---

Civil Aviation Bill

If my noble friend exercises a little patience, he will see that I have, as yet, given only a very small fraction of the response I need to give to cover some of the fundamental propositions made. I want to turn to the point that he raised about where local authorities fit into the position. These amendments point up that dimension as well. If he will exercise a little patience I shall do my best to respond to him, and if I do not, I am sure that he will make that point again. Amendment No. 6 requires airports making charges under Section 38 to publish details of those charges. However, details of an aerodrome’s charging schemes will already be available as part of its conditions of use. The British Airports Authority runs the designated airports, and conditions of use are publicly available on the Internet. Similarly, Manchester is an example of an airport that is not so designated but which also does exactly the same. We do not believe it is necessary to make that requirement statutory. If we have in place procedures that work, there cannot be a strong argument for translating into statute that which already serves the nation well. Amendments Nos. 2 and 6 would give airlines the right of appeal to the Secretary of State against charges made by airports in the exercise of their powers under Section 38. I am not persuaded that there is any need to place in the Bill a right of appeal to the Secretary of State. The industry has not called for that before. Should it appear to the Secretary of State that an airport is not making appropriate use of its powers under Section 38, new subsection (4) of Section 38 allows the Secretary of State to direct an aerodrome authority to fix its charges in exercising the powers in Section 38(1). That direction may cover the manner in which the charges are to be fixed. That power has already been placed in the 1982 Act, and no Secretary of State has ever felt the necessity to use it. It does not appear that we need it in this Bill governing the industry. The Government do not believe that they should have a new appellate role in disputes between an airport operator and an airline over airport charges fixed using the powers in Section 38. Again, the remedy of legal challenge would be open to the airline; this is the approach that we are taking in Clause 6, which removes the Secretary of State’s current appellate role in route-licensing cases. Amendments Nos. 2 and 6 would also require airports making charges using the powers in new Section 38 of the 1982 Act to monitor their emissions and noise levels, publish the figures annually, and also publish their plans to reduce noise and pollution. We do not believe that these reporting requirements need to be statutory. While we believe that charges schemes have a valuable role to play, they are by no means the only influencing factor on noise and emissions from aircraft. Larger airports that are more likely to take up the powers in new Section 38 will already have been designated under Section 35 of the 1982 Act, and have consultative arrangements in place. We are confident that reporting on noise and emissions monitoring will take place through those arrangements. As regards noise, the largest airports are covered by the Aerodromes (Noise Restrictions) (Rules and Procedures) Regulations 2003, which implement the European directive on noise-related operating restrictions. Where operating restrictions are proposed, these regulations oblige the airport operator, or the Secretary of State in the case of the three designated airports, to take into account a range of information. That includes a description of measures already planned to lessen noise impact over the period that new restrictions would cover and forecast noise contours, including an assessment of the number of people likely to be affected by aircraft noise. The airport operator, or the Secretary of State, is also required to establish and publish an environmental objective for the airport concerned before making any noise-related operating restrictions. That covers the anxiety that clear information should be necessary for the noise imprint and that the problems must be defined in such a way that all interested parties can respond when a situation develops. The amendments would also require aerodrome authorities to say what actions they intend to take to reduce noise and pollution levels. That would overlap with the existing requirements on airport operators that I have just mentioned as far as operating restrictions governing noise are concerned. In the case of an expanding airport, charging and other measures to reduce noise and emissions will, of course, have to be set against the impact of any increase in movements consequent on expansion. Larger airports and other airports whose noise has an impact on certain urban areas will be subject to the requirements of the environmental noise directive to which I referred, and will need to carry out noise mapping and then draw up action plans for managing those noise levels. The first noise maps under the directive will need to be completed by June 2007, and the first action plans will need to be completed by April 2008. It is clear that the anxieties being expressed in this Committee are being addressed and are either covered by existing legislation or by European directives that require us to make a response. The noble Lord, Lord Hanningfield, has spoken of the Opposition’s wish to see a coherent policy to deal with the environmental impacts of aviation. He made that important point at Second Reading. We share his objective but think we have the constituent parts in place. They were stated in the White Paper The Future of Air Transport and are expressed through international agreement, European legislation, some of which I have referred to, domestic policy and secondary legislation, as well as through this Bill and the Civil Aviation Act that it amends. I understand what the noble Lord seeks to identify—growing anxieties about noise and emissions and the growing need to effect proper controls, but I maintain that this is an area in which policy can move very quickly and we would be restricted if the amendments were made to the Bill. We would not be saying no to the amendments, and I would not be asking him to withdraw them, if they advanced the cause to which we all subscribe: the necessity for coherent policy in this area. But the amendments only rigidify the situation and potentially leave any future government disadvantaged in tackling this rapidly changing problem. Who in this Committee does not recognise that the demands with regard to noise—and certainly with regard to emissions—will be the very stuff of policy concern for British governments, on behalf of the British people, for any future that we can envisage? My noble friend Lord Clinton-Davis explained his Amendment No. 7, which would require economic, social and environmental factors to be taken into account by the airport manager or Secretary of State before they used their power to fix airport charges by reference to noise and emissions. Airport charges do not reflect solely these factors, but these factors relate to them. They will be based on many variables, and the noble Lord knows probably better than any Member of the Committee, given his declared interests and his previous role in relation to the airline industry, that the inbuilt factors can include the time of day at which an aircraft uses the airport, the maximum weight of the aircraft, the number of passengers it has on board, and the length of time for which it is parked at the airport. Noise and emission charges are only two variables in what is often a complex calculation, but I assure the noble Lord that they are important components. In fixing their charges generally, airports will be taking commercial decisions; they will need to cover their costs and make a return for their owners or shareholders. I do not believe it would be right to impose these additional requirements on them when they consider whether to make charges related to noise or emissions. I understand that the wording was proposed by the airline industry, which was concerned that these powers might be abused by airports or the Secretary of State to set unduly high noise-related or emissions-related charges. However, the Government do not believe that airports would take uncommercial decisions or that a future Secretary of State might abuse the power in subsection (4) of Section 38 in that way. To do so would only risk a legal challenge in the United Kingdom on the grounds of irrationality. In addition, an excessively high charge which limits or reduces access of aircraft to an airport might be argued to be a noise-related operating restriction. There are stringent international and EU rules regarding the introduction of such restrictions. Any move by the Secretary of State that was perceived as a breach of those rules could lead to EU infraction proceedings or some other form of international sanction. So the Secretary of State would not use his powers in that context. The amendment also provides for airlines and local community representatives to determine jointly the charges an airport sets using the powers in Section 38. Again, the Government believe that these decisions are properly for the commercial discretion of the airport—or, where he uses his power of direction, for the discretion of the Secretary of State. There are other, more appropriate means by which airlines and local stakeholders will have an opportunity to influence the airport’s environmental and other policies, such as membership of the airport’s consultative committee, when one exists—as it will for major airports. The Secretary of State’s power to direct by order in Section 38(4) is subject to the negative resolution procedure, allowing any Member to pray against him when an unreasonable order has been made. We contend that those are sufficient safeguards. It is also our belief that, in practice, airports will ensure that sufficient notice is given of any changes to their charges, in the context of updating their conditions of use, and that it is not necessary to put that requirement in the legislation. I have tried to meet every detail of my noble friend’s anxieties—many are the culmination of considerable experience and practice over the years. The noble Lord, Lord Soley, introduced an extra dimension to the debate. I cannot see how I can fail in introducing that concept into a wide range of the groups of amendments before us, so I suppose that I must stand by for a war of attrition. We all sympathise with the noble Lord’s point that emission levels are not just related to aircraft. Airports are industries with a lot of activity on the ground, capable of producing noise and, even more so, emissions affecting air quality. I hear his point that we should tackle that within the framework of the Bill but I have to disappoint him: although it certainly needs to be tackled, local authorities have powers in that regard, against a background of European directives on air quality. If I can stretch the analogy a little further, the problem with regard to emissions at Heathrow is that it is almost the only great international airport in the world within the M25 ring. By that I mean that its great problem is its proximity to such a very large population. The relationship between emissions and air quality affects so many people that Heathrow faces a particular challenge. That must be tackled in the air and on the ground. It is where local authorities adjoining the airport have a crucial role to play. I do not think that the issue of the groundwork of the airport fits exactly within the Bill but I am not so sanguine as to think that I will have allayed all the noble Lord’s anxieties at this point—I have not.