---

Civil Aviation Bill

I also congratulate my hon. Friend on the expansion of his ministerial remit. I hope that the additional duties do not get in the way of his approval of lines 2 and 3 of the Nottingham tram submission, which has been waiting for permission to land for quite a long time. Not too long ago, the Prime Minister spoke at a press conference in New Zealand about climate change. He made the point that every aspect of Government policy—every aspect of government—would now be imbued with a duty to address the challenge of climate change. Yet when we have a chance to deal with one of the biggest contributors to climate change—aviation fuel—we have a sense that the Government have avoided the opportunity to intervene and place duties on the industry as a whole. I ask the Minister to think again about the nature of the Lords amendments. I too could claim to have a particular interest in what is a local issue affecting Nottingham East Midlands airport, but in fact my concerns are wider. I do not want to diminish the legitimate complaints made by people who are directly affected by noise, but for me the significance of the amendments lies in the fact that they bolt emissions to noise. That is of enormous and crucial interest, not just to those who live in the immediate vicinity of airports but to everyone who lives in this country. The fact is that permissive powers are largely ineffective and irrelevant when it comes to tackling the major issues that we face as a society. We know that from our experience of the issues of fuel poverty and housing. For years we said that the major energy suppliers had existing powers to intervene if they wished to eradicate fuel poverty. Many did something, but only at the most nominal level. When the major suppliers were asked why they did not go further, they said ““It is a mug’s game. Why should anyone take on the additional costs of serious measures to eradicate fuel poverty when our competitors will undercut us in what is essentially a price-only market?”” Exactly the same now applies to aviation. Drawing a distinction between designated and non-designated airports and giving their managements a permissive entitlement will still leave them operating in, essentially, a price-only market. It is highly unlikely that any airport will take on major initiatives that would cut the carbon emissions that are associated with an expansion of airport activity. Furthermore, we could find ourselves in a perverse situation—a lose-lose scenario—in which a relatively small reduction in noise impact had the effect of doubling the number of planes allowed to land during the period concerned. That would not mean that those living in the flight paths benefited from a better, less interrupted night’s sleep, but it would mean a doubling of carbon emissions.