---

Civil Aviation Bill

May I begin by welcoming the hon. Member for Halton (Derek Twigg) to the Chamber and, indeed, the hon. Member for Lincoln (Gillian Merron)? I look forward to our exchanges across the Dispatch Box, although I do not know how many there will be, because few people think that the noise of 1,000 soundbites has settled anything for long. Lords amendment No. 1, which the Government seek to overturn, replaces the word, ““shall””, with ““may”” in the provisions on charging on noise and emissions. As the Minister explained, Lords amendment No. 2 makes those charges proportionate to the noise made. The remaining Lords amendments are relatively minor amendments on noise. There is all the difference in the world between the compulsion expressed in the word, ““shall””, and the vague non-committal aspiration in ““may””. This is an almost completely empty Bill, and in tabling those amendments the House of Lords sought to tweak the Government’s tail so that they would do something about the problem. The amendments try to tease out an explanation from the Government as to whether the Bill will, in fact, do something or is just another eye-catching initiative. The Government recently admitted that their domestic target of reducing emissions by 20 per cent. by 2010 will not be reached. The Conservative Government cut emissions of carbon dioxide by 7 per cent. in their last seven years in office, but CO2 emissions are higher now than they were nine years ago. Aviation on its own explains why they have risen since the Government came to power. [Interruption.] My right hon. Friend the Member for Wokingham (Mr. Redwood) has pointed to another possible source of rising emissions. The Bill, however, does not include any targets, sliding scales, rewards for airlines and airports for successfully tackling noise and emissions, or measures of success. Indeed, there is not even an obligation to measure, let alone report, progress or success. Above all, there is no compulsion at any point. In Committee, the hon. Member for Regent's Park and Kensington, North (Ms Buck), who then had ministerial responsibility for aviation, said that"““the provisions in the Bill have been introduced specifically in response to some airports—I name Manchester airport in particular—that have made it clear that they seek legal clarification of the powers that they wish to use. Manchester airport may want to fix its charges by reference to aircraft noise or emissions, and it seeks the cover of legislation to do so.””" The Bill therefore aims to close a legal gap identified by Manchester airport’s lawyers. Clause 1, the main clause of the Bill, does not require anyone to do anything, but BAA has already introduced emissions charging schemes which it negotiated with the Civil Aviation Authority two years ago, and the Minister admitted that some airports have operated arrangements relating to noise for 20 years, so what are the Government introducing the measure for? Without an amendment requiring a degree of compulsion, as Lords amendment No. 1 does, the Bill does nothing, except remove the noise gap, which we will debate when we reach the next group of amendments. The Government should not preach environmental concern, then waste a golden opportunity to do something about it. It is clear that the Government are not sure what the Bill is about. I feel for the Under-Secretary of State for Transport, the hon. Member for Halton (Derek Twigg), who has had it dumped in his lap towards the end of its course. From the way that he delivered his speech, I suspect that he, too, is not certain what the Bill is for, and that is not an attack on the hon. Gentleman. He did not draft his speech and had nothing to do with the Bill’s origins. In Committee I said to the hon. Gentleman’s predecessor, the hon. Member for Regent's Park and Kensington, North (Ms Buck):"““Surely one of the purposes of an emissions-related charging scheme would be to encourage operators to use aircraft which emit less emissions and noise at that aerodrome. I simply do not follow her logic on that.””—[Official Report, Standing Committee B,5 July 2005; c. 6-7, 28.]" The Minister chose to raise again today the idea that smaller airports will have only one class of aircraft operating from them. Surely the provisions should encourage airports to provide incentives for their operators to use aircraft that are quieter and which produce less NOx and less CO2 emissions. The Government are uncertain what they are trying to achieve. In December 2003 the Government produced a White Paper on the future of aviation in the UK. Summarising the purposes of the White Paper, the then Secretary of State said that"““we have to balance those benefits against the serious environmental impact of air travel, particularly the growing contribution of aircraft emissions to climate change, and the significant impact that airports can have on those living nearby. That is why the Government remain committed to ensuring that, over time, aviation meets the external costs””—" by which he meant environmental costs—"““that it imposes.””—[Official Report, 16 December 2003; Vol. 415, c. 1434.]" In Committee the Minister said:"““There is no question that aviation has an impact in environmental terms, and we need to rise to the challenge that it presents. Those living close to airports have genuine anxieties, which the Government and I recognise absolutely and we must move forward in responding to it””."