---

Civil Aviation Bill

I am grateful to all noble Lords who have contributed to our debate. Some parts of it may be repeated as we discuss other amendments because almost every conceivable principle regarding noise and emissions has been touched on in the first group. Several other amendments return to those issues. I am delighted that we are in the Moses Room as I can hear extremely clearly the croaking of the noble Lord, Lord Hanningfield. I offer him my commiserations on having to cope with that problem in the short term. However, at least we can hear almost each others’ whispers so I trust that the noble Lord will not strain himself this afternoon and that he will not strain me too much with too many penetrating questions. I regard the main thrust behind Amendment No. 1 as a concern on the part of the airline industry that it may be faced with unfair charges. New section 38 reflects the existing Section 38 of the 1982 Act, which gives airport operators the power to fix their charges by reference to aircraft noise; there is no provision requiring a notice period before such charges are introduced. Though the power has been available since 1982—so we have had two decades’ experience of it—and is used by many airports, there does not appear to have been a case in which airlines have raised a grievance about the introduction of noise-related charges. It is surely unlikely in practice that an airport would seek to alienate its customers—that is who the airlines are—by introducing new charges using its powers under the revised Section 38, whether related to aircraft noise or to their emissions, without giving reasonable notice. Airport managers will need to balance that need to give reasonable notice to aircraft operators with the entirely legitimate expectations—already voiced in the Committee—of those living around the airport that measures aimed at reducing noise and local emissions from aircraft will be introduced without undue delay. Any period of notice would inevitably need to reflect the complexity of the arrangements being introduced. We do not believe it is necessary to introduce a statutory requirement for airports to give notice of charging regimes made under Section 38, not least because the remedy of legal challenge would, of course, be open to any airline. In any case, the airport concerned would be in most grievous danger of alienating key customers. The noble Lord, Lord Hanningfield, made an extremely important point, which I think was followed up by my noble friend Lady McIntosh, on clear charging and the measurement of noise. I do not underestimate the general interest of either the noble Lord or the noble Baroness but I would be extremely limited if I did not recognise that certainly the noble Baroness has a particular interest with regard to Stansted. Heathrow, Gatwick and Stansted already charge with reference to the certificated noise of aircraft, which is measured using internationally recognised ICAO procedures. The answer to both noble Lords, particularly my noble friend, is that those who use antiquated—the noble Baroness may have used that word but perhaps I am exaggerating to make my point—aircraft may be guilty of greater emissions and noise than users of more modern aircraft. An important aspect of the Government’s case is that aircraft noise and emissions are improving and we need to retain flexibility in primary legislation because the situation is changing rapidly. It would be an awful problem if we were trapped with primary legislation that inhibited us from taking full recognition of rapid technological changes in aircraft. As those are measured, once we have clear indications of what aircraft are permitted to do, under that rubric the number of noisy or more polluting aircraft that can come in will be reduced or the act will have to be cleaned up by withdrawing those aircraft. That structure is already in place. We do not want to include the measurement of noise in the Bill. I recognise the strength of feeling that the amendment would satisfy those most concerned about noise and emissions, but we are all concerned about it—we would not be serving our cause well if we did not recognise aircraft’s contribution to noise and emissions. It is why we are looking at their contribution to emissions on an international basis. The danger of inserting such measurements into primary legislation is that we would be trapped in time against a background of rapidly changing technology. We do not want that. We want the Bill to be future-proof in those terms, so that it makes due provision for regulation and we know how the measurements will be taken. If there was a decision to tighten up the position as time went on or if the number of aircraft movements or the emissions from any one aircraft changed because of new technology, no Government could afford to be trapped with primary legislation that gave them less flexibility to improve the situation.