You are here: Parliament home page > Parliamentary business > Publications and Records > Lords Publications > Lords Hansard > Lords Hansard Previous Sessions
Previous Section Back to Table of Contents Lords Hansard Home Page

Lord Roberts of Conwy: My Lords, my memories of this issue also go back a considerable time. I seem to remember a proposition that nuclear waste should

25 Oct 2006 : Column 1221

be buried at sea. That was very soon thrown out. While we have considerable experience of this issue, and of the general opposition to it over the decades, the Government are now quite optimistic. I wonder what has persuaded them that certain local authorities will come forward and volunteer to have suitable sites within their boundaries. Secondly, while we have been very much involved with this issue over the years, it will be new to the devolved authorities: the Welsh Assembly and the Scottish Parliament. I wonder whether they will not take the traditional view of this issue.

Lord Rooker: My Lords, I have had no personal involvement with the devolved Administrations over this, but all the signs are that this is an agreed Statement. The devolved Administrations have been part and parcel of this. This is not a question of abdicating responsibility. The Scottish Executive and the Welsh Assembly have dealt admirably with the issues that they have been faced with since devolution. There was a time when material was dumped at sea, around our coast by the MoD, and had to be dealt with. This Statement is agreed with the devolved Administrations and I have every reason to believe that they are part and parcel of dealing with this issue.

Baroness Carnegy of Lour: My Lords, that last aspect to which the noble Lord referred seems very optimistic. It is very good news indeed that the devolved Administrations have been involved in this Statement. Does the noble Lord see signs thatthe political parties across those devolved Administrations recognise that they have a responsibility to take a lead on this, that their country’s future depends on it and that playing politics with people’s fear and ignorance about nuclear power is simply irresponsible? Does he see any sign that the political parties want to give a lead?

Lord Rooker: My Lords, I am not going to comment on the political parties. It is exactly the same with the non-governmental organisations, some of which have misused science to play on people’s fears to achieve their policy objective or raise funds. We have to let the science speak, take the risks and assess them, listen to independent voices, see what is produced by the CoRWM committee—which no one has criticised—and take matters forward in an open and transparent way.

Civil Aviation Bill

4.16 pm

Lord Davies of Oldham: My Lords, I beg to move that the Commons amendments and reasons be now considered.

Moved accordingly, and on Question, Motion agreed to.



25 Oct 2006 : Column 1222

COMMONS DISAGREEMENT, REASON AND AMENDMENT IN LIEU

[The page and line references are to HL Bill 21, the bill as first printed for the Lords.]

Lord Davies of Oldham: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do not insist on its AmendmentsNos. 1, 2 and 4, in respect of which the Commons have insisted on their disagreement, and do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 4C and 4D in lieu.

Airports have had the statutory power to charge for aircraft by reference to their noise for almost25 years. Many of our larger airports do so. Moreover, BAA already applies an emissions-related charge at Heathrow and at Gatwick, using the airports’ conditions of use. We believe, however, that it is important to put it beyond doubt that any licensed aerodrome has the power to set such emissions charges, should their local circumstances make it necessary. That is the key purpose ofClause 1.

The Government believe that imposing a requirement that an airport's charges must be set by reference to noise and emissions would hamper airports' ability to reflect their own local circumstances. The Secretary of State will be able to require an airport to fix its charges in a way that takes into account its local environmental impact. This safeguard is already in Section 38 of the Civil Aviation Act 1982 as regards noise charges; the power, now of course extended to cover charging by reference to emissions, is in subsection (4) of new Section 38. This power would be used if the introduction of noise and emissions-related charges at an airport seemed appropriate, and the airport operator was unwilling to do so.

The Commons' Amendment No. 4C in lieu would qualify that power of direction. The Secretary of State would be required to have regard to the interests

25 Oct 2006 : Column 1223

of people who live in the area of the airport in determining whether—and how—to make use of the power. The Government's intention in proposing this amendment was to acknowledge the concern of stakeholders, reflected in previous debates in this House, that the provisions of this clause did not take sufficient account of the impact of aircraft noise on people living near airports. By accepting Amendment No. 4C the Bill would place a duty on the Secretary of State to consider this when deciding whether to use his power of direction, providing an additional safeguard for the interests of a local community around an airport. The further proposed Amendment No. 4D to Clause 11 is a minor consequential amendment that would ensure that this new provision, like the power of direction to which it relates, was executively devolved to the Scottish Ministers.

I am sure that on mature reflection the House will now see the point of the Government’s view that Amendment No. 1 would be disproportionate. It would impose a legal duty on all 140-odd licensed aerodromes to set noise and emissions-related charges. I argued forcefully against that in previous proceedings on the Bill. I recognise that the noble Lord, Lord Bradshaw, has now tried to address this issue by proposing a monthly level of commercial air traffic. It would become a duty for airports to fix their charges in this way.

Although the noble Lord’s new amendment may seem attractive, and I congratulate him on his ingenuity in proposing it, I am afraid it has drawbacks that mean we cannot accept it. The first is that although it would compel some airports to fix their charges with reference to noise and emissions, it would so alter Clause 1 that other airports with lower traffic levels would not have the power to fix their charges in this way at all. Clearly, that is not something the Government want to see. Our position is quite clear: all along we have sought the power to be available for use by an airport dependent on local circumstances. It should not be dictated by some other broad criterion, which the noble Lord’s amendment introduces.

Similarly, we are not convinced that fixing the requirement on the basis of monthly commercial traffic is appropriate. Commercial traffic fluctuates from month to month, whereas airports generally set their terms and conditions of use from one financial year to the next. As I have already noted, the local circumstance of each airport, and therefore the nature of its impact on the surrounding area, will be different. There remains a possibility that using the threshold recommended by the noble Lord would impose unnecessary regulation on some of the airports caught by the duty. For instance, Blackpool airport would be caught by the noble Lord’s proposed criterion, having just over 1,000 commercial traffic movements per month. Yet it will be recognised that Blackpool has relatively few residential neighbours, and the largest aircraft regularly using it are Boeing 737s, which are generally comparatively quiet. The airport is considering its operating instructions with a view to further minimising noise nuisance. Under the noble Lord’s amendment, Blackpool would fall

25 Oct 2006 : Column 1224

within requirements and circumstances where the Government would not consider it necessary.

Lord Clinton-Davis: My Lords, does my noble friend realise, and I am sure he does, that most organisations concerned with aviation agree with the Government? The case he put forward today is immeasurably advanced by those who know about aviation, including the previous Conservative Government.

Lord Davies of Oldham: My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend for attesting, with his intensive knowledge of the airline industry, that there is great support for the government position. The Opposition will have a chance to speak for themselves, and of course the noble Lord, Lord Bradshaw, has already indicated that his colours are nailed to a different mast.

The airports operator has used its master plan, published earlier this year, to confirm that,

Examples of the measures it would be prepared to contemplate include a limit on the total number of flights or a limitation on the extent of a particular noise contour.

The airport operator has also undertaken to continue to work with the airport’s joint consultative committee and to continue its other liaison forums, which involve members of the public, on a proactive basis. In such circumstances it does not seem appropriate to the Government that the airport should be required to fix its charges by reference to noise and emissions when it is perfectly capable of relating to its local circumstances and recognising the needs of local interests.

The noble Lord’s Amendment No. 4E, like Amendment No. 1, would also be contrary to guidance from the International Civil Aviation Organisation that noise-related charges should be levied only at airports experiencing noise problems. I am aware that debate on these amendments has previously enabled noble Lords to raise their wider concerns about the Government’s policy with regard to aircraft noise and emissions. However, the Government will not be changing their policy, as set out in The Future of Air Transport, that wherever possible local solutions are to be preferred for addressing the local environmental impacts of airports’ operations.

Amendments Nos. 2 and 4 would affect the way in which noise and emission charges should be set. As I have previously said, the Government of course agree that airport operators should set noise charges that are appropriate but, as ICAO guidance alreadystates that noise-related charges should be non-discriminatory between users and should not be established at such levels as to be prohibitively high for the operation of certain aircraft, we do not think it necessary to place these requirements in the legislation.

As I have already remarked, airports have been making use of the power to set noise-related charges for almost 25 years. We have no reason to believe that

25 Oct 2006 : Column 1225

the powers have been applied inappropriately or disproportionately during this time. That is why we do not believe that this additional requirement needs to be added to Clause 1.

I cannot emphasise enough that charges are just one means by which airport operators can address the environmental effects of their operations on local people. The powers such as those in Clauses 3 and 4, which would enable airport operators to impose penalties for breaches of measures such as noise limits on departing aircraft or noise preferential routes, can effect more direct improvements for people living around airports.

I say again that should there ever appear to be a problem with a charging scheme, the Secretary of State will have the power to direct an airport operator as to the manner in which its charges are to be fixed. I hope that noble Lords can reach an accommodation on this clause, taking into account the thrust of Commons Amendment No. 4C in lieu. I think that it will be recognised that the Government have listened carefully to previous debates in this House. The House can rest assured that we have the necessary powers within the Bill to meet the challenges of airport noise and emissions. I beg to move.

Moved, That the House do not insist on its Amendments Nos. 1, 2 and 4, in respect of which the Commons have insisted on their disagreement, and do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 4C and 4D in lieu.—(Lord Davies of Oldham.)

Lord Bradshaw moved, as an amendment to Motion A, leave out from “disagreement,” to end and insert “do disagree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 4C and 4D in lieu, but do propose Amendment No. 4E in lieu of the original Lords amendments”.

The noble Lord said: My Lords, I must apologise for the fact that during the summer when the latter stages of the Bill were considered, I was absent due to illness. However, today we are considering Commons amendments. I do not consider that the Commons reasons for disagreement are very clearly stated. The reason:

is not very good, bearing in mind that some airport authorities fix their charges in the manner proposed. The Government may well disagree with us that we should have a limit on the size of airports above which a regime would be appropriate, but it is not appropriate to say that it is not right that they fix them in the manner proposed.

4.30 pm

Turning to the points made by the Minister, I fully appreciate that it is most important that local issues are taken into consideration, but this needs to be looked at from the point of view of not just the airport operator but the people who live underneath

25 Oct 2006 : Column 1226

airports and suffer from noise and pollution. There are instances that I brought before the House in the early stages of the Bill. Bearing in mind what the noble Lord, Lord Clinton-Davis, said just now, I should say that I know something about airports. I specifically visited the Birmingham area to be taken through the whole question of noise and pollution and how they are tracked there. I have been the director of an airport company. I may not have the knowledge that he does, but I am not speaking from a position of entire ignorance on the matter.

The airspace over Birmingham airport is partly shared with Coventry airport. Coventry is quite a big airport, but it does not have a noise and pollution regime, and that raises issues of competition. They are using the same airspace, so the issues about whatever international conventions there may be apply to both airports. One airport, in setting its charges and having lower standards of environment or safety, can decide whether an aircraft uses it or the next airport. We want a level playing field, so that airports are competing on the basis of efficiency and not on the basis of one airport having certain standards and another having lesser standards.

I take seriously what the Minister said about Amendment No. 4C, and if he can put on record that the Secretary of State will,

as well as the question of whether competition between airports is affected, I will withdraw my Motion, because I would then be in a position to come to him if a particular case arose—

Lord Clinton-Davis: My Lords, successive Secretaries of State have taken account of the views of people who live near the area and other people who have interests in flying. In what way does the noble Lord consider that successive Secretaries of State have been in breach of their obligations to both Houses of Parliament?

Lord Bradshaw: My Lords, there must be many cases and many people who feel that Secretaries of State have not taken into account their concerns about the effect of airports on their lives. I will not go up that avenue and be distracted from the point that I was making to the Minister.

I am prepared to accept the Minister’s assurances that, under Amendment No. 4C, if particular cases come to light whereby local residents are considerably annoyed or have pollutants dumped over their houses, they will be in a position to come to the Secretary of State for him to take action under the new clause. If that is so, I will withdraw the Motion. I wait to hear what the Minister has to say. I beg to move.

Moved, as an amendment to Motion A, leave out from “disagreement,” to end and insert “do disagree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 4C and 4D in lieu, but do propose Amendment No. 4E inlieu of the original Lords amendments”.—(Lord Bradshaw.)



25 Oct 2006 : Column 1227

Lord Hanningfield: My Lords, we are having another debate about a vital issue that concerns us all in this House and the public at large—noise and emissions from aircraft. There has been growing interest in this and, even as we debated the Bill over the past few months, the issue has been much more in the public eye.

I have some sympathy with the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Bradshaw, but I am in the middle here. I totally agreed with the Minister that local circumstances were the most important consideration. I am very much a localist and do not like too much direction from us in this place about what happens in a local area.

However, the noble Lord, Lord Bradshaw, highlighted an example. I too have visited Birmingham airport, one of two airports that are close and of a considerable size in urban areas, and where there should be some alignment of practices. I would be interested to hear the Minister’s comments on that. In spite of the intervention by the noble Lord, Lord Clinton-Davis—I do not dispute what past Secretaries of State have done—it would help us all if the Minister could categorically repeat what he has just said, so that it is put determinedly in Hansard that Secretaries of State would intervene and issue directions. I do not normally like them to direct too much, but here I would very much support that. If an airport was not complying with the sort of things that we would like, the Secretary of State should definitely intervene to try to put that right. If that was the case, I would not support the amendment.

Lord Berkeley: My Lords, this has been an interesting debate and noble Lords opposite have raised the question of when the Secretary of State must do something and when he may do something. Coventry has been repeatedly mentioned by noble Lords. If someone complained about the noise at Coventry, who would that have to be for the Secretary of State to intervene? Coventry is an example of where a local authority owns an airport and, therefore, has a commercial interest in its success. That interest has everything to do with running lots of planes in and out of it, but has it anything to do with how noisy they are? That clearly matters to the residents, but we should consider whether that matters to the bean counters in the council.

I would be interested to know under what circumstances a Secretary of State would take into account the views of residents affected. Many more airports than Coventry are affected, including Blackpool. How would the Secretary of State balance the interests of both parties before deciding whether he would look at the matter? That is the big worry.

Next Section Back to Table of Contents Lords Hansard Home Page