---

Civil Aviation Bill

moved Amendment No. 4:"Page 2, line 24, at end insert—" ““(3A)   The Secretary of State shall report on the effectiveness of any charges made under subsection (1) for the purposes laid out in subsection (2) every twelve months after the passing of this Act, and shall specify the sources of information used in its compilation, and publish each such report in such manner as he thinks fit. (3B)   The Secretary of State shall, by regulations following the publication of each report made under subsection (3A), set targets for emissions and noise related to aerodrome authorities for the following twelve month period and report on the systems and means for monitoring noise and emissions in relation to aerodromes and those areas along flightpaths and whether they shall be subject to change over the following twelve months.”” The noble Baroness said: We are in danger of tracing over the same ground as the Minister has responded to at length. None the less, we need to continue to probe on Clause 1. The amendment follows up on Amendments Nos. 1 and 2 and underlines some of the points that have already been made. Its purpose is simple; it asks that the Bill does what it says it is designed to do. The wording of the Bill is specific; aerodromes may charge with reference to noise and emissions for the purposes of encouraging the use of quieter aircraft and those that produce fewer emissions. We must all accept that the intention of the aircraft industry is, over time, to produce quieter aircraft, but they have not arrived yet and we are faced with this problem for some time to come. If we are to charge with reference to noise and emissions with the aim of producing environmental improvement, we must surely decide whether those methods are effective. Otherwise, we are simply giving aerodrome authorities the legal justification under the guise of environmental improvement to increase the charges that they levy on airlines. Logically, the charge must achieve those goals and those achievements must be verified and reported on. There is not much point in having a scheme if you do not know how it is working. Unless we can establish whether charging with reference to noise and emissions achieves the goals outlined in Clause 1(2), the provisions are at best worthless and at worst grossly unfair. Proposed new subsection (3A) asks that the Secretary of State co-ordinates, verifies and lists the sources for measuring noise and emissions. Given the fragmentation—that is the number of airports owned by different groups that we have been discussing—we ask that the Secretary of State should enable a strategic overview to be presented to Parliament. Furthermore, if the aerodrome authorities are permitted to charge with reference to noise and emissions, we must consider how those targets are to be determined and by whom. Is it to be the aerodrome authorities themselves, as the Bill suggests? If so, we must return to the issue of fairness. It would seem more equitable if the levels at which charges were to be made were made explicit and were universally applicable. As the Government have already admitted, their domestic target of reducing emissions by 20 per cent by 2010 will not be reached. I think that the noble Lord, Lord Soley, was the first person to mention carbon dioxide emissions. As we understand it, they are higher now than they were in 1997, the last Conservative government having managed to reduce them by 7.3 per cent between 1990 and 1997. Aviation now forms the largest growing source of CO2 emissions, and at the present rate of growth aviation emissions will wipe out all the savings made by all other sectors of the economy. Given the seriousness of the issue, it would seem sensible for the Government to set some targets. I beg to move.