---

Civil Aviation Bill

I would like to assure the House that the coalition takes the environmental impacts of aviation very seriously—both its constituent parties. We take seriously both its global impact in terms of carbon emissions and its local impact in terms of noise and air quality. I welcome the contributions made by so many hon. Members this afternoon about the significance of those impacts—the hon. Members for Feltham and Heston (Seema Malhotra) and for Hayes and Harlington (John McDonnell), and my hon. Friends the Members for Ealing Central and Acton (Angie Bray), for Rochester and Strood (Mark Reckless) and for Cambridge (Dr Huppert). Although I have some sympathy with the underlying purpose of the amendments, there are a number of important reasons why I cannot ask the House to support them today. I do understand the concerns expressed, by, for example my hon. Friend the Member for Cambridge and groups such as HACAN—Heathrow Association for the Control of Airport Noise—and AirportWatch. I know that my hon. Friend is looking for further clarity on environmental investment and I hope I can provide some reassurance today on that and on how the Bill will work. I will also say to my hon. Friend and others who have expressed a view today that the Government will continue to listen with great care to the concerns raised on environmental matters, including those set out in the debate today. We shall continue to reflect carefully on whether further clarity needs to be provided in the Bill, and no doubt there will be another opportunity to consider this matter in the other place. The aviation policy framework that we shall publish next spring provides another key opportunity to address the full range of the environmental impacts of aviation and establish the best way to deal with them. In the Government's view, the Bill as currently drafted allows the CAA to authorise reasonable investment in measures that mitigate environmental impact, even where they are voluntarily undertaken. Where environmental measures benefit users of air transport services in the provision of airport operation services, the Bill gives the CAA the power to allow for its costs in the regulatory settlement. The CAA made clear in its evidence to the Public Bill Committee that a system that safeguards the interests of end users and seeks to replicate a functioning market, as this system does, can and does embrace investment in environmental measures and surface access improvements. Iain Osborne of the CAA pointed out in his evidence that unregulated airports across the world invest in environmental measures. For example, although its noise mitigation scheme is now mandated as part of a planning agreement, Birmingham airport operated a voluntary scheme from 1978 to 1996. Since 2003 the airport has also operated a voluntary scheme to provide roof protection for properties affected by roof damage from aircraft vortices. Other examples include East Midlands airport's investment in wind turbines and Bournemouth airport's investment in solar panels. We firmly believe that it will continue to be possible for environmental investment to be authorised under the regulatory system proposed in the Bill. I hope that that provides some clarity and reassurance. I would like to emphasise that our approach to the Bill does not mean that we do not believe regulation is necessary to address the environmental impact of aviation. It is clear that protecting our environment does need regulatory intervention. However, airport economic regulation is not the right vehicle to deliver it. Environmental regulation should be applied fairly and evenly across the whole sector, taking on board the impact of different airports regardless of whether they are subject to economic regulation. When it comes to protecting our environment, it does not make sense to treat one airport differently from others merely because it is subject to economic regulation. Environmental impacts are present at every airport and it is fairer, more rational and more efficient to look at the aviation sector across the board in deciding what regulatory intervention is needed on environmental matters. So I cannot support new clause 6, though I very much share the concerns of the hon. Member for Feltham and Heston about the noise impact of aircraft. The aviation policy framework which is due to be adopted by March 2013 is a more efficient way to address environmental impacts across the whole of the aviation sector. It will be a serious document informed by extensive consultation and based on evidence. It will set a framework for enabling aviation to grow and play its part in economic growth and success, but subject to parameters which ensure that on issues such as noise and carbon, the sector plays its part in achieving our climate change goals and protecting the quality of life of local communities. I would like to reassure hon. Members that the CAA already takes environmental matters very seriously. Outside the sphere of economic regulation, the CAA is taking forward a number of environment-focused initiatives, as emphasised by Dr Barry Humphreys from the British Air Transport Association in his evidence to the Committee. The CAA has recently finalised a consultation on a wide-ranging programme of work on the environment, including improving the sector's CO2 performance. I draw the attention of the House to the important information provisions in clause 84 as a more effective way to mitigate environmental impacts by, as we heard today, harnessing consumer power as part of our efforts to speed up progress to a switch to cleaner, quieter planes that emit less CO2. I cannot support amendments 6 and 7. They are both significantly flawed. Amendment 6 has been tabled to the wrong clause for a start, and as my hon. Friend the Member for Cambridge pointed out, both amendments are manifestly already covered in the Bill by clause 84(1)(a). Inserting them into the Bill might cause drafting confusion and inhibit the CAA from focusing on matters such as noise and air quality. In conclusion, I have responded in some detail to the amendments because I appreciate the importance of the issues raised and the finely balanced arguments, particularly on the point about clarity in relation to the continuing ability of regulated airports to invest in environmental measures. I understand those concerns. I believe that the regulatory regime provided for in the Bill will continue to allow reasonable levels of investment in environmental mitigation because this is an undoubted feature of airports operating in competitive markets. As I said, we will continue to reflect on that. Although we certainly need environmental measures that go beyond those that would be delivered by the market, economic regulation is not the best way to deliver them. They should be applied in a proportionate way across the sector, regardless of whether or not an airport happens to be subject to economic regulation. In our forthcoming aviation policy framework we will give careful consideration to providing that proportionate and effective environmental legislation. I ask Members to reject the amendments.