---

Civil Aviation Bill

I would dearly love to be able to answer my right hon. Friend’s question, but the answer is very little. I hope I have made it clear that clause 1, which the amendment seeks to beef up, offers nothing in its present form. It gives airports powers that they have been using for years. The Environmental Audit Committee described Ministers as being ““superficial and vague”” about the environmental damage and the Government’s unwillingness to tackle it. In Committee the hon. Member for Southport (John Pugh), speaking for the Liberal Democrats, pointed out that"““the Bill seems to allow even quite a large airport to have no scheme at all. Although there might be a case for some small airports that have very little traffic or very little international traffic not having a scheme, there is surely a good case for all big airports having some sort of scheme, but the Bill simply does not require that.””—[Official Report, Standing Committee B, 5 July 2005; c. 6, 8.]" I see no reason why any airport should not operate a scheme, but the priority is obviously the bigger ones. The Minister responded by stating that the proposed new section of the Act in clause 1 gives the Secretary of State power to direct specified aerodromes to use the powers in the clause, yet not once has the Minister said when that will happen. It is not reassuring. For example, what is to stop an airport operator with multiple using, under the guise of environmentalism, emissions and noise charges at one airport to provide a hidden subsidy to subsidise another in its portfolio by offering lower charges? We are opposed to cross-subsidy. For example, we know from extensive meetings within the airline industry that there is great unease about Stansted being the site for the next runway in the south-east.