---

Civil Aviation Bill

I would rather have an amendment with defective wording than no amendment at all. As was pointed out earlier, the Bill provides an imperfect way of addressing a very serious problem: it relies on using a market mechanism to address a colossal environmental challenge. I would rather that the Government set very strict limits on the carbon emission entitlements of all airports, making it clear that they are not allowed to pass that threshold. However, the Bill contains no such provision. Removing the distinction between designated and non-designated airports would have the great advantage of generating an argument within the industry. The industry would say to the Government, ““If we are suddenly to have a duty to charge on the basis of emissions and noise, there has to be a coherent framework. So give us the framework—give us the new level playing field.”” In that sense, a regulation based on an amendment with defective wording would take us closer to achieving a level environmental playing field than no regulation at all. My worry, given the aviation industry’s current framework, is that establishing a permissive entitlement could actually double or treble the amount of environmental damage, rather than achieve a status quo. I urge the Minister to think again about closing this particular door. Nothing in our history or our current activity suggests that we can rein in the impact of climate change and the damage being done to the environment without establishing a clear framework that everyone has to operate within. To leave it to permission is to leave it to those who will exploit the most and do the least.