---

Civil Aviation Bill

moved Amendment No. 26:"After Clause 11, insert the following new clause—" ““REDUCTION OF AIRSIDE EMISSIONS (1)   With effect from 1st January 2009 aerodromes with more than 50,000 movements a year by subsonic jet aircraft with a maximum take-off mass of 34,000kg or more, or with more than 19 passenger seats, are required to make available Fixed Electrical Ground Power and Preconditioned Air Units at all Aircraft Stands. (2)   Aircraft must use Fixed Electrical Ground Power and Preconditioned Air Units at all times when stationary at aircraft stands. (3)   With effect from 1st January 2009 aerodromes with more than 50,000 movements a year by subsonic jet aircraft with a maximum take-off mass of 34,000kg or more, or with more than 19 passenger seats, are required to have replaced or converted 50 per cent of their airside vehicle fleet to run on low carbon fuels.”” The noble Lord said: My Lords, I want to move this amendment, even in view of the late hour. It is a new amendment, which emerged from a turkey lunch at Christmas with my nephew, who works for a Scandinavian airline. He thought that his ideas should be known, and he had been trying to talk to the officials, not knowing that I was doing this job. That is how the amendment arose. I will go into a little bit of detail; I am only trying to be helpful. Only recently, the Prime Minister himself acknowledged that climate change was the biggest threat facing our planet. It is therefore particularly important for us to consider that aviation emissions rose by 12 per cent in the past year and now account for 11 per cent of Britain’s total greenhouse gas emissions—by far the fastest-growing sector. Moreover, environmentalists argue that greenhouse gas emissions from aircraft have increased by 73 per cent since 1990 and are on course to have grown by 150 per cent by 2012. In Grand Committee, the Minister made it clear that the Government viewed aviation as an international industry and were prepared to tackle the serious issue of aviation’s impact on climate change only with reference to the aviation industry’s incorporation into the EU emissions trading scheme. Much was made of the Minister’s responses, because we had the extra leverage that the UK Government had at that stage in their EU presidency. Has there been any further progress since our presidency on some of those European issues? It is important not to forget that the problem of aviation-related air pollution has local as well as global consequences. My noble friend Lady Hanham touched on that when we debated health issues earlier. The amendment is designed to address the problem by presenting practical measures that build on current good practice and offer a tangible way to reduce airside emissions. Subsection (1) requires that, by 1 January 2009, the largest airports with over 50,000 movements a year make available fixed electrical ground power (FEGP) and pre-conditioned air at all their aircraft stands. Many airport operators already provide fixed electrical ground power; however, the additional requirement to provide pre-conditioned air means that there will be no reason to require the use of the aircraft’s auxiliary power unit. All aircraft have an APU—all the technical stuff emerged from Christmas lunch—that provides power for the aircraft’s systems and air conditioning while on the ground. APUs run on kerosene and that, as well as being extremely noisy, contributes to the volume of airside emissions. However, if an aircraft can receive its electrical power and conditioned air from an aircraft stand, it will be able to draw its power requirement from the national grid. That in turn means that the fossil fuel-burning APU can be switched off, directly reducing ground-level noise and air pollution. In Scandinavia, it is already a legal requirement that airports supply aircraft with electrical ground power. In fact, at Arlanda airport in Stockholm, APUs are allowed to be used for a maximum of only 10 minutes while the aircraft is on the ground, and ground staff are not allowed to approach the aircraft until the FEGP has been connected and the APU switched off. Furthermore, the airport includes the cost of FEGP usage in its landing charges, providing a valuable financial incentive. In Denmark, that practice has been taken a stage further: The FEGP units are connected to a central computer system and, if they are not used within three minutes of an aircraft’s ““on chocks”” arrival time, a fine is automatically generated. Subsection (2) is designed to ensure that, once FEGP and preconditioned air have been provided at aircraft stands, aircraft are compelled to use them. In effect, that gives statutory force to the CAA’s existing recommendations, which state:"““Where FEGP units are provided on stands they should be used in preference to other forms of auxiliary power””." In addition to reducing airside emissions, the use of FEGP is cost-effective for both the airport and the airline operators. A report from the United States by the Northeast States for Coordinated Air Use Management (NESCAUM) indicated that airport operators there had found the payback period to be relatively short—less than two years. From the airlines’ perspective, I think that we can take the fact that Ryanair, that most cost-conscious of airlines, insists on using FEGP wherever possible as evidence of it being the most economical option. Subsection (3) refers to airside vehicles, another important source of air pollutants. It requires that, by the 1 January 2009, larger airports with annual movements of over 50,000 passengers will have replaced or converted 50 per cent of their airside vehicle fleet to run on low carbon fuels. This initiative has already been championed at Heathrow by BAA and much of Heathrow’s own vehicle fleet now runs on alternative, low-carbon fuels. The use of cleaner fuels can dramatically improve the air quality for those who live or work in or close to airports. In Committee, the Minister commented that,"““airport operators do not have statutory powers enabling them to control emissions from airport vehicles””.—[Official Report, 5/12/05; col. GC66.]" It is high time that they did. This amendment provides for that opportunity. There are examples both of airports and of airline operators that are commendably already pursuing these initiatives. As with government thinking on penalty schemes, which we debated previously, we must use this opportunity to give those already leading the way the cover of legislation and those left behind a statutory obligation to adopt these best practices. The new clause provides two sensible measures with realistic timescales that offer a simple way of tackling the problem of aviation-related air pollution at a level that can make a tangible difference to people’s lives. I beg to move.