---

The Earl of Mar and Kellie 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.
 
28 Jun 2006 : Column 1202
 

Moved, as an amendment to Motion A, leave out "not".—(The Earl of Mar and Kellie.)

Lord Hanningfield: My Lords, we support this amendment. Every effort should be made to reduce and control noise. We feel that the Government still did not offer enough in recent debates; this amendment has been returned from the Commons so we will be supporting the Liberal Democrats in this case.

Lord Clinton-Davis: 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 whatever 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 in 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
 
28 Jun 2006 : Column 1203
 
evidence to support the conclusion that the Liberal Democrats, supported by the Conservatives, now seek to reach.

4 pm

Baroness McIntosh of Hudnall: My Lords, I am sorry to have to say to my noble friend that the opposition to this measure does not come only from the Liberal Democrats and the Conservatives. There are also some people on this side of the House who have doubts about whether the Government are on the right track with this issue. However, I shall seek not to stray into Second Reading territory. I simply ask whether the Minister recognises that, notwithstanding the points that he made about the necessity for acting proportionately and for having balance in the argument, which I accept, the amount of research and information on the impact of noise pollution is growing at quite a rate. Nowadays, it is rare to go for a week, or sometimes a day, without seeing further evidence emerging of the damaging impact on individuals, the environment and communities of noise and carbon emission pollution.

Therefore, I respectfully ask the Minister whether he recognises that it may not be a bad idea at this stage, given the rate at which our knowledge of these issues and awareness of the dangers that we face are growing, to have a little more strength in the way in which the regulation is effected with the airport owners than we have had in the past. I submit that it is not enough to say, "It has worked for 25 years, so why change it?". There are reasons why we need to take this matter more seriously than we have done before. There is good reason to suppose that a little more toughness might not go amiss at this stage.

Lord Berkeley: My Lords, I, too, have concerns about where we are with this Bill. I do not believe that local controls are generally working. Is that surprising, given that many airports are in competition with each other? Some are owned by local authorities and create jobs, so they would have to be very strong willed to implement controls that can be seen to affect jobs and competitiveness. The fact that this has not happened for a long time indicates where the airports' priorities are. Therefore, I have concerns about voluntary schemes.

I remind my noble friend that air is also in competition with other modes of transport, such as road and rail, for which the Government seem happy to set ground rules and guidelines as to how competition should work. Those rules also cover environmental protection for road and rail, to try to keep a level playing field within the mode and in relation to costs. Given that in the Bill the Government have provided for variable charges for aerodromes based on noise and emissions, I fail to see why this cannot be made compulsory, as the opposition parties are suggesting.
 
28 Jun 2006 : Column 1204
 

I have one last point. My noble friend said that there are lots of airports in this country that do not produce much noise or pollution, which is true, but I presume that, for a small airport with little pollution, the environmental and pollution charges are lower, so I would have thought that these things would come out in the wash. I do not think that this voluntary scheme is working at the moment, so I believe that there is a lot of merit in the amendment.

Lord Davies of Oldham: My Lords, I can say to my noble friend who has just spoken that small charges are still charges; if the charges are there, they discriminate against that airport compared with airports that impose no charges at all.

Any Government would be extremely wary about additional regulations that put an extra impost on an aerodrome where there is no justification for it. Noble Lords on all sides of the House are under constant pressure to limit regulation; indeed, there is a Bill before the House that deals with these issues. Yet the moment a matter like this becomes of public concern and action is needed, but where it is clear that the Government have the power to deal with it, we have calls to impose additional regulation and to make additions to the Bill that cannot be justified.

Of course, I recognise that aircraft produce emissions and emit noise, but my noble friend Lord Clinton-Davis is absolutely right: does anybody think that there is not pressure on aircraft manufacturers to reduce noise and emission levels? Why is it that even the largest aircraft that the world has ever seen, the A380, which is coming into service, is quieter and does less damage to the environment than many of its predecessors? That is a reflection of the fact that aircraft manufacturers are all too well aware of the pressure on airports to control these matters. Charges are in place for the major airports. We have reached this position on the basis of considerable experience of operating past legislation, and this Bill strengthens the position.

If I did not know my noble friend Lady McIntosh so well, I would not have known which airport she was speaking about. I imagine that it is probably Stansted. My noble friend plays a very prominent role in asking the right questions of that airport when it contemplates expansion. Stansted is a designated airport under the Secretary of State's powers. The amendment that the Liberal Democrats are putting forward has no impact on that position at all. Of course, that is not to say that—

---