|
Tom Brake: 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.
Mr. Brazier: 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—CO2 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.
Column Number: 54
Mr. Syms: 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.
4.45 pm
Ms Buck: 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
Column Number: 55
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.
Mr. Syms: 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?
Ms Buck: 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
Column Number: 56
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: 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.
| 
