---

Civil Aviation Bill

rose to move, as an amendment to Motion A, leave out ““not””. The noble Earl said: My Lords, in moving Motion A1, I notice that I have already gathered some support. I apologise for the fact that this is a manuscript Motion, which others may not have seen already. I also pay tribute to my noble friend Lord Bradshaw, who, after vigorous performances in the early stages of the Bill, cannot be with us today. However, he is recovering well and we all look forward to his being back in his place. In the mean time, your Lordships will have to put up with me. We believe that airports, particularly large and medium-sized airports, must have a noise and air pollution regime in place at all times and a charging scheme that reflects the performance and efficiency of each individual aircraft. We believe that the Government’s plan to allow airports to have such a scheme on a voluntary basis for now is not responsible in terms of the reduction of pollution. While we recognise that air travel is popular and that the demand for it is growing, there is no doubt that every effort needs to be made to reduce noise and atmospheric pollution at airports. I should declare an interest: yes, I flew here yesterday and, yes, I will fly back to Scotland tomorrow. Only by having landing charges that reflect aircraft efficiency will there be any real incentive for aircraft operators to improve their aircraft and hence reduce pollution in the vicinity of airports. The Government’s proposal would make the use of inefficient aircraft more attractive and would lead to newer airports not being obliged to have a noise and air pollution charging regime. While that would enable the airport to develop its business more easily, it would increase the amount of pollution in the immediate locality of the airport and, of course, globally. This charging regime should be implemented at all but the smallest scheduled airports. We would exclude remote places such as Traigh Mhor beach in Barra, Tiree and Machrihanish. We have had no assurance from the Government that they have understood that noise is measured on a logarithmic scale, about which my noble friend Lord Bradshaw was eloquent during earlier stages of the Bill. Hence, we believe that charges should reflect the level of aircraft noise, because the gradations are very substantial. We do not accept the Commons reasons because they have not said why we are wrong. They have merely said that they disagree. I beg to move. Moved, as an amendment to Motion A, leave out ““not””.—(The Earl of Mar and Kellie.)