---

Civil Aviation Bill

The noble Lords, Lord Hanningfield and Lord Bradshaw, have raised useful points which I hope my noble friend will answer. His reply will be awaited with great anxiety. Amendment No. 7 underlines certain points to which there is no reference—my noble friend may say that they are implied. First, specifically, paragraph (a) refers to the,"““economic, social and wider environmental interests [and] . . . international standards and agreements””," which are two separate things. It is incumbent on my noble friend to postulate clearly whether those factors are taken into account in coming to any decision. It is vital that economic, social and environmental interests should be taken into account, but how is that possible? How will it be done? What is the shape of the relevant considerations which the airport authorities will take? How will they measure up to the ““international standards and agreements”” which cover those issues? The second point is relevant not only for this, but also for other considerations in the Bill. We talk about a committee, but it does not involve only airlines. The local community is highly relevant as well. If my noble friend goes along with this thinking, it is his duty to underline how the committee should be comprised. It is enormously important that the local community should agree with what is put forward by the airports, but they are not the only consideration. It should not be taken for granted. Thirdly, sufficient notice should be given before the proposed judges are introduced. That may be the subject of regulations or of a communication. I do not know. Unless we have some direction from my noble friend on the Front Bench, it is impossible that the proposed charges have to be considered and then introduced by the operators. Again, I do not think that it is possible to take that for granted. Therefore, for all those reasons, I have tabled Amendment No. 7.