Tom Brake (Shadow Secretary of State for Transport (And Scotland), Transport; Carshalton & Wallington, Liberal Democrat)

I beg to move amendment No. 19, in page 3, line 34, leave out subsection (1) and insert—

'(1) A competent authority established in accordance with this section (referred to in this section and section 78B below as the ''competent authority'') shall have the power to set maximum departure and arrival noise limits for aircraft and to determine and collect penalties from aircraft operators who exceed these limits.'.

Nicholas Winterton (Macclesfield, Conservative)

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following amendments: No. 20, in page 3, line 43, leave out 'relevant manager' and insert 'competent authority'.

No. 21, in page 4, line 2, leave out 'relevant manager' and insert 'competent authority'.

No. 22, in page 4, line 5, leave out 'relevant manager' and insert 'competent authority'.

No. 23, in page 4, line 11, leave out 'relevant manager' and insert 'competent authority'.

No. 24, in page 4, line 14, leave out 'relevant manager' and insert 'competent authority'.

No. 25, in page 4, line 19, leave out 'relevant manager' and insert 'competent authority'.

No. 26, in page 4, line 25, leave out 'relevant manager' and insert 'competent authority'.

No. 27, in page 4, line 30, leave out 'relevant manager' and insert 'competent authority'.

No. 28, in page 4, line 33, leave out 'relevant manager' and insert 'competent authority'.

Tom Brake (Shadow Secretary of State for Transport (And Scotland), Transport; Carshalton & Wallington, Liberal Democrat)

I draw hon. Members' attention to proposed new section 78A(1), in clause 3, which states:

''The person for the time being managing an aerodrome . . . may establish and maintain a penalty scheme.''

The amendment would ensure that such a scheme was set up by a ''competent authority''. That term might need definition, but perhaps it is worth explaining first why we feel that a competent authority is needed, rather than necessarily the airport manager. That brings us back to the issue that we discussed earlier in relation to Coventry airport. Is the manager of Coventry competent—I am sure that he or she is—when it comes to setting noise limits for aircraft departing from the airport that are flying for the company that owns the airport?

In discussions with the CAA, it has identified, for instance, that there is a department within the CAA called the environmental research and consultancy department. The ERCD is already responsible for monitoring noise and emissions at three designated airports and it carries out consultancy work at other airports, so it might be the appropriate competent authority. Clearly, it is doing work on noise and emissions and it is doing work at a number of designated airports. Therefore it might be the sort of authority that we need to see in place at airports such as Coventry to ensure that a proper noise scheme is implemented, rather than one that perhaps works to the advantage of a particular airline. All the other amendments in the group relate to that and would   replace in the appropriate places the phrase ''relevant manager'' with ''competent authority''. Like many others, this is a probing amendment to give the Government an opportunity—

Graham Stringer (Manchester, Blackley, Labour)

The hon. Gentleman makes a perfectly good principled and theoretical point, and I think that I understand it, but has he any evidence relating to current schemes involving noise monitoring by an airport? Has he a list of complaints that that does not work in practice?

Tom Brake (Shadow Secretary of State for Transport (And Scotland), Transport; Carshalton & Wallington, Liberal Democrat)

To say that I have a scientifically drawn-up schedule of complaints would be unfair. However, it would be fair to say that there is a body of anecdotal evidence from individual residents and community groups up and down the country relating to concerns about noise schemes. We have debated the issue of monitoring noise. One must question whether there are any current measures that are sufficiently watertight and robust to enable such complaints to be documented. The provision, in handing responsibility to a body such as the environmental research and consultancy department, would ensure not only that a robust scheme was established but that monitoring was appropriate and of an order that communities around airports would find satisfactory.

The Minister now has an opportunity to respond with alternative proposals. I know—although I do not want, like the official Opposition spokesman, to speak for her—that she will refer to the powers that the Secretary of State has as a last resort. However, I hope that she will expand a little on whether a competent authority might be a better alternative to the relevant airport manager.

Julian Brazier (Shadow Minister, Transport; Canterbury, Conservative)

I am enjoying the rather unusual experience of finding that I am midway between the other two parties on the matter that we are considering. A little earlier we had a debate in which the official Opposition and the Liberal Democrats tried to persuade the Government to adopt a much more modest measure than the one that we are discussing, relating purely to new aircraft, and looking ahead to 2020, to take account of the wishes of the British aviation industry. We were disappointed that the Government were unable to do that.

Now, alas, we part company with the Liberal Democrats. The provision goes too far. It seems to the Conservative party that it is unfair on aspects of the aviation industry. One of the effects of giving powers to impose an immediate maximum on aeroplanes could be to shut out completely carriers from certain poorer countries. We all want progress; there is complete consensus in the Committee in all the relevant respects, in the sense that we all want both sorts of emissions to be reduced—CO?2? and nitrogen products. We all want noise to be reduced and so on. However, a rather arbitrary power, effectively to cut whole aircraft from the scene immediately, would, I am fairly certain, breach our treaty obligations. Even if it did not, it would be going too far. The balance to be struck between the interests of the industry and, indeed, the travelling public, on the one hand, and environmental requirements on the other, is not struck by the amendment, although it is well intentioned.  

Robert Syms (Shadow Minister, Local Government Affairs & Communities; Poole, Conservative)

I should be interested to know why, within the architecture of the Bill, the Government want the powers to be vested in a relevant manager, rather than some other authority. The reason may be in past legislation, and, if so, perhaps the Minister can confirm that.

I notice that the relevant manager both imposes fines and is the individual to whom an airline or carrier would make representations. To some extent, therefore, he is judge and jury. I wonder whether, in the matter of appeals, a different authority might be appropriate—a company or an aerodrome organisation rather than an individual, which might appoint a relevant manager to impose the fines and designate another part of the organisation to deal with appeals.

As a matter of natural justice, there will be times when airlines will say, ''That was not us; that was not one of our aircraft,'' or ''You are being terribly unfair. There was a severe technical problem.'' I wonder about the effect on the relationship of vesting the imposition of fines and the hearing of representations in the same individual, and personalising the matter. It might be the right thing, and I do not feel terribly strongly about it. For example, a local authority has powers but an officer of that council often operates on its behalf. If someone objects, another part of the organisation is often the appeals panel. The Liberal Democrat amendment teases out a little the relationship between why the matter will be personalised and why it will not be the relevant authority, company or other organisation that deals with the topic.

Karen Buck (Parliamentary Under-Secretary, Department for Transport; Regent's Park & Kensington North, Labour)

As so often in the Bill, we have weaved backwards and forwards around the various duties and responsibilities. We are back to stating the case that the monitoring of noise is a crucial part of the day to day operational business of airports. We expect them to pay careful attention to that and to manage their responsibility with suitable professionalism and integrity. We believe, and we have no reason to doubt, that it is important for them to retain the faith and goodwill of local communities, down to the fact that at some stage it is possible that they will need to engage their local authorities in planning decisions. They have a clear interest in being good neighbours and so serving their own interests, as well as it being sensible for them to behave in such a way.

Today and on Second Reading a number of hon. Members raised concerns that airports face a potential conflict of interest in managing their noise control schemes assertively while seeking to maintain the custom of airlines. Concerns seem to range over a number of different areas. Some hon. Members seem to believe that a single new body can solve all the problems and do so in a more effective and proportionate way than in the Bill as drafted.

First, there seems to be a worry, which we discussed this morning in the context of Coventry airport, that airports will fix the noise monitoring procedures to the benefit of airlines. I would be interested to see any evidence of that as opposed to scaremongering. On the   contrary, I am aware that in a number of cases airports go out of their way to ensure independent consideration of their noise and track-keeping systems. For example, at Nottingham East Midlands airport the operator has been certified to the International Organisation for Standardisation—ISO—environmental management standard and its environmental policy and management systems are subject to independent audit every six months. The audit will include assessment of the noise monitoring system. At major airports such as Manchester and Birmingham the operators monitor noise and report to the consultative committees.

We all know that noise is a sensitive issue and we can safely expect consultative committees to inquire closely about that aspect of airport operations. At Manchester we are aware that noise contours are prepared by the Civil Aviation Authority's environmental research and consultancy department, which is, of course, independent of the airport.

Robert Syms (Shadow Minister, Local Government Affairs & Communities; Poole, Conservative)

I have never had the pleasure of sitting on an airport consultative committee. Are noise infringements automatically reported to them as part of their remit?

Karen Buck (Parliamentary Under-Secretary, Department for Transport; Regent's Park & Kensington North, Labour)

I believe that it is the other way around. If there are noise concerns, they are represented through the consultative arrangements. It does not necessarily involve a standing committee but can be a mechanism or process through which concerns can be reflected.

I move on to the assertion that even if the monitoring procedures are correct, airports will not want to penalise airlines for breaches. Again, that is nothing more than hypothesis. Airports already take action to encourage and drive airlines to improve their operational noise performance. For example, more than 95 per cent. of flights at Manchester stick to noise preferential routes, and the percentage is even higher at Heathrow. Clearly, that has not happened by accident but reflects the fact that airports are willing and able to work with airlines to improve their performance. It has involved more intrusion and effort for airports to achieve that high percentage than would be implied by imposing fines on the relatively small number of planes that breach requirements.

Achieving adherence to noise preferential routes requires investment in procedures and training, which have a cost and time commitment. We believe that the penalty scheme is a helpful further incentivisation of good behaviour, along with positive incentives such as the awards scheme offered by Manchester airport to the best performers. The Committee needs to look at the issue in the round in each local area. It will then see the penalty scheme as a component of a larger picture, which includes a number of elements to improve the noise environment at airports. We believe that airports are best placed to do that given their role and expertise.

What encouragement would the Opposition amendment give to local initiatives to improve noise performance, or would it enable airports to argue that   their only obligation was to comply with the noise monitoring authority's requirements, thus removing the scope for positive action by individual managers? The danger of establishing an independent monitoring authority is that its measure of success would be how many aircraft were fined, and that would be wrong. The aim is not to maximise the number of aircraft caught but to minimise the number of aircraft failing to follow noise preferential routes. That is why airports that want to be good neighbours are best placed to manage the range of tools available to improve performance.

The hon. Member for Carshalton and Wallington (Tom Brake) pre-empted my final remark. The Secretary of State does have designation powers under section 78 if he believes that noise issues require a higher level of control in specific circumstances. Those powers will not be exercised lightly, but they provide a safeguard. I therefore hope that the hon. Gentleman will withdraw the amendment.

Graham Stringer (Manchester, Blackley, Labour)

I was not intending to speak in this debate, but having listened carefully to the proponents of the amendments and the Minister, it seems that one line of argument is being missed. I accept that the proponents of the amendment are genuinely trying to get the best deal for local communities in terms of reducing noise. However, I think that the proposal in amendment No. 19 would disempower local communities.

Local communities have maximum influence at the public inquiries held when airports are expanding. I bring to mind public inquiries at Manchester and Gatwick, during which the community said that it wanted this or that commitment. For instance, at Manchester airport the local community did not want any more noise than it had had in 1992 once the airport had expanded until 2011. That commitment was given at the public inquiry. A similar commitment was given at Gatwick; so far as I am concerned, it was not a good commitment for aviation, but it might have been good for the local community in Croydon. If an independent body was setting those limits when an airport was thinking of expanding and wanted dialogue with the community, how would it happen? With the best of intentions, the hon. Member for Carshalton and Wallington would be disempowering local communities from making the noise environment better. I hope that he will withdraw the amendment.

Tom Brake (Shadow Secretary of State for Transport (And Scotland), Transport; Carshalton & Wallington, Liberal Democrat)

Clearly, amendment No. 19 has generated more heat than the others. I have listened carefully to what has been said, and I accept some of the points that have been made, so I shall therefore withdraw the amendment. However, the Minister suggested that I was creating fear or panic by raising the spectre of Coventry airport. I ask the Minister to consider whether, if she was given a blank sheet of paper, she would set up the sort of regulatory arrangements that have been established for Coventry airport; I suspect that the honest answer would be no. That debate will continue. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.  

Julian Brazier (Shadow Minister, Transport; Canterbury, Conservative)

I beg to move amendment No. 7, in page 4, line 16, leave out from 'which' to end of line 17 and insert

'directly benefit those who live in the area, or under the flight path, in which the aerodrome is situated and shall seek the advice and consent of the airport's consultative committee before any such spending takes place.'.

Nicholas Winterton (Macclesfield, Conservative)

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following: Amendment No. 31, in page 4, line 17, at end insert

'and which appear to him to be likely to mitigate noise or environmental disturbance for persons who are affected by the relevant operations.'

Amendment No. 32, in page 4, line 17, at end insert—

'(9) The relevant manager shall—

(a) consult any body appearing to him to be representative of the operators of aircraft using the aerodrome, regarding the measures taken by operators to comply with the requirements;

(b) consult any body appearing to him to be representative of persons who are affected by the operations of the aerodrome, regarding the beneficiaries of the payments; and

(c) publish an annual report showing the penalties received from operators of aircraft using the aerodrome in question and every payment made under the scheme.'.

New clause 4—Establishment of independent consultative facilities—

'For section 35 of the Civil Aviation Act 1982 (c.16) (facilities for consultation at certain aerodromes) substitute—

''(1) At all aerodromes the local authority shall establish a committee including representatives of—

(a) users of the aerodrome,

(b) relevant local authorities, and

(c) any other organisation representing the interests of persons concerned with the locality in which the aerodrome is situated,

for the purpose of consultation with respect to any matter concerning the management or administration of the aerodrome which affects their interests.

(2) The chairperson of any committee established under subsection (1) shall be independent.

(3) The local authority shall publish the minutes of all meetings held by a committee established under section (1).''.'.

Julian Brazier (Shadow Minister, Transport; Canterbury, Conservative)

Amendment No. 7 would deal with one of the oddest provisions that I have ever seen. I shall read the passage that we seek to amend, as I did on Second Reading. Subsection (8) of proposed new section 78A states:

''A relevant manager who receives penalties under a penalty scheme shall make payments equal to the amount of those penalties for purposes which appear to him to be likely to be of benefit to persons who live in the area in which the aerodrome is situated.''

As one of my colleagues pointed out, that is a privatisation of justice, with an arbitrary power for the person who is acting as judge, jury and executioner then to act as dispenser of the goodies.

Amendment No. 7 seeks to go some small way to address that strange arrangement by striking out the second part of new section 78A(8) and replacing it with a provision that requires the advice and consent from the airport's consultative committee, and refers to the point that some of the people who suffer most live a long way from the aerodrome. To some extent, the amendment speaks for itself. We want to ensure   that the amendment benefits can in principle benefit anyone who suffers from the flight path and, crucially, that there is some independent monitoring of how the money is spent.

The obvious means of achieving that is the consultative committee. We will say more about those committees shortly, but they basically bring together people in the area with a legitimate interest, local authorities, airlines and so on. One way of bringing what is a slightly Henry VIII provision back into the normal orbit would be for the consultative committee to have a say in how the money is spent.

If I may say so, Sir Nicholas, you must have had to exercise the judgment of Solomon in sorting out the groups for the rest of the amendments. There is so much overlap with matters coming later that it must have been an unenviable task. I should like to comment on the amendments in the name of the hon. Member for Carshalton and Wallington.

Amendment No. 31 is straightforward, but I do not agree with it. I do not see why the money should be spent specifically on noise mitigation measures, as local people may prefer another worthwhile project. However, it is on the other two amendments that the problems really start to arise. I do not mean to say this pejoratively, but the hon. Gentleman seems to have lifted amendment No. 32 straight off amendments already tabled. Confusingly, proposed new paragraphs (a) and (b) appear to be copies of amendment No. 7, which is fine as we are discussing it as well. Paragraph (c) appears to be lifted from amendment No. 9, which we will reach shortly. That presents some problems, but I shall speak to them now.

Obviously, I agree with the provisions in paragraphs (a) and (b). In effect, they rerun the crucial point about extending the provisions to those who are under the flight path but not in the area and reaching out to local interested groups. For that, we suggested a consultative committee. Proposed new paragraph (c) would introduce a requirement to publish an annual report. We proposed that in amendment No. 9, which was tabled a few days before. It is a good idea, as it would show the penalties received from operators of aircraft using the aerodrome in question and would outline the payments under the scheme. That seemed a good idea when we tabled it, and I am happy to have the flattery of imitation.

New clause 4 overlaps in large measure with our new clause 7, which we will debate at the end of our proceedings. The one area on which it departs from new clause 7, of which it is largely a rewording, is in proposed new subsection (1), where it says:

''At all aerodromes the local authority shall establish a committee including representatives of—'',

before listing those representatives. As I said, subsections (2) and (3) are echoes of our proposed new clause 7.

Regarding subsection (1), I am slightly puzzled as to why the Liberal Democrats want committees at all airports. Surely, there are small airports around the country—we have had examples from Scotland and elsewhere—in which there is no need for consultative   committees because so few people are affected and because setting one up would simply be arbitrary. I shall wait to hear what the hon. Member for Carshalton and Wallington has to say, but I am not sure why every airport in the country should need a consultative committee.

Subsections (2) and (3) of the proposed new clause, however, which have a familiar look to them, are genuine concerns. Subsection (2) states:

''The chairperson of any committee established under subsection (1) shall be independent.''

Subsection (3) states:

''The local authority shall publish the minutes of all meetings held by a committee established under section (1).''

The first point is a valid one, which is why we originally tabled new clause 7. Coventry airport, which has already figured in our discussions, has raised this issue. In an article in the Coventry Evening Telegraph, a pressure group argues that if the airport is to maintain its standing with the public, it is important that the chairman and secretary should not be closely identified with any sectional interest. I do not make a party political point—this is relevant to the proposed new clause. In the article, Archie Muir of the anti-expansion group Campaign Against the Expansion of Coventry Airport, CAECA, says that the group believes that Lord Snape's aviation background makes him unsuitable for the task of setting up an airport consultative committee.

I am certain that all members of the Committee who sat with Lord Snape when he was in this House have the highest regard for him, but local campaigners do not see him as being sufficiently independent. I certainly shall not trade any arguments on that point; I suspect that you would restrain me, Sir Nicholas, if I did. I have the highest regard for Lord Snape, but there is a legitimate interest among members of the public that where a consultative committee is established and where it develops its important role, the chairman and secretary should be seen to be independent by all the various parties, such as the airport, the airlines, the local authority and pressure groups.

We can return to these issues when we debate proposed new clause 7. I am not minded to support proposed new clause 4 as it is worded because I cannot accept its first provision. I am ready to listen to him on that point, but it seems wrong, prima facie, to insist that every airport should have a committee.

Tom Brake (Shadow Secretary of State for Transport (And Scotland), Transport; Carshalton & Wallington, Liberal Democrat)

First, it is incumbent on the official Opposition and the Liberal Democrats to reveal the sources of our proposed amendments. It is unlikely that the Conservative amendment found its way to us and we got into a bidding race as to who should table it first. I suspect that any duplication is because we have been advised by the same organisation, rather than because the Liberal Democrats have stolen from the Conservatives.

Julian Brazier (Shadow Minister, Transport; Canterbury, Conservative)

The hon. Gentleman is right, of course. I simply made the point that it slightly complicates the Committee's proceedings that we   have a series of overlapping amendments. That has made it particularly difficult to group the amendments. Inevitably, there will be some fragmented discussion over these two or three groups.

Tom Brake (Shadow Secretary of State for Transport (And Scotland), Transport; Carshalton & Wallington, Liberal Democrat)

Indeed. If imitation is the sincerest form of flattery, we should be flattering another organisation regarding the amendment.

Amendment No. 31 is intended to enable a debate about hypothecation, and whether it is appropriate for funds to be spent on other matters when the purpose is, I assume, primarily to alleviate the impact of noise and other environmental disturbances on the local community.

Adam Afriyie (Windsor, Conservative)

Is it not the case that people all want their plight mitigated in different ways? It may be that noise protection is not what people under a flight path would choose; they might want something entirely different.

Tom Brake (Shadow Secretary of State for Transport (And Scotland), Transport; Carshalton & Wallington, Liberal Democrat)

I agree, but the amendment should be taken in conjunction with the Bill and the reference that the Opposition spokesman made to the powers that the relevant manager will have. That manager can dispense the funds in a way that appears to him to be likely to be of benefit to persons who live in the area where the aerodrome is situated. I suppose that the relevant manager may feel that investing in a large barbeque for his neighbours might be an appropriate response. Certainly, if one reads the subsection on its own, it would suggest that that might be an appropriate use. However, I am sure that there is something—perhaps elsewhere in the Bill—that would preclude that. So the amendment has to be considered in conjunction with other matters.

Hon. Members may have spotted that in amendment No. 32, we should perhaps have changed ''relevant manager'' to ''competent authority'', but having agreed not to press the use of the phrase ''competent authority'', and perhaps having anticipated that ''relevant manager'' would still be in the clause, we have kept ''relevant manager'' in the amendment.

Amendment No. 32 is about ensuring adequate consultation with a range of organisations that are active users of the airport, associated with it, or suffering from its impact. That point is picked up in new clause 4, to which I shall come. The new clause is also about the setting up of the independent consultative facilities.

The spokesman for the official Opposition questioned whether it is appropriate to establish such a consultative facility for all airports, irrespective of size. He referred to an airport that consisted of little more than a beach, and so on. Clearly, a number of people would have views on how that airport was run; indeed, that point was raised in debate. There would clearly be a body of people with views on the future of that airport to be consulted. So, whether we are talking about a large airport or a very small one, there is scope to consider independent consultative facilities. That is the purpose of new clause 4.  

The new clause would also ensure that information about the discussions relating to an airport was put in the public domain. I do not agree that a consultative facility would be unnecessary. In all likelihood, the smaller the airport, the more straightforward and the less demanding those consultative facilities would have to be, but I do not think that one can rule out the necessity of such a facility being up and running and available to ensure that people are involved with the airport. I look forward to the Minister's response, which will be an opportunity for her to set out whether the Government have any plans to expand consultation on these important issues.

Robert Syms (Shadow Minister, Local Government Affairs & Communities; Poole, Conservative)

I support amendment No. 7. Looking at this part of the Bill, I am starting to wonder whether any of it ought to stay in. I say that because, at the moment, there is perceived to be a benefit. The relevant manager will send out fines, and it is up to that relevant manager to determine how that money will be spent. One feature of Second Reading was that I now have the name Nottingham East Midlands airport burned into my brain because of the number of individuals who spoke about it. There are people in adjacent counties who feel terribly strongly that they are affected by that airport.

The first issue to consider is what sort of money we are talking about. If we are talking about fines of £3,000, £4000, £5,000 or £6,000 rather than millions, we are talking about relatively small sums of money for most airports. Secondly, what is the area of benefit? To some extent that is the aim of amendment No. 7. If the area of benefit is so large that we are talking about a few pence for each parish council in the area, the perceived benefit to the communities adjacent to or near an airport will be relatively small.

The hon. Member for Carshalton and Wallington asked a very good question about how arbitrary a manager's decision can be—he mentioned a barbeque for his friends. If the decision is not arbitrary and is purely that of the manager, should the process not be more transparent? If there is going to be an area of benefit, should it not be mapped? One of the things that amendment No. 7 would do is ask what the area of benefit is for an aerodrome. If it should be mapped, should all of the area be mapped on an even basis, or would it be divided into zones 1, 2 and 3, with zone 1 for those very close to the airport, zone 2 for those a little farther out and zone 3 for those a little farther than that?

Having been a county councillor in a former life with about 40 parish councils in my area, I can imagine almost every parish council within 50 yd of an airport thinking, ''Are we in, lads, or are we out? Should we write to the airport manager saying that this parish is badly affected by aircraft and we ought to be in?'' Given the relative sums of money and the promise, there will be a lot of disappointment.

I would allow the relevant manager to collect the fines and give them to the CAA. When it comes to really small sums, it could spend the money on sponsors or monitoring equipment for noise, which would be a defined benefit and people would know where the fines were going, instead of having an   arbitrary system spread over a vast area that might be mapped in a manner that people do not understand. The relevant manager will have to report back in an annual report what he has done with the fines money and we all know that if people find out that one person has got a benefit and someone next door has not, all hell will break loose. Someone living at the end of the runway might feel that they have not had any benefit while someone 20 miles away with double glazing does.

There are a lot of problems with the drafting and the Government would be very wise to go away and think about it. The amount of money for the amount of benefit is relatively small and it might be a better approach to define more closely what is done with the fines and ensure that the CAA deals with the airports by installing monitoring equipment instead of having arguments relating to every airport about who has benefits, and who is more worthy than someone else.

I see lots of arguments ahead. If we are going to go ahead with the system, amendment No. 7 might improve it. The Government ought to reflect on the matter before the Bill goes on to the statute book.

Adam Afriyie (Windsor, Conservative)

I would like to extend the comments of my hon. Friend the Member for Poole. The word that my hon. Friend the Member for Canterbury used with regard to the manager being judge and jury on where the money should be spent was ''odd'', and that was exactly the word I would have chosen. Where the penalties should be spent appears to be solely a matter of an individual's judgment. My concern is that it is very easy for that individual to have a vested interest. He may have relatives in the area, he may support specific charities or he may have a friend under a particular flight path, and he could decide arbitrarily to pay the entire sum of money to an individual who lives somewhere under a flight path. I am concerned that that avenue should be cut off in some way, and amendment No. 7 would go some way towards doing that.

It was mentioned that there could be arguments or that the clause could generate contention among parishioners or different groups of people in a constituency or within the vicinity of the airport. People are likely to question judgments made by the manager and to have suspicions, even if nothing untoward is taking place. We all know that many people subscribe to conspiracy theories, and this power, if it is not defined better, will provide a great opportunity for them to express their suspicions.

There is an opportunity to generate good will within the vicinity of an aerodrome or airport if initially, perhaps through a consultative committee, there were some survey or interaction whereby residents and those who are affected by the flight paths were able to express a view as to where the money might be channelled—not a full consultation with official processes but just a consultative committee.

Finally, I am very much against any restriction on the use of the funds for a predefined purpose, whether noise restriction technologies or anything of that nature, as it is for the local residents and those under   the flight path to decide how they wish the moneys to be spent rather than for the nanny state, in many cases through a private organisation.

Karen Buck (Parliamentary Under-Secretary, Department for Transport; Regent's Park & Kensington North, Labour)

We have a bit of a mixed bag of opinions on the issue, although I believe that we all agree that the money should be spent to benefit the local community, and that there are many options. I am uncomfortable with the suggestion of the hon. Member for Poole that we put the money into noise monitoring. A good authority should be doing that anyway. I believe that the majority of the Committee, including the hon. Gentleman, would agree, given the kind of sums involved, that the simplest, best and most effective thing to do would be to pump the money into community interests.

It has been said that vast sums would not be involved. I have inquired as to the likely amounts. Obviously, as with almost everything that we have discussed today, the answer is, as long as a piece of string. At Heathrow, which is the largest airport, the total amount raised in 2003–04 was £112,000—a significant amount but not a great deal of money in community terms.

Adam Afriyie (Windsor, Conservative)

Does the Minister foresee the sums increasing with the extra flexibility in the Bill to raise levies and with the penalties that may arise from the rules that the Bill creates?

Karen Buck (Parliamentary Under-Secretary, Department for Transport; Regent's Park & Kensington North, Labour)

I have no view at all as to what the sums should be. In a sense, the ideal situation would be that they go down. This is not a virility test, it is not about catching as many aircraft in breach as possible.

The hon. Gentleman—inadvertently, I suspect—has supplied me with another good reason for not locking ourselves into any kind of structure. I have more years of experience than I care to share with the Committee of taking part in fund distribution mechanisms below the level of local authority. I do not know whether the hon. Member for Poole has ever had such an experience. I was on a local authority, on an urban EU project, on a single regeneration project and on other individual small schemes, including local trusts and a trust that was established in respect of one of the building companies involved in Paddington basin. It is absolutely the case that once one gets below the level of a major local authority and sums of money that come to the level of a grant programme, it is possible to set up vastly over-structured, bureaucratic, expensive sets of apparatus which in any case may be completely redundant two years later because the funding changes so much. It is much better, with sums of this kind, to allow maximum flexibility as to how the money is delivered.

Julian Brazier (Shadow Minister, Transport; Canterbury, Conservative)

The Opposition are certainly not calling for large bureaucratic bodies. We are not saying that there must be a consultative committee at every airport or anything like that, but that the sums that are being handed out should be subject to a discussion process with the consultative committee, if there is one. That is what the amendment calls for. It hardly constitutes setting up a bureaucratic process. Indeed, I cannot think of a nicer item for a   consultative committee to have on its agenda than an opportunity to discuss how to spend a little money on a worthwhile local project.

Karen Buck (Parliamentary Under-Secretary, Department for Transport; Regent's Park & Kensington North, Labour)

I am being slightly facetious, so I hope that the hon. Gentleman will not take me too seriously when I invite him to join me on one of those committees. I have to tell him that they often bring out the most fiercely competitive elements of the community.

On his central point, I find it inconceivable that that process will not be used in every case in which there is a consultative committee—so that will be in every case in which a significant sum of money is to be disbursed. I cannot believe that an airport that found itself involved in distributing £50,000 would not wish to go down the consultative route, but would expose itself to the kind of criticism that might come about should it seek to direct that money in a personal or highly preferential way. Although it is possible to look at everything that might go wrong in such circumstances, and at all the risks involved in disbursing small sums of money, we need to be aware that one can overstate problems and create solutions that are worse than the problems.

Amendments Nos. 7 and 31 seek to narrow down and clarify the ways in which communities can benefit. Amendment No. 7 suggests that the spending should directly benefit those who live in the area around the aerodrome or under the flight path. Again, I do not believe that it is necessary to be so specific. Clearly, those in the areas described in the amendment are likely to be most affected by acts giving rise to penalties and we would expect them to be the beneficiaries of the payments from the penalty scheme. In case the hon. Member for Canterbury is concerned that the area under the flight path would not be eligible to benefit, I can assure him that ''area'' is not defined in the Bill. We believe that it would include those living under the flight path.

Amendment No. 31 suggests that payments should focus on mitigating noise or environmental disturbance. I would say to the hon. Member for Carshalton and Wallington that that is an unwise restriction. We expect airports to have in place suitable schemes for addressing mitigation, such as noise insulation schemes. Such schemes should be funded out of the existing income of the airport on the ''polluter pays'' principle. Those who are eligible to receive insulation should do so as a right, and certainly not, in effect, through distribution of money as a charity or a trust fund. Hon. Members would rightly say that it was unacceptable if householders' right to insulation depended on the level of penalty income in a given year. I do not believe that compensation is a big issue; airports will use their consultative apparatus if they have a significant sum to deliver.

New clause 4 proposes new arrangements for establishing consultative committees. That puts the onus on the local authority to establish such a committee and requires a consultative committee for every aerodrome, no matter how small or how uncontentious its operation. The duty to establish a consultative committee would fall on the local authority in which the aerodrome was situated. I do   not believe that individual local authorities are better placed than airports themselves to establish such committees.

I am aware of the concerns of some local authorities and other bodies that they are not represented on consultative committees for aerodromes whose operation affects them, but nothing in the Bill would give those bodies a guarantee that they would be members of the consultative committee. Conversely, the clause would impose unnecessary burdens on a number of local authorities by requiring them to establish consultative committees even where airports' operations were uncontentious—and they would incur costs in running such committees.

The new clause includes specific provisions on independence and openness. Those are important principles, but the key is whether the aims can be achieved in practice. The Department's guidance makes it clear that, to maintain the confidence of the general public, it is important that the chair of any committee should not be closely identified with any sectional interest. The guidance also highlights the need to publicise the existence and role of committees. I am sure that we all agree on what a good committee looks like, but I do not believe that the new clause points us towards the right way to move forward.

Julian Brazier (Shadow Minister, Transport; Canterbury, Conservative)

I have listened carefully to what the Minister has said on amendment No. 7, and I am not persuaded. The measure is an extraordinary departure from British law—effectively it is the privatisation of justice. Amendment No. 7, like amendments Nos. 8 and 9, which we discuss shortly, seem to us to be modest. I therefore wish to press the amendment to a vote.

Question put, That the amendment be made:—

The Committee divided: Ayes 5, Noes 10.

Julian Brazier (Shadow Minister, Transport; Canterbury, Conservative)

I beg to move amendment No. 8, in clause 3, page 4, line 17, after 'area', insert

', or under the flight path,'.

I have exhausted whatever I might have to say on the amendment in the previous discussion, which overlapped with it, but I know that my hon. Friend the Member for Putney has some points to make relating to her constituency.

Justine Greening (Putney, Conservative)

This is a valuable amendment. One of the things that struck me in the debate about aircraft noise and how being close to airports impacts on people's day-to-day life is that there is a lot of scrutiny of the environment immediately around airports and that there is often good consultation   with local councils, as, in the case of Heathrow, in Hillingdon and Hounslow. However, my observation is that as one gets further away from the airport, while still under the flight path, as in places such as Putney and Wandsworth, the level of consultation and communication with, and consideration for, residents drops off rapidly. The best analogy that I can make is to say that it is like dropping off the side of a cliff.

Therefore, it is important to be specific and use the phrase ''under the flight path''. Although I am sure that that is what is meant by the legislation in place, the reality does not reflect that intention. So I agree with my hon. Friend that we should be specific and say ''under the flight path'', thus removing all doubts. That would send a clear message.

James McGovern (Dundee West, Labour)

I am intrigued by the definition of ''under the flight path''. If the height of an aircraft is irrelevant, then on a flight from London to Aberdeen there would be many thousands of people under the flight path. Is there a strict definition about height? How high does a plane need to be for the people under it not to be under the flight path?

Justine Greening (Putney, Conservative)

There are some conditions under which the term ''flight path'' is determined. However, the hon. Gentleman raises an excellent point, which is, at what stage do we set the scope? My proposal is that the scope be set more broadly, which would force that question to be properly answered. The hon. Gentleman raised a good point, which brings me back to my agreement with my hon. Friend the Member for Canterbury that we should widen the scope of a flight path.

Adam Afriyie (Windsor, Conservative)

Does my hon. Friend agree that we are actually talking about the penalties that the manager will be dishing out, rather than the general definition of what is under a flight path? It would be left to the manager's discretion to decide what he wanted to do, and whether or not the definition was incredibly precise. We are talking about opening up the area in which the consideration could be given.

Justine Greening (Putney, Conservative)

I do not disagree with my hon. Friend. I have concluded my speech.

Karen Buck (Parliamentary Under-Secretary, Department for Transport; Regent's Park & Kensington North, Labour)

I, too, feel that we have covered the ground quite well. I want only to repeat that flight paths can be implied by area. There is no benefit to be had from being more prescriptive than that. To refer back to a debate on a previous amendment, in the context of Heathrow and the sums in question, putting in place a complex definition to discuss how £112,000 would be allocated seems to be using a hammer to crack a nut.

Adam Afriyie (Windsor, Conservative)

Will the Minister confirm that, under the definition, the manager could even make the decision to go outside an area, as defined elsewhere? Does he have a lot more freedom than the Bill sets out?

Karen Buck (Parliamentary Under-Secretary, Department for Transport; Regent's Park & Kensington North, Labour)

My understanding is that we are talking about the benefit of persons living in the area in which the aerodrome is situated, which I would argue is wide enough to include people living under the flight path. I see nothing to be gained and a great deal to be lost   from the amendment, given the point that my hon. Friend the Member for Dundee, West (Mr. McGovern) made about the increasingly complex set of definitions. In fighting for her constituents, the hon. Member for Putney might hope that Putney would get a share, but would we not all? It is quite likely that Regent's Park and Kensington, North would be in there for the bid. I think that she would find that the competitive disadvantage would outweigh any advantage secured.

The definition is adequate for the purposes.

Julian Brazier (Shadow Minister, Transport; Canterbury, Conservative)

I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Julian Brazier (Shadow Minister, Transport; Canterbury, Conservative)

I beg to move amendment No. 9, in clause 3, page 4, line 17, at end insert

'and shall produce accounts listing where, when and how said money has been spent, and will place these accounts in the public domain.'.

This is a simple amendment. To echo what my hon. Friend the Member for Poole said earlier, I can imagine few easier ways of stirring up local animosity, envy and concern more than the idea that what are, as the Minister said, relatively modest sums could disappear without trace. The sums are incredibly modest for the aviation industry, although £30,000 or £50,000 is quite a substantial sum for our constituents. We do not call for huge amounts of regulation; all we call for is some accounting.

There was quite a lot of unease in the House about the idea of the privatisation of justice; that is, that a private company can fine people. It is surely reasonable to show some account of how that money is subsequently spent, when the individual who controls that spending is the same person who decided that the fine was applicable.

Tom Brake (Shadow Secretary of State for Transport (And Scotland), Transport; Carshalton & Wallington, Liberal Democrat)

Does the hon. Gentleman agree that amendment No. 9 could be described as the barbecue amendment? It is in those accounts that that barbecue would be listed.

Julian Brazier (Shadow Minister, Transport; Canterbury, Conservative)

I am completely easy with that description; it is more colourful than the example of the brother-in-law's house that I gave on Second Reading. It is extraordinary that the power to spend the money should be put into the hands of the manager who made the decision. The Liberal Democrats and Opposition want to insert a sensible safeguard and the Minister should consider accepting the amendment.

Robert Syms (Shadow Minister, Local Government Affairs & Communities; Poole, Conservative)

The Minister said that the figure for Heathrow airport last year was £112,000. The sums in respect of smaller airports will be extremely modest, and that brings me to my point about accounting. Given how modest the money is, it is highly unlikely that a manager would have enough to make a sizeable contribution to the community in the airport area in one year. He might have only a small sum. In other words, the relevant manager might wish to deliver a benefit to the community that might be in respect of fines over three, four, five, six or seven years.  

I do not regard my hon. Friend's accounting as wrong. If a manager has only a little sum of money, he cannot do very much with it and there is a logic in saving up until a reasonable difference can be made. However, there should still be a method of reporting or accounting. In life, we all meet people who say that they contributed to the council for a particular scheme but have not seen what has happened to the money. Utilities, councils and public bodies build up cash and, at some point, they deliver what they want to do. What will happen in respect of particular airports if the managers were raising small sums of money year on year? How would that be accounted for? Would it be undertaken by the consultative committee and take the form of accounts? Would the managers therefore deliver a benefit, not annually or bi-annually, but when they could make a real difference? Will the Minister say a little more about the time scale for delivering the benefit?

Karen Buck (Parliamentary Under-Secretary, Department for Transport; Regent's Park & Kensington North, Labour)

Given the sort of questions that the hon. Member for Poole is asking, I am in danger of exhausting my total knowledge of the subject. I am wildly speculating because I do not have the figures in front of me, but I do not agree with the basic premise that, if a small airport generated £15,000 a year, it would not be enough for a local manager to make a useful, beneficial donation to a community organisation. I know of one example. In Stansted, in one year the money was used to partly fund the preservation of a local wood. We could all cite examples of when £15,000 or £20,000 could be used during one year, not only for a good barbecue—it would be a very good barbecue; I would not mind going to it—but some other useful, valuable issue.

When referring to the build-up of funds, we are in danger of speculating ourselves into an unnecessary complex set of arrangements. I am certainly not aware—nor are the Government—of any worries about how the designated airports raise the significantly larger share of the penalty income and how they use or account for their funds.

Tom Brake (Shadow Secretary of State for Transport (And Scotland), Transport; Carshalton & Wallington, Liberal Democrat)

Does the Minister agree that there are perhaps no worries because those airports tend to operate trusts that have several representatives, not one manager?

Karen Buck (Parliamentary Under-Secretary, Department for Transport; Regent's Park & Kensington North, Labour)

Yes, I agree with that. However, that is a slightly chicken and egg argument. The larger airports with the significant sums of money are likely to have a separate trust and contribute to that. We would not want to impose an unnecessarily heavy regulation on smaller airports when the money involved is about £5,000 a year. Moreover, in financial terms, they are all subject to audit and accountancy like other organisations. It would be fair to say that almost every airport that is raising a significant sum that runs into four figures is likely to have a consultative committee.

To confirm the point about which we both agree, the BAA provides regular reports on its noise fines fund to its consultative committee and its noise and track-keeping committees on which representatives of local authorities sit. The BAA community relations team maintains a full list of organisations that have benefited from the fund.  

I do not think that there is reason to expect any problems with transparency with respect to organisations at a level involving a significant sum of money; also, the kind of regulation that would effectively be imposed on smaller airports, when the amounts involved would be very small, is, I would argue, quite disproportionate.

Julian Brazier (Shadow Minister, Transport; Canterbury, Conservative)

I am not really persuaded, but as we have already had a Division on the issue of accountability, on amendment No. 7, I shall not divide the Committee again. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Julian Brazier (Shadow Minister, Transport; Canterbury, Conservative)

I beg to move amendment No. 36, in clause 3, page 4, line 17, at end insert—

'(9) Before establishing a penalty scheme under subsection (1), and at annual intervals thereafter, the relevant manager shall—

(a) take account of the impact of breaches and the measures taken by operators to comply with the requirements; and

(b) consult any person or body appearing to him to be representative of operators of aircraft using the aerodrome in question.'.

Nicholas Winterton (Macclesfield, Conservative)

With this it will be convenient to discuss amendment No. 37, in clause 3, page 4, line 27, at end insert

', taking account of the impact of the breach and the measures taken by the operator to comply with the relevant requirement.'.

Julian Brazier (Shadow Minister, Transport; Canterbury, Conservative)

The amendment arises from considerable concerns that the airlines have raised with us. British Airways tells us that the airlines are worried that the aerodrome operators must consult only about some types of restrictions; not all of them. Crucially, there is no requirement for an aerodrome to take account of economic interests, safety requirements or international agreements. The aerodrome would be able to limit aircraft operations within a 40 km radius of the airport unless the Secretary of State directed otherwise. British Airways argues that that is too large an area, as most noise is concentrated within the 10 km radius, for all but the largest international airports, where, obviously, the larger radius applies. The aerodrome could, in fact, have a perverse incentive to use the powers to create a fund that could be used to enhance its local image. Virgin makes similar points.

We do not want to oppose the schemes. We are happy about them in principle, although not about a single manager both implementing the scheme and deciding how to spend the money. However, we think it reasonable that the Government should impose checks and balances to take account of the interests of the airlines. The airlines are not opposed to the existing schemes, but they are concerned that we could establish a perverse incentive so that an airline might try to boost its local image at the expense of one or two of its customers by taking some silly measures.

I am sure that the Minister will respond that the airline lives by its customers and so will not do anything to harm them. However, the two largest airlines in the country are worried that the provision could provide arbitrary powers, which might be a bit draconian, in some circumstances. If the complaints were being made by a small airline, that would be   worrying, but the fact is that the two biggest airlines are worried about what will happen without sensible checks and balances as well as a reasonable requirement to take account of both the seriousness of the impact of breaches and, crucially, the extent to which the operators try, within the requirements of safety and international agreements, to comply. They seem to have a fair point.

Tom Brake (Shadow Secretary of State for Transport (And Scotland), Transport; Carshalton & Wallington, Liberal Democrat)

I support the amendment. We have had a discussion about whether it is appropriate for the relevant manager single-handedly to set up penalty schemes and to dispense the funds, and whether it is appropriate to involve the wider community in those discussions. It is appropriate to consider the airlines as part of that wider community, and to have input into the negotiations. I hope, therefore, that the Minister will respond positively to the amendment.

Robert Syms (Shadow Minister, Local Government Affairs & Communities; Poole, Conservative)

My hon. Friend the Member for Canterbury has raised an important issue. We have heard, as we have been considering the Bill, that the relevant manager both fines and is the person to whom the person fined makes representations; he is both judge and jury.

My hon. Friend raised the good point that the most important requirement is safety. On Second Reading, the example was given—I think it was given by the hon. Member for Vale of Glamorgan (John Smith)—of aircraft being diverted because of 9/11; some were diverted to Cardiff. That would put an added strain on the particular area round an aerodrome. In such a situation, no doubt air traffic control would be doing its best to ensure that the aircraft remained within the requirements to keep them far apart. Therefore, it could be air traffic control's decision that resulted in those aircraft being off the normal flight path or flying rather lower and therefore causing more noise for people.

If air traffic control was trying to ensure that 40 aircraft that were trying to get into a much smaller aerodrome did so safely, it might be arbitrary that British Airways or some other airline found itself in that position, and could be fined. One would hope that the relevant manager in such a situation would use their common sense and would not fine the airline because those were extraordinary circumstances.

However, there must be some ground rules so that the airlines know what situation they are dealing with. We have already raised the concern about acting as judge and jury and fairness to the airlines. I therefore think that some kind of code in a particular aerodrome would be useful to make it clear that where safety is concerned, noise becomes a lesser requirement. If there are extraordinary circumstances in which there are a lot of aircraft going in at very short notice because of weather conditions or a crisis, we need to ensure that that is not a circumstance in which an airline will find itself fined and at the mercy of a particular manager who, to some extent, will be dealing with the results of their own decision.

James McGovern (Dundee West, Labour)

Obviously, there is technology available that allows us to measure sound and carbon emissions. However, I cannot see that   measuring impact is such an exact science. How would the impact of a breach be measured?

Robert Syms (Shadow Minister, Local Government Affairs & Communities; Poole, Conservative)

The hon. Gentleman makes a good point. It is difficult to measure the impact of a breach. However, my principal point is that there may be an extraordinary situation, in which a carrier finds itself in a position that is not within its control, but as a result of the circumstances, and in which it might be fined. The airlines need to be concerned about the ground rules or a code of conduct. In the briefing that we received before Second Reading, they were certainly concerned about the various turning circles around airports, and about meeting certain international standards and guidelines.

Even if the Minister does not accept our amendment as part of the Bill, I hope that she will assure us today that when there is an extraordinary circumstance—an emergency or a weather emergency or something else that we cannot conceive today—the airlines will be treated in a fair way, even if it is the decision of one person.

Karen Buck (Parliamentary Under-Secretary, Department for Transport; Regent's Park & Kensington North, Labour)

I am inclined to take the view that somehow there is a lack of balance, because earlier on we were subjected to some criticism that the arrangements were intended to be so cosy that no penalties would be imposed at all, and now there is criticism that airlines could be used as milch cows, in order to promote the airport's image,.

However, I shall reassure the hon. Member for Poole on the key point of safety. He is right that it is important. Safety regulation is fundamental to the way in which the CAA regulates UK civil aviation. There is no question of airports' being permitted to impose a penalty scheme if direction is taking place to uphold safety regulations. Section 78A(4) requires the scheme to

''afford the operator of the aircraft an opportunity to make representations to the . . . manager . . . before or after the penalty is imposed.''

The provisions also allow the airport manager the discretion

''to cancel the penalty if he considers it appropriate to do so having considered those representations.''

Frankly, I find it inconceivable that, in situations in which the CAA has made it clear that any breaches were consistent with safety regulations, any such fine would go ahead.

On the broader point about the consultation, in practice airports should and will consult their customers on their schemes. It would not be in their interest not to. Should a dispute on a charging scheme reach the courts, I have no doubt that a lack of consultation on the charges would be taken into consideration. In general, I do not believe that these schemes will be used to take money unfairly from airlines that are behaving reasonably and complying with good practice. Again, it simply would not be in the interests of the airport operators to do so because they would run a substantial risk of legal challenge. I am confident that the provisions do not legitimately attract criticism from Opposition Members and I ask   the hon. Member for Canterbury to withdraw the amendment.

Julian Brazier (Shadow Minister, Transport; Canterbury, Conservative)

I must just pick up on the Minister's opening comment. Given the number of airports around the country, there is nothing inconsistent in worrying about the fact that there may be circumstances in which there is collusion in bad practice in one part of the country, while there are people abusing powers in another part of the country. The fact that the economics of aviation are so different in different parts of the country—in particular, the economics of the south-east are so completely different from the rest of the country—means that there is certainly scope for things going wrong in both ways.

As far as the Minister's remarks go, what she says sounds reasonable. I am willing to withdraw the amendment, but I am left a little puzzled about why our largest airlines—those that have the greatest negotiating power—have written to us all at some length with their concerns in this area. I urge the Minister to keep an eye on the issue. If an airline as big as British Airways is worried about the matter—presumably it and other airlines such as Virgin took legal advice before writing to us—there may be a real concern. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 3 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Nicholas Winterton (Macclesfield, Conservative)

I always seek to be helpful to a Committee. I understand that an arrangement has been made through the usual channels about the progress that is to be made on this Bill. If we have not concluded by approximately 7 o'clock, I intend to suspend the Committee for a dinner break for an hour. I hope that that gives the Committee a guide. If, however, the usual channels indicate to me that we will complete the business that they wish to complete by 7.30 pm, I am happy to continue until then. I do that for the convenience of all Members, because in addition to their work in the Committee, they have other important responsibilities.