---

Civil Aviation Bill

moved Amendment No. 1:"Page 1, line 7, after ““below,”” insert ““and having ensured that sufficient notice has been given prior to the introduction of the proposed charges,””" The noble Lord said: I have a rather bad throat, so I hope that it will last out. It is a pleasure to be before the Committee and the Minister once again to discuss this important legislation. Although an earlier form of the Bill was discussed in another place, we now have a valuable opportunity to scrutinise this Bill at some length and to improve it wherever possible. These amendments attempt to probe the Government on the provisions outlined in Clause 1, which empower aerodrome authorities, should they so choose, to fix their charges by reference to noise and the atmospheric pollution produced by aircraft emissions. As I understand the clause, the powers are designed to encourage airlines to produce lower emissions and adopt quieter aircraft technologies. At face value, my amendment would seem self-explanatory: it is designed to ensure that sufficient notice is given prior to the introduction of the proposed charges. I am sure that noble Lords will agree that it is only reasonable that airline companies are properly consulted and informed prior to the introduction of any such charging regime. However, it masks a broader purpose—the amendment is also intended to probe the Minister on the failure of the Bill to provide a coherent environmental policy for civil aviation. We welcome the concept of charging with reference to noise and emissions, but the Bill fails to fully realise the potential. It provides no compulsion for all airports to fix their charges with reference to noise and emissions. Instead, the provision is reliant on aerodrome authorities voluntarily incorporating the provisions into the determination of their charging scheme. Unless all airports are compelled to levy charges with reference to noise and emissions, not only do we run the risk of losing out on the environmental improvements that they offer but we risk creating an unfair playing field for the aviation industry, whereby those that choose not to incorporate those imperatives into their charges could potentially compete for airlines at an advantage over those that had done so. Another important consideration is the methodology to be used for measuring and monitoring noise and emissions. Simply put, you cannot charge with reference to noise and emissions without a clear methodology for their measurement. If the Government intend for there to be charges made with reference to levels of noise and emissions, they must make it clear what those levels are and how they are to be measured. Furthermore, I am concerned by the absence of a requirement in the Bill for aerodrome authorities to monitor and report on emissions and noise. It would seem grossly unfair for airline operators to be charged with reference to the noise and emissions that their aircraft produce without knowing either the measurement or the criteria for the charges. Without that requirement, the provisions lack any method for determining the environmental impact—good or otherwise—of introducing those measures into aerodrome charges. Unless measurements are made and evidence of noise and emissions published, we will not have the necessary facts at our disposal to evaluate the effectiveness of charging with reference to noise and emissions. Amendment No. 2 addresses those problems. It requires that any aerodrome authorities that make charges under Clause 1(1), for the purposes of subsection (2) will be required to monitor noise and emissions and publish those findings annually. The amendment introduces a much-needed element of transparency that is neither unreasonable nor unnecessarily burdensome, especially since, as the noble Lord, Lord Smith of Leigh, indicated at Second Reading, some airports already monitor noise and air quality. Therefore it would seem no great inconvenience to compel those airports that base their charges on noise and emissions to publish those measurements annually. Moreover, with such information in hand, the next logical step would be to use it to determine what levels of emissions and noise can be expected in the following 12-month period. That is the essence of paragraph (b) of the amendment. In addition, several major airlines have expressed reasonable concerns that the Bill provides no opportunity for airline operators to challenge what an airport might do other than through the normal commercial process of taking their business away, which may not be an option to them. Subsection (3) remedies that problem by providing airlines with recourse for appeal to the Secretary of State against the imposition of charges by the aerodrome authority. Like Amendment No. 1, it recognises the need to make airlines partners in our environmental desires. I recognise and applaud the environmental concerns that underpin Clause 1. The idea that landing charges be determined with reference to noise and emissions for the purpose of mitigation is very good. However, in its present form, the Bill is incapable of fulfilling those good intentions. These amendments highlight those problems and provide a number of reasonable ways to improve and enhance the Bill. I beg to move.