---

Civil Aviation Bill

moved Amendment No. 3:"Page 2, line 21, after ““authority”” insert ““with the agreement of the local authority in whose area the aerodrome is situated””" The noble Lord said: We return to the same issue with these amendments, which are designed to probe the Minister further on the considerable powers that the Bill will bestow on managers of aerodrome authorities. They are also designed to redress the imbalance that the Bill will create if it grants enforcement powers to airport managers. The Bill is in danger of ensuring the wholesale disadvantage of local people. The noble Lord, Lord Clinton-Davis, referred to that. Local people in the communities are very important. This is an issue of considerable concern and I am sure that we will come back to it as the Bill progresses. In another place, the Minister suggested that effectively the Bill would provide the same range of powers to airport authorities which control other airports as those currently available to the Secretary of State in relation to designated airports. It would be of serious concern to me if an airport manager were given the same powers as a Secretary of State. Whatever the Secretary of State’s thoughts, at least he is accountable before Parliament and, ultimately, before the electorate for his actions. Airport managers are not elected; they are accountable only to their shareholders. I find it alarming that the Government should propose to give them powers equivalent to those of a Secretary of State to exercise over non-designated airports. This issue could be remedied by ensuring that the local authorities responsible for the areas in which airports are situated are involved in the determination of noise-emission levels and they would be included in a charging regime. Again, I declare my interest as leader of Essex County Council. Permitting airport managers alone to establish charging regimes and impose charges on airline operators is unprecedented and alarming. I can think of no other industry where such a practice would be permitted. No other industry is allowed completely to ignore local authorities, which is what the Bill’s provisions would seem to imply in this case. Again, the noble Lord, Lord Clinton-Davis, referred to that. Of paramount concern to people living in the vicinity of airports are the noise levels and the pollution produced by aircraft. It would seem entirely reasonable for those people’s interests to be represented in decisions on the levels and targets used to form the basis for such a charging or penalty regime. The inclusion of local authorities in the process would ensure that those vital interests were represented and that the whole process was made far more equitable and acceptable. The amendments are in line with the Government’s own reasoning and reflect their desire to find local solutions. As the Minister stated at Second Reading, these problems are best resolved locally by those at the airport working with the local community. The amendments would formalise that process. They would ensure that airport managers were accountable and that local stakeholders’ concerns could be represented effectively prior to the imposition of a charging scheme. Unamended, the Bill lacks external accountability and runs contrary to democratic principles, contrary to the principles of sustainable development and contrary to the Government’s own principle of local solutions. I beg to move.