---

Civil Aviation Bill

My name is not attached to this group of amendments but they go to the heart of what the Bill is about: aircraft noise shall be limited and, we hope, on a basis where each year it decreases. That is very hard for airlines to achieve because, until regulations prescribe noise and emissions limits, aircraft manufacturers will not take the necessary steps to reduce noise and emissions. We have to take the car industry as our mirror: it was not until tighter regulations for car manufacturers in the EU were agreed that higher standards for emissions, noise and other accident prevention measures were agreed. It is also important to think about the Government’s intention on whether noise limits shall be at the airport operator’s discretion. In our view, every airport should come under noise regulations. It should not be for an individual airport to determine whether it will measure noise. Noise has to be measured, because some airports are virtually owned by operators and other airports have great interests in attracting operators and might try to do so by having a more permissive regime for aircraft. The third issue is who should do the monitoring. The Bill says that the airport authority should do it. One must ask how independent a standard of monitoring the airport operator could be expected to maintain. If the airport is seeking to expand its facilities or the number of flights, it will have an interest in not producing figures that show it in a poor light. We will come later to the question of how noise is to be measured. That is a difficult subject that I will try to present to the Committee in a sympathetic way that can easily be understood—the briefs almost go beyond my comprehension—by people who are very well qualified in this field. Clause 1 raises significant issues, and as the opposition we will study the Minister’s answers with interest. The fundamental question is whether the Bill is about reducing noise and nuisance from aircraft, which afflict the lives of many, or whether it just legitimises the present procedure, which many regard as unsatisfactory?