Clause 1 — Aerodrome charges: noise and emissions

Part of Orders of the Day – in the House of Commons at 12:45 pm on 12 October 2006.

Alert me about debates like this

Photo of Julian Brazier Julian Brazier Shadow Minister (Transport) 12:45, 12 October 2006

I assured the hon. Gentleman of that when I contacted him about my visit to his constituency, and I do so again.

Where has the Government's policy, without the extra measures proposed by the Lords amendments, got us? They have finally admitted that they are not going to reach the target of reducing emissions by 20 per cent. by 2010, as we all knew. The Conservatives reduced CO2 emissions by 7 per cent. in their last seven years in office, but emissions are higher now than they were in 1997. The Environmental Audit Committee described Ministers as being "superficial and vague" about the environmental damage done by the Government's aviation policy.

The then Secretary of State summarised the purpose of the 2003 White Paper as follows:

"we have to balance those benefits against the serious environmental impact of air travel, particularly the growing contribution of aircraft emissions to climate change, and the significant impact that airports can have on those living nearby. That is why the Government remain committed that, over time, aviation meets the external costs that it imposes".—[ Hansard, 16 December 2003; Vol. 415, c. 1433.]

In that statement we have a perfect example of what the Select Committee meant when it referred to Ministers as being "superficial and vague". This Bill is a continuation of that policy—it is empty.

The point is that compelling airports to make charges in relation to noise and emissions would also make compulsory the purposes for which those changes were introduced—reducing noise and emissions and encouraging the take-up of more environmentally efficient aircraft. That would speed up a process that is already taking place.

The Government are being disingenuous with both the public and the airlines. In suggesting that there was no need for compulsion, the Minister's predecessor said:

"I am confident that airports will, again, make use of these provisions when appropriate, with no need for compulsion from the Government".—[ Hansard, 8 May 2006; Vol. 446, c. 41.]

Much the same has been said today. Well, airports may well continue to do that. Some are doing so—after all, it is free money—but some are not. As David Taylor pointed out, charging carries no obligation for airports to monitor noise or emissions. There is no obligation to set targets, or to create and maintain any logical sliding scale to reward airlines for success. In fact, there is no obligation to measure, let alone report on, progress.

What proof is there that those charges have delivered any benefit since they started? We cannot tell whether they are working, as there is not even a requirement to provide statistics. All that the Bill will do, without amendment to beef it up—and the amendments before us are all that there is on the table—is provide a bit of cover for the airports in case lawyers from airlines make trouble for them.

The Government have made what amounts to a very small concession, which the Minister has explained. It requires the Secretary of State, should he use his powers under subsection (4), to consider the interests of people who live in the area of the aerodrome. If he were considering finally getting on with it and doing something, it is difficult to conceive of any circumstances in which he would not consider them in that context. The phrase "among other things" in the Government amendment makes a pretty worthless amendment even vaguer. However, it does at least leave open the possibility that a future Secretary of State might listen to the concerns of local people—and not just those living around airports; we should remember that flight paths extend a long way.

The Bill has ping-ponged between the Lords and the Commons several times. It is difficult to know what advice to give, because although hon. Members on both sides of the House agree that the Lords amendment is flawed—no one wants to impose such a measure on every small airport in the country—the only way of shaming the Government into the view that they ought to take serious action is to oppose the Government amendments again.