---

Civil Aviation Bill

I am not persuaded that the remedy sought by the noble Lord, Lord Hanningfield, is desirable. At present, Section 78 of the 1982 Act legalises the practice of aerodromes fining airlines for breaches of noise limits on departure. Their enforcement power is to withdraw aerodrome facilities. That is too much. As I understand it, airlines never challenge fines imposed for this reason and the amounts involved have been declining as airlines have renewed their fleets. These powers could easily create a conflict of interest when an aerodrome—or the Secretary of State—sets a limit or increases a fine in order to create a fund for local projects without any cost to itself. The cost could be disproportionate and, crucially, the proceeds would not have to be used to mitigate the noise problem. Arrangements are needed to ensure that fines are proportionate, proceeds are spent appropriately and users are consulted. There is no difference of opinion between us, but the amendment is not entirely right. I have not tabled this as an amendment, but British Airways has suggested that there should be a change to new Section 78A(8) to read:"““The aerodrome shall make payments equal to the amount of those penalties for purposes which appear to be likely to mitigate noise disturbance for persons who are affected by the relevant operations. The relevant manager shall make publicly available an annual account showing the total penalties received and every payment made under the scheme””." I am not entirely sure about that, but it is worthy of consideration. Amendment No. 18, which is tabled in my name, inserts a subsection:"““Before establishing a penalty scheme under subsection (1) above, and at annual intervals thereafter, the relevant manager shall—""(a) take account of the impact of breaches and the measures taken by operators to comply with the requirements; and""(b) consult any body appearing to him to be representative of operators of aircraft—" and I would insert the words ““and the local community””"““—using the aerodrome in question””." Finally, there ought to be some limits to the Secretary of State’s power of direction, for example, by adding to proposed new Section 78B(3) the words:"““take account of the impact of breaches and the measures taken by operators to comply with the requirements””." I do not expect that my noble friend will be able to reply immediately to those points, which, as I have said, have not been put down in this group, but they are worthy of consideration. Obviously the lawyers advising British Airways have given considerable thought to the problem. I have not had adequate opportunity to put down those amendments. Maybe I will do so on Report to facilitate the possibility of dialogue on these matters, which are not entirely strange to my noble friend. It is valuable to give some sort of prior notice at this stage.