are not only the ones who experience them most; they are the people who have to deal with dangers when they arise. If there is inadequate or poisoned air quality, there is concern for them. The noble Lord, Lord Soley, raised some interesting points about emission controls on the ground, but rightly drew an analogy with people refusing to stop driving. People will not stop flying or driving. It appears that technology needs to catch up with the concerns of those who will give up neither their planes nor their cars. Why should they? However, I am sure that technological developments will affect in future everything that we have talked about. I hope that the Bill is now wide enough for us to be able to look a little further into the future when we discuss it in Committee.