Skip to main content

Proceeding contribution from Lord Bradshaw (Liberal Democrat) in the House of Lords on Wednesday, 8 March 2006. It occurred during Debate on bill on Civil Aviation Bill.


Civil Aviation Bill

My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for his reply, and he is right that we should probably have specified the airports that we wished to include. It would probably have been quite a long list. His instance of Tiree, which is obviously a tiny airport, is at one extreme of the argument. I am seeking to make the Secretary of State exercise his powers to direct specified airport authorities to fix their charges in such a manner. I am not seeking to put this into place at Tiree but at a big airport near one of the largest conurbations in the country. Obviously, the wording of my amendment might be slightly defective, but it is important to press on the Minister that people should not get away with environmental damage when their competitors are constrained by noise regulations, and that the charges should reflect the actual problem of noise. It is a huge problem in this country, which many people bear, and to which I do not think that he has given adequate consideration. In light of his reply, I acknowledge that my amendment might be defective, and if so, I shall rely on him to come back on this issue. In the mean time, I want to ask the opinion of the House. On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 1) shall be agreed to? Their Lordships divided: Contents, 141; Not-Contents, 128.


Secondary information

Type
Proceeding contribution
Reference
679 c764-5 
Session
2005-06
Chamber / Committee
House of Lords chamber
Subjects
Aviation Air pollution Aircraft Airports Air routes Health Fees and charges Licensing Environment Noise National parks Safety
Legislation
Civil Aviation Bill 2005-06
Link
View this Proceeding contribution on www.publications.parliament.uk