|
Dr. Pugh: Let us suppose that there is a systematic failure—for example, an aerodrome forces a carrier to circle unnecessarily, thus creating extra emissions. The carrier would have no option in a contested claim between it and an airport authority, because the scheme specified by the Minister could not be used. In such circumstances, would not the carrier have no alternative other than simply to pay up?
Ms Buck: I am reluctant to discuss a specific example, but my understanding is that if the airline is sufficiently unhappy with the way in which the airport or aerodrome implements charges it can make a case to the Secretary of State to issue a directive. If a direction was made under section 38(4) and the aerodrome objected, it would have the power to seek judicial review. There are checks and balances in the system that are adequate to meet concerns about the right of appeal, and on that basis I ask the hon. Gentleman to seek leave to withdraw it.
Mr. Brazier: I am rather disappointed with the Minister's answer. If I understood her correctly, she said that what is proposed in (5A) and (5B)(a) is already happening. Much of the Bill is about putting on a statutory basis what is already happening, and (5B)(b), publishing annual figures, and (5B)(c), publishing a statement of intent, are hardly burdensome.
Justine Greening: Surely it is all the more imperative to accept the amendments given that the Government are not setting targets to control noise. It is perhaps the only remaining mechanism to put in place more formal arrangements for bearing down on noise.
Mr. Brazier: I thoroughly agree. The Government's attitude to targets has been very negative so far, although we will have more opportunities for discussion later.
In respect of (5B)(b) and (c), the annual figures are collected anyway and in many cases published, and publishing a statement of intent is not burdensome. The Minister's only significant objection is on the meaning of ''reduce''—whether it means a year-on-year reduction. If it could be construed in that way, I accept that there could be a technical problem with the drafting of the amendment in respect of an expanding airport, but it hardly amounts to an objection to the central point for the airport to have to say what it is doing.
Column Number: 38
Justine Greening: Surely it is a question of mixing tactical and strategic issues in relation to an airport. It is all about tactically, year on year, seeing noise reduced rather than about the strategic question of an airport that expands and invests capital.
Mr. Brazier: Yes, my hon. Friend is right. When they have a weak argument, Governments always respond to Opposition amendments by saying that there is a technical error in the drafting and Opposition spokesmen usually reply, as I do now, by saying that the Government may well be right. In (5B)(c) the wording could have been brushed up but its intention is clear: we want people to state publicly what they are doing about these matters; many choose to do so anyway.
Adam Afriyie: It strikes me that there are so many reporting requirements from so many different places. Airlines are required to report on health and safety and all sorts of personnel issues, so it seems bizarre that there is no statutory requirement for them to report on a key aspect of what they do.
Mr. Brazier: I thoroughly agree with my hon. Friend that the amendment would not constitute burdensome new regulation. It would simply provide minimal information on something that is of huge public concern. Much of the information is already being provided and the amendment would simply put its provision on to a statutory footing.
John Smith (Vale of Glamorgan) (Lab): Is the hon. Gentleman aware that airlines have no statutory obligation to record any health issues affecting passengers or crew?
Mr. Brazier: I pay tribute to the hon. Gentleman, whose long-standing campaign on deep vein thrombosis was an important feature of the last Parliament. We shall come later to amendments that he has tabled. I hope that he will be more successful with his hon. Friends in this Parliament and, indeed, in this Committee. I do not think that he meant quite what he said just now. There is no requirement on health; there certainly is on safety, of course.
John Smith: This is quite a technical issue, but it is important to have it on the record of the Committee. Of course, the hon. Gentleman is right. There are strict statutory requirements through air navigation orders and other instruments to regulate the safety of airlines; there is none for the health of passengers.
Mr. Brazier: I accept the hon. Gentleman's point entirely, but it still brings me back to the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Windsor, which is that this is a highly regulated industry. Asking airports to produce information that good ones already do would simply be making that a statutory duty when we are putting on to a statutory basis powers that many of them choose to exercise anyway.
Ms Buck: The thrust of the argument is that the major airports, which are designated and have consultative committees, are the ones about which the concern is expressed. For very small airports, the amendment would be an unduly heavy regulatory burden, so I am at something of a loss to understand what added value the hon. Gentleman thinks it would
Column Number: 39
provide. By his own admission, most airports already do what we are discussing.
Mr. Brazier: I am becoming confused about the Minister's position. Please let us be clear that the amendment deals with authorities that are making charges under subsection (1), so we are dealing with airports that already regulate their charges. We are not dealing with the aircraft in Barra, which was given as an example earlier; we are dealing with the authorities that are inside the game with which the Civil Aviation Bill is concerned. If they are making charges on that basis, they must be measuring emissions and noise. What is wrong with asking them to publish the figures? I think that we have now gone round and round far enough. I shall finish with a quick point on our proposed new subsection (5C).
Adam Afriyie: Does my hon. Friend agree that the Bill creates all sorts of new mechanisms and new statutory obligations, or makes them clear or tidies them up, so it should be of interest to the Government and to everyone to see what their effects are through some sort of statutory report in which they are clearly disclosed?
Mr. Brazier: That is absolutely right. The provision would not apply to those not making the new charges under the arrangements; it would apply only to those that were in the game, and many already are. We are putting the power on to a statutory footing. Why not put the corresponding duty on to a statutory footing? Proposed new subsection (5C) makes the parallel point. I understand what the Minister says, but why not give the airlines the appeal mechanism for which they are asking? I do not envisage it being used often and nor do they, but it would mean that there was a degree of balance. For that reason, Sir Nicholas—I am sorry; that was a rather longer winding-up speech that I intended—I am unwilling to withdraw amendment No. 15.
Question put, That the amendment be made:—
The Committee divided: Ayes 5, Noes 10.
Division No. 1]
AYES
Afriyie, Adam
Brake, Tom
Brazier, Mr. Julian
Greening, Justine
Pugh, Dr. John
NOES
Buck, Ms Karen
Crausby, Mr. David
Gwynne, Andrew
Hodgson, Mrs. Sharon
Keen, Alan
McGovern, Mr. Jim
Moffatt, Laura
Roy, Mr. Frank
Smith, John
Stringer, Graham
Question accordingly negatived.
Clause 1 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Column Number: 40
Clause 2
Regulation by Secretary of State of noise and vibration from aircraft
Justine Greening: I beg to move amendment No. 14, in clause 2, page 2, line 41, leave out subsection (2).
The Chairman: With this it will be convenient to discuss amendment No. 35, in clause 2, page 2, line 43, at end insert
', and may also issue penalties on aircraft, otherwise legally permitted to take off or land, which exceed the maximum take-off noise limits, specified by the Secretary of State,'.
Justine Greening: The amendment removes that part of clause 2 that would enable the Secretary of State to change the current regime, which is set out in section 78 of the Civil Aviation Act 1982. The current regime restricts night flights at the designated airports of Heathrow, Gatwick and Stansted, and the amendment would guarantee that the existing movements limit is retained as a control mechanism, whereas clause 2(2) proposes that the Secretary of State could remove that limit.
Adam Afriyie: I am sorry to jump in so early, but I wanted to make a quick observation, and see whether my hon. Friend agrees. There is no need to remove the movements limit while introducing quota measures: it is possible to have both. Depending on what the targets are, one or the other will take effect.
Justine Greening: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. At present, there are two mechanisms for controlling noise: one is to restrict the movements limit, which the Bill proposes to remove; the second is to restrict the total amount of estimated noise that people have to bear on the ground. That regime of mixed measurement works well, because it not only combats the concept of excessive noise, but addresses noise rumble, which is the kind of constant noise that disturbs people. My amendment would remove the power to remove the movements limit and would keep the existing mix of control.
The other issue that I have with that proposal is that it was not at all clear to me, when I tabled the amendment, what criteria the Secretary of State would use when planning to employ those powers. The power is to remove the movements limit, but the question that I have—I hope the Minister can answer it—is: under what circumstances would those powers be enacted? Given, particularly, that we are in the middle of a night flights consultation, which the Minister said in the Chamber last week would go on as planned until 2012, that gives us ample time to bring forward the type of data that we are currently missing on noise.
It being One o'clock, The Chairman adjourned the Committee without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order.
Adjourned till this day at Four o'clock.
| 
