---

Civil Aviation Bill

I declare an interest as campaign director of Future Heathrow. I want to draw attention to Amendment No. 2, which relates to Clause 1. There is a missed opportunity here, which fits with the general thrust of the Bill and some of the amendments. I accept, as I think that most people do, that aircraft noise is a problem. We all know that emissions are a problem and that aircraft and engine manufacturers and airport operators are very conscious of that and try to bear down on aircraft noise and aircraft emissions. That is wholly good and I support it entirely. It troubles me that here we have left out an opportunity to do something about ground operations. I would like the Minister to consider introducing a new part to Clause 1 to require airport operators to report, perhaps annually, on their progress either towards reaching carbon neutrality on ground emissions or at least giving a more detailed report on what they are doing to improve ground emissions generally. I refer primarily to air quality emissions rather than noise. The key issue is that, as we know very well, there has been a massive increase in air transport. Many more people than ever before now want to fly. The number will continue to rise, and it will rise even faster in developing nations, so we have to bear down on emissions and on noise. However, if we are to win the argument generally with the public, it is right that they should ask us what else we are doing to deal with the general problem of pollution and global warming. One thing that attracted me to this option is that ground operations contribute an awful lot to the emissions problem, and we could do many things to deal with that over a fairly short period. For example, we could introduce bio-diesel in many of the ground-operating vehicles; we should certainly discourage the taxiing of aircraft by the use of their engines rather than being towed; and all our new buildings should be designed on a carbon-neutral basis. It rather saddened me that at Terminal 5 the opportunity to do just that was lost. This country has an impressive lead in some of the technology associated with this matter, as I have mentioned on previous occasions. Arup, the big construction company, has just won the contract in China to build a city for 1 million people—the first city designed to be carbon-neutral. If we can do that for a city of 1 million people, at the very least we should be looking at getting our airport ground operations down to carbon neutrality over a reasonable period. When I raised that in a speech to the Airport Operators Association conference a few weeks ago in Bournemouth, I was pleased with the response. Some people thought that it would just not be possible in the foreseeable future but a larger number thought that it would, and there was significant debate among those I spoke to about how long it would take. Some thought that it could be done in 10 years. I am not sure that all airports could meet that standard—it would be a lot to ask of some of them—and I recognise that it would be difficult to raise the investment required in some of the older buildings. However, I say to the Minister that, in conveying to the public and to the industry that we are trying to bear down on emissions and pollution generally and that we are not just allowing aircraft travel to expand without any consequences, the least we should do is to indicate that we are looking not only at aircraft noise and emissions but also at ground emissions. There is a hole in the Bill in that respect. The Bill does deal with the airport operators, and Clause 1 and Amendment No. 2 are relevant to that because they both cover the emissions problem. I know that the Minister takes climate change and emissions seriously. Will he consider whether at the very least we could request all airport operators to report on the effect of reducing carbon emissions in ground operations—that is, non-aircraft operations on the ground—and to look at other effects of air pollution on airports themselves? It is an important issue. I do not think that members of the Airport Operators Association will be lined up against it. There will be a division of opinion and there might be an argument about whether it should be legislated for or whether it should be done voluntarily. But it must be done and it must become a much more important part of the dialogue than it has been so far. It will be easier to deal with this issue quickly compared with some of the other changes that we are looking for in aircraft and engine design.