Proceeding contribution from Lord Clinton-Davis (Labour) in the House of Lords on Wednesday, 28 June 2006. It occurred during Debate on bill on Civil Aviation Bill.
Civil Aviation Bill
My Lords, I have already indicated my interest in this matter. I also ought to say that I am president of the British Air Line Pilots Association. There is no evidence whatsoever to support the claim that has just been made that aircraft owners have a vested interest in inefficient aircraft. We have had plenty of experience of that significant issue, and no evidence to support that view has been forthcoming from the Liberal Democrats. I challenge the noble Earl to give us some evidence that the British Airports Authority ignores complaints that are made. Every single complaint made by people around the airport is taken notice of and acted on. That is the purpose of the committees to which my noble friend referred. It is very strange that the Liberal Democrats and the Conservative Opposition seem wedded to the idea of compulsion. Since when? The Liberal Democrats did not utter one word about compulsion beforehand, and I cannot recall the Conservatives doing so either. As my noble friend has said, measures to reduce environmental impact, as far as aircraft noise is concerned, have been available to airports on a voluntary basis for nearly a quarter of a century. The airports deal with it. They are aware that there is a problem. That is hardly surprising, because the voices of the people living around or near the airport are often heard, and rightly so. The local authorities are concerned about this issue as well, as they should be. It is no answer, however, to attack the airport authority willy-nilly for ignoring the protestations that are made. In my intervention, I sought to address the issue of international action where that is necessary. As my noble friend has said, all the BAA airports have used the power on a voluntary basis. Airport noise has to be considered. I can see no evidence for departing from that situation at the present moment. It is not as if somehow or other the airport authorities are oblivious to the case that is often made. It is the interests of people around the airport and all those employed at the airport that these issues should be ventilated, but in a proper way. The Bill extends the situation to which I have referred regarding aircraft noise to aircraft emissions as well. Why should we now insist on government compulsion? I find the Opposition’s arguments on this wholly unconvincing. My noble friend has also referred to the powers in new Section 38(4) of the Civil Aviation Act 1982, which we are also likely to have before us shortly. In my view there is absolutely no evidence to support the conclusion that the Liberal Democrats, supported by the Conservatives, now seek to reach.
Secondary information
- Type
- Proceeding contribution
- Reference
- 683 c1202-3
- Session
- 2005-06
- Chamber / Committee
- House of Lords chamber
- Subjects
- Aviation Air pollution Airports Fees and charges Noise Night flying
- Legislation
- Civil Aviation Bill 2005-06
- Link
- View this Proceeding contribution on www.publications.parliament.uk
Librarians' tools
- Timestamp
- 2024-04-21 22:32:57 +0100
- URI
- http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_332955
- In Indexing
- http://indexing.parliament.uk/Content/Edit/1?uri=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_332955
- In Solr
- https://search.parliament.uk/claw/solr/?id=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_332955