---

Civil Aviation Bill

I am grateful to noble Lords who have contributed to this short debate. In particular I am grateful for the wisdom of my noble friend Lord Clinton-Davis, who has summarised what was the Government’s case some time ago, of which he was well aware. It is still the Government’s case today. We do not believe it would be appropriate to seek an annual report on these issues. The levels of noise and emissions at an aerodrome may vary for reasons other than the imposition of charges relating to noise and emissions considerations; for instance, because of changes to the type of aircraft using the airport due to changes in the local economy or improvements in operational practice driven by an airline operator’s wish to improve fuel efficiency. The Government do not believe that this level of oversight of non-designated airports’ noise and emissions monitoring systems is appropriate. We look to airport operators to consider their environmental impact and seek to mitigate them. Where there are problems, efforts should certainly be made to resolve them at the local level if at all possible. That is the best level at which both to monitor and to call attention to the issues that arise. Local monitoring is best. However, we shall draw up a national picture of the noise climate in the UK following the noise mapping and action planning associated with the environmental noise directive, which I mentioned when I replied to an earlier group of amendments. The Government will also have the power to set limit values or other criteria to be taken into account by those producing the action plans, including major airports. That gives the Government the power to take an overview and to set that in the context of other sources of noise. Nor do we believe that the Secretary of State—as my noble friend Lord Clinton-Davis so amply demonstrated—should be required to set and publish annual targets for noise and emissions related to airports. The White Paper includes specific proposals for tackling aircraft emissions, including preparation for the inclusion of intra-EU air services in the EU emissions trading scheme. We raised that issue during our presidency of the European Union. As all noble Lords know, a greenhouse gas trading scheme is already in operation in Europe. We have been working to include intra-EU air services in an emissions trading scheme. That has been a priority during our presidency. European Ministers agreed last week with the UK Government’s view that emissions trading is the best way forward in tackling aviation emissions. The Council of Ministers has called for a legislative proposal on this before the end of 2006. So this is being worked upon actively at the European level. This is an important step but nevertheless it will be recognised as inevitably only a partial step on this worldwide issue. We have a long way to go before we deal with aircraft from other parts of the world. This step relates only to flights within the European Community. However, we must start somewhere. Everyone who has ever contributed to these debates in the House has emphasised that we cannot do this on our own. I want to report progress but I give way to the noble Lord, Lord Bradshaw.