Civil Aviation Bill

Public Bill Committee, 5 July 2005.

Standing Committee B

Civil Aviation Bill

Nicholas Winterton (Conservative, Macclesfield)

I welcome all Members to the Committee. Before we begin, I have one or two domestic announcements to make. I remind the Committee that there is a Ways and Means resolution, copies of which are available in the Room. I should also remind Committee members that, as a general rule, adequate notice should be given of amendments. My co-Chairman and I do not intend to call starred amendments, so please table them early.

Would all Members also ensure that mobile telephones—the blight of modern society—pagers, Blackberries, blueberries and whatever else people have by way of electronic gadgets are turned off or set to silent during Committee sittings? Finally, if the mood of last night's Programming Sub-Committee is anything to go by, this will be an agreeable and constructive Standing Committee that scrutinises this important Bill very carefully.

The first matter is the programme motion, debate on which may continue for half an hour.

Karen Buck (Labour, Regent's Park and Kensington North)

I beg to move,

That—

(1) during proceedings on the Civil Aviation Bill the Standing Committee shall (in addition to its first meeting at 10.30 am on Tuesday 5th July) meet—

(a) at 4.00 pm on Tuesday 5th July; and

(b) at 9.00 am and 1.00 pm on Thursday 7th July;

(2) the proceedings shall be taken in the following order, namely, Clauses 1 to 12, the Schedule, Clause 13, new Clauses and new Schedules, remaining proceedings on the Bill;

(3) proceedings on the Bill shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion at 4.00 pm on Thursday 7th July.

Sir Nicholas, I hope that raspberries will also not be welcome in the Committee. May I say how pleased I am to serve in Committee for the first time in my present capacity and to do so under your wise and benevolent but firm chairmanship? I recall serving under you on the Greater London Authority Bill, which you will remember lasted for what seemed like several years. Whenever proceedings were interrupted by the Division bell and the Minister was on their feet, you would welcome us back after the Division with the words, ''The Minister was just drawing to a conclusion'' even if they had just risen to respond to a debate. I hope to follow that line, and always to be drawing to a conclusion.

Several Committee members participated on Second Reading and made important points, many from a constituency interest, and I hope that we will have the opportunity to consider the Bill in a more detailed and systematic way. The hon. Member for Carshalton and Wallington (Tom Brake) was kind enough to describe the Bill as an ''aviation paella'', which was an unattractive concept, but I understood his meaning. It is a collection of measures, with the giant prawns being the regulation of noise and emissions at aerodromes, the vires of public airport companies, the route licensing appeal mechanism, aviation health and the protection of consumers. I am not sure what takes the role of the spicy sausage, but I am advised by the sommeliers that it should not be accompanied by a bottle of Nightcap.

The Programming Sub-Committee proposes four sittings, which we believe represents adequate time to complete our deliberations. The hon. Members present on Second Reading will know that everyone who wanted to contribute to that debate was able to do so with no time limits. Indeed, we finished with a little time to spare. I hope that we will have an opportunity to consider all the amendments as thoroughly as the Committee would want. The proposed order is a simple way through the Bill's provisions, and I hope that it, too, finds favour with the Committee.

Julian Brazier (Conservative, Canterbury)

I, too, welcome the opportunity to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Nicholas. I have been privileged to speak several times in Westminster Hall debates that you have chaired, and I can match the Minister's anecdote. I remember one particularly high-quality debate in which we got to the bottom of the issue with almost no audience; Westminster Hall was almost empty, with only one person in the public gallery. At the end, you told us what a good debate it had been, which was important to those of us who had worked hard and felt that we might have been wasting our time.

There is huge public interest in this Bill, which covers issues ranging from climate change to the quality of life of ordinary people. The Opposition welcome the fact that there are no knives in the motion, as it gives us the freedom to range as we see fit over the issues. That is particularly important on this Bill because our main complaint is that it is a bit of a mouse and does not do very much. Most of the more lively debates will be on the new clauses.

I see, Sir Nicholas, that you have and your advisers have done a wonderful job on selecting the order of the amendments. With the possible exception of the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988, I cannot remember serving on a Bill where the arrangements of the amendments could have been quite as conceptually difficult, because so many of them overlap in so many different and complicated ways. I will try hard not to test your patience by dealing with amendments that are further down the list, but there is so much overlap between them that it may prove impossible not to stray from time to time.

Much of the debate will inevitably be on the new clauses, which is why it is particularly good to have no knives on the Bill. A whole variety of areas seem to be missing from the Bill; it confers many powers, but there are few duties to get anything done. It has almost no checks and balances. We will shortly debate new clauses that cover many of those matters. There are a number of more specialist areas, ranging from safety to the Air Travel Trust. This looks like being a most interesting Committee and I look forward to taking part in debates.

Tom Brake (Liberal Democrat, Carshalton and Wallington)

May I join other Members in welcoming you to the Chair, Sir Nicholas? I always enjoy serving under your chairmanship, whether here in Standing Committee, as I have done on a number of occasions, or in Westminster Hall where you have chaired a large number of debates in which I have participated. I should also like to join the hon. Member for Canterbury (Mr. Brazier) in congratulating you and, I guess, the Government, on selecting an order of amendments that demonstrates a clarity that is unusual in a standing Committee.

The progress of the Bill will be intelligible both to members of the Committee and members of the public who are following our proceedings. The process of starting at clause 1 and going on to the new clauses is something that I should like other Standing Committees to imitate. My one regret is that amendment No. 33 relating to the Air Travel Trust fund has not been selected. I may seek to refer to it, but in a way that is acceptable and relevant to other clauses higher on the selection list. Without further ado, I look forward to our first debate.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 1 - Aerodrome charges: noise and emissions

Julian Brazier (Conservative, Canterbury)

I beg to move amendment No. 1, in clause 1, page 1, line 7, leave out 'may' and insert 'shall'.

This is a probing amendment. At present the clause states:

''Without prejudice to any power of any aerodrome authority to enter into an agreement on such terms as it thinks fit, an aerodrome authority may, for the purposes mentioned in subsection (2) below, fix its charges in respect of an aircraft or a class of aircraft''.

We suggest that the authority should do so. We wish to press the Government at this early stage to look beyond enabling powers and tell the Committee what they envisage being done. A whole range of groups are concerned about the future of civil aviation.

Environmentalists—I hope that we are all environmentalists in the Committee—are concerned about CO?2? and NOx emissions. They include those who live near airports, and some who live further away but under a flight path—that includes people who are affected by Manston airport, which is near my constituency—as well as those who are desperately worried about noise, those who travel on aeroplanes and the civil aviation industry, which is very anxious to know what will be done. The simple, one-word amendment is designed to probe the Government about that at an early stage.

The airlines made it clear in correspondence in the build-up to the Bill's introduction that in principle they are in favour of what the Government are trying to achieve, but they want to know where there will be compulsion and what will actually happen. I ask the Minister if the powers proposed will be compulsory, because it appears to the Opposition that there is nothing much in the clause that is not already happening.

As the Minister conceded at Second Reading, a large number of airports are already doing what is proposed, so what is the clause, which is rightly designed to give airports the power to regulate their charges according to emission noise and so on, trying to achieve? The airports already have the power, so if there is to be no compulsion, what is the purpose of the clause? I look forward to the Minister's response.

Tom Brake (Liberal Democrat, Carshalton and Wallington)

In the spirit of cross-party co-operation, I support what the hon. Member for Canterbury said about this probing amendment and I understand why he will not press it to a Division. It goes to the core of what we are discussing. If aviation, aviation emissions and aviation noise are as significant as the Government say, the Government should be trying to ensure that every aerodrome authority sets charges, for example, and draws up noise control schemes. It is a matter of ''shall'' rather than ''may'', as the hon. Gentleman said. I hope that the Minister, too, will explain precisely why the Government feel that a soft ''may'' is appropriate rather than ''shall'', given that many airport authorities are already taking the action proposed.

Karen Buck (Labour, Regent's Park and Kensington North)

I begin by saying that I endorse the words of the hon. Member for Canterbury (Mr. Brazier) in his recognition that there are enormous benefits to the country from aviation, as we discussed on Second Reading. That is recognised, although not evenly by all parties. There is no question that aviation has an impact in environmental terms, and we need to rise to the challenge that it presents. Those living close to airports have genuine anxieties, which the Government and I recognise absolutely and we must move forward in responding to it.

The hon. Member for Carshalton and Wallington is right that the amendment goes to the heart of what we will be discussing. I will respond in detail as it will avoid having to cover the same ground in the new clauses and in further amendments that expand on the same argument; the extent to which there should be a regulatory framework that is imposed as a duty on local airports rather than being voluntary.

The hon. Member for Canterbury made it clear that he did not believe that aerodrome operators would voluntarily make use of the provisions in the Bill to fix their charges by reference to noise or aircraft emissions. He also said—there is some contradiction in his position—that many airports are doing that already. There is tension in that respect, but I hope that we might be able to reach a consensus on the matter.

The amendment seeks to clarify the legal status under which airports are able to levy those charges. Many, if not most, airports are already making considerable progress in working with their communities and with consultative committees to find a way forward. That good practice should be encouraged and developed. However, the provisions in the Bill have been introduced specifically in response to some airports—I name Manchester airport in particular—that have made it clear that they seek legal clarification of the powers that they wish to use. Manchester airport may want to fix its charges by reference to aircraft noise or emissions, and it seeks the cover of legislation to do so. It intends to make use of the provisions.

Adam Afriyie (Conservative, Windsor)

Can the Minister clarify what seems to be a missing dimension? Different airports around the country may choose different noise limits for local residents or within the airport boundaries. Is there a mechanism somewhere in the Bill—I have not found one—that will enable a Minister to set a national noise target? The amount of noise that wakes someone up at night or disturbs them during the day surely does not depend on whether they live in Manchester or Windsor.

Karen Buck (Labour, Regent's Park and Kensington North)

I was just about to come to that point. My answer is the same as my response to the entire argument, which is that there are enormous differences in airports and aerodromes and therefore a single formula is not likely to catch what is required by those living near airports. It is true that an individual may be affected by the same level of noise whether they are living in Manchester, London or anywhere else in the country, but a contour—a profile of noise in a particular area—will have a very different impact on different communities, depending on levels of population density and where the aircraft fly from. That is why a single formula is unlikely to work.

The Government's policy—that of this Government, and also previous Governments—has been that the local issue of the environmental impact of an airport should be resolved locally where possible. I remind the hon. Gentleman—and the hon. Member for Putney (Justine Greening) who raised similar points—that a previous Minister for Aviation, following a consultation on control of aircraft noise, said in 1991:

''The responses generally to the consultation supported the principle that aerodromes should be locally accountable. I am taking various steps to reinforce this approach, building on the existing mainly voluntary system of control at most airports.''

He continued:

''It is far better for aerodromes to adopt and enforce effective noise measures themselves and to be accountable for local people voluntarily about what they are doing.''

That was the previous Government's approach, and there was consistency in terms of this requirement for local, and therefore locally variable, conditions to be established.

Adam Afriyie (Conservative, Windsor)

The point that I was trying to make—perhaps I did not put it clearly enough—was that it does not matter where in the country someone is, outside the perimeter of an airport, if they have an aircraft coming over at 90 dB, because that will disturb them. I wonder whether a bigger framework is needed, in which it is recognised that even if noise contours are interesting, what matters to each individual is the noise that hits their eardrums. The provisions, even though they give those local powers, do not fulfil the national responsibility to ensure people's peace and quiet in their areas.

Karen Buck (Labour, Regent's Park and Kensington North)

It is precisely those powers, most of which will be locally implemented in local circumstances, that are designed to bear down on levels of airport noise. In many cases, such as in the case of Heathrow, raised by the hon. Member for Putney, that is exactly what has happened. Levels of noise—the noise contour—have come down over the course of time, even allowing for a level of additional movements.

I shall explain to hon. Members a little more about the reason for having a varied response to account for local circumstances. Such a response reflects the diverse nature of airports and their operation. Hon. Members might recall the concern expressed by the hon. Member for Na h-Eileanan an Iar (Mr. MacNeil) on Second Reading about the possible effect of the Bill on airports in the highlands and islands, including the beach at Barra. That is a good example of how the amendment, in placing an absolute duty on airport operators to fix their charges with reference to noise or emissions, would risk placing an undue regulatory burden on some airports, particularly small ones. At Barra, the twin-engined plane uses the beach as its runway, and its take-off and descent are over the sea. Noise and emissions are scarcely an issue in that context, and clause 1 allows the flexibility to account for such cases, just as it will allow airports such as Manchester, which are utterly different in their operation, to reflect in their charging schemes the environmental impact of the aircraft that use it.

Julian Brazier (Conservative, Canterbury)

The Minister has been courteous about giving way. Much of what she is saying makes a great deal of sense, but she still has not addressed the central issue, which this probing amendment was designed to tease out. What is the clause designed to achieve if there is no compulsion, given that the arrangements are already in place where airports want them and a growing number have them?

Karen Buck (Labour, Regent's Park and Kensington North)

I hoped that I was able to explain that quite early on when I cited Manchester as an example. It is a very busy urban airport seeking clarification of its legal status if it wants to introduce the charges. It is concerned with being able to levy charges if it deems at a particular moment that that is appropriate to its circumstances, and it feels unable to do so at the moment because the legal powers are not clear enough. That is the central thrust of the clause.

John Pugh (Liberal Democrat, Southport)

A number of issues are being confused. I do not think that anyone objects to locally variable schemes, but the Bill seems to allow even quite a large airport to have no scheme at all. Although there might be a case for small airports that have very little traffic or very little international traffic not having a scheme, there is surely a good case for all big airports having some sort of scheme, but the Bill simply will not require that.

Karen Buck (Labour, Regent's Park and Kensington North)

I appreciate what the hon. Gentleman has to say and I hope that my final paragraph will respond to some extent to what he has said. I am aware of his concern and that of many hon. Members that some airport operators might not want to take up the powers even though local circumstances mean that there is a strong case for doing so. Proposed new section 38(4) of the 1982 Act, in clause 1, gives the Secretary of State the power to direct specified aerodromes to use the powers in the clause. It might be used in cases in which the voluntary powers are ineffective. The argument is that local circumstances are very varied. We want to work towards a partnership approach—which in many cases has been successful—to allow the clarification of legal powers for airports such as Manchester, and to have in reserve a power that can be used if there are grounds for concern and the airports have not been levying the charges. I hope that that explains a little more of the Government's thinking in making this a power rather than a duty and I ask the hon. Member for Canterbury to withdraw the amendment.

Justine Greening (Conservative, Putney)

I thank the Minister for allowing me to intervene. In terms of the grounds that the Secretary of State might consider—

Nicholas Winterton (Conservative, Macclesfield)

Order. It is not an intervention. The hon. Lady has the Floor; she is the speaker.

Justine Greening (Conservative, Putney)

Thank you, Sir Nicholas. With regard to the grounds that may be reviewed by the Secretary of State and Ministers to reverse a proposal of a local airport, what criteria would be reviewed?

Karen Buck (Labour, Regent's Park and Kensington North)

I shall have to reflect on that question and clarify exactly what the criteria will be. As I said to the hon. Member for Canterbury, the thrust of the measure is exactly what many of the amendments and new clauses deal with. If the hon. Lady will allow me to get back to her, I hope that I will be able to answer her question.

Julian Brazier (Conservative, Canterbury)

I am happy to withdraw the amendment, particularly in the light of what the Minister has just said. I accept that, as currently worded, the probing amendment would be unworkable and, on the basis that we shall return under subsequent groups of amendments to the many issues that have not been covered, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Tom Brake (Liberal Democrat, Carshalton and Wallington)

I beg to move amendment No. 16, in clause 1, page 1, line 13, after 'emissions', insert ', including greenhouse gases,'.

Nicholas Winterton (Conservative, Macclesfield)

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:

No. 17, in clause 1, page 1, line 15, after 'pollution', insert 'and/or climate change'.

No. 18, in clause 1, page 2, line 6, at end insert 'and/or climate change'.

New Clause 5

PROVISION FOR REPORTING TO THE CAA OF EMISSIONS OF CARBON DIOXIDE OF ALL AIRCRAFT DEPARTING FROM UNITED KINGDOM AERODROMES

'(1) For the purposes of monitoring the emissions of carbon dioxide from aircraft operating in or out of the United Kingdom, the Secretary of State shall, by regulation, require all aerodrome authorities to report annually on the emissions of carbon dioxide from all commercial flights, both domestic and international, departing from aerodromes within the United Kingdom.

(2) The reporting of carbon dioxide emissions to the aerodrome authorities at the airport of departure shall be a requirement of all aircraft operators without prejudice to nationality.

(3) The reporting of emissions by aircraft operators specified in clause (2) shall be calculated on the basis of the total fuel used on each departing flight over the length of the route, to be multiplied by a standard emissions factor, to be established by regulation.'.

Tom Brake (Liberal Democrat, Carshalton and Wallington)

I do not want to labour the food analogies too much, so I shall try to make this my last such attempt. What is missing from the Bill is the main course, which is greenhouse gases. It is entirely appropriate that we should tackle noise and, at a local level, NOx. However, it is also appropriate that we should tackle greenhouse gas emissions.

Given the extent of work that would be required, amendment No. 16 is a probing amendment. It is an important opportunity to put the Government on the spot and to hear the Minister's thinking about how the Government see the whole area of greenhouse gases emissions from aviation developing, and what role the Government feel that they, the airport operators and the airlines can play now, pending a decision at some indeterminate point in the future where emissions from aviation would be included within the EU emissions trading scheme. That is probably seven years away, perhaps longer.

Amendments Nos. 16, 17 and 18 seek to ensure that greenhouse gases are included, and that the scope of the emissions covered that are relevant to local air quality should be extended to greenhouse gases. If we are starting to monitor greenhouse gas emissions, there will be a need for an organisation, such as the CAA, to take responsibility for holding an annual record of emissions from aircraft flying within or out of the UK. New clause 5 seeks to do that. As the Minister will know, airlines do not currently have any duty to report carbon dioxide emissions. However, a few airlines, such as British Airways, choose to disclose that information in their annual environmental reports. The data for other airlines are difficult to obtain.

Equally, the Minister, who welcomed the launch of the sustainable aviation strategy from the different players in the aviation industry, will know that a number of airlines—British Airways, Virgin and Easyjet—have given an undertaking to establish a common system for reporting total CO?2? emissions, and fleet fuel efficiency by the end of this year. That would include the total direct CO?2? emissions from individual companies, the aggregated and individual airline fuel efficiency in grammes per revenue tonne kilometre—a rather complex concept—and progress towards the 50 per cent. fuel efficiency target.

New clause 5 seeks to ensure that what some of the airlines have said they will do actually happens in practice. That includes not only the big players, such as British Airways, which are adapting a more responsible attitude to reporting the CO?2? emissions, but might bring into play some of the other operators.

Adam Afriyie (Conservative, Windsor)

Does the hon. Gentleman agree with me that the emission control measures—the greenhouse gas monitoring measures—that seem to be available in the Bill do not hang together with national targets and the Kyoto protocol? They seem somewhat piecemeal. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman's approach is a better way of making it tie in with the national objectives.

Tom Brake (Liberal Democrat, Carshalton and Wallington)

The hon. Gentleman is right; the Bill specifically looks at local air quality. It does not pick up on the issue of greenhouse gases, which is an international issue that needs to be addressed. New clause 5 would bring into the fold some of the other airline operators, such as Ryanair whose views on climate change are regrettable. To have the CAA reporting on emissions on an annual basis would establish a benchmark against which to measure the performance of aircraft flying in or departing from the UK.

These are probing amendments, but they are significant none the less. They seek a response from the Government about how they can start to tackle emissions from aviation now, not in 2012. I hope that the Minister will be able to tell us how the Government plan to address what I consider to be the most important global issue before us today.

Julian Brazier (Conservative, Canterbury)

There is much in the sentiment behind new clause 5 that the Conservative party shares. Amendments Nos. 16, 17 and 18 seem, prima facie, to be redundant. I should have thought that ''pollution'' must include impact on climate change. If it does not, I congratulate the hon. Member for Carshalton and Wallington as that would be a big hole in the Bill. I think that the Minister will tell us that they are redundant. New clause 5 resembles amendment No. 3 which we tabled some time ago and will reach shortly. I do not want to try your patience, Sir Nicholas, so I will look at it only for a moment.

In his opening remarks the hon. Gentleman made two points: I strongly agreed with the first and was left a bit puzzled by the second. He is absolutely right that in the long term the most important single measure of the Bill's environmental success will be its impact on global warming. That commands agreement across all parties and across the major pressure groups. I was pleased by the positive references that the hon. Gentleman made to the airlines, which contrasted slightly with the tone of some of the Liberal Democrat contributions on Second Reading. The sustainable aviation strategy addresses that directly. On that point I am wholly with him.

The second point which left me a little confused was why he focuses only on CO?2? emissions, unlike our amendment No. 3. That seems odd because it was clear in our debates on Second Reading and in Westminster Hall, that one of the key areas that environmentalists are discussing is the uplift factor for aviation emissions, which the amendment seeks us to record regularly. What multiplier should be applied to the level of CO?2? emissions, in view of the other pollutants, principally nitrogen compounds but also water vapour, that come out with the CO?2? emissions?

The current figure being bandied about is 2.7. I do not accept that that figure is well established. Indeed, Tyndall in its study made it clear that it is only a best guess. Will that figure be taken even remotely seriously, as less than half the impact on global warming of aeroplane flights is from CO?2? emissions directly? More than half—the other 1.7—is from the other factors that go in with the CO?2?, the so-called uplift factors, including the nitrogen compounds.

I am puzzled about why the amendment focuses on only a detailed, specific and—dare I say it—slightly burdensome approach, and although I welcome the fact that it would include the airlines, it would leave the recording ultimately in the hands of the aerodromes rather than the Secretary of State. The amendment could have encompassed the wide range of emissions and put the responsibility on the Secretary of State, who is, after all, directly answerable to Parliament.

I will stop now, because I want to say more about the issue when we debate later groups of amendments. I support the sentiment behind the amendment—that global warming is the big issue.

Tom Brake (Liberal Democrat, Carshalton and Wallington)

Does the hon. Gentleman agree that, on occasions, there are advantages in tabling a relatively simple amendment to allow us to debate the concepts? I recognised that it was a probing amendment.

Julian Brazier (Conservative, Canterbury)

Indeed, and I make it clear that I support the sentiments behind the amendment—that global warming is the biggest issue and that we need far more measuring and regular reports. However, on the basis that the hon. Gentleman has made it clear that it is probing amendment, it is right that he is likely to withdraw it.

John Pugh (Liberal Democrat, Southport)

An interesting semantic point has been raised about whether one can have a form of pollution or an effect from an aeroplane that does not lead to climatic change, such as the increase in cirrus clouds produced by vapour trails, which I am told have no pollution effect. If nothing else, I suppose that the amendment has teased out the distinction.

New clause 5 is basically designed to tie down the aerodromes and airlines to producing specific information. We have to travel down that road at some point, because if we accept the principle of polluter pays and want to be serious about emissions trading, we must be serious about accumulating appropriate data to use in that process.

Karen Buck (Labour, Regent's Park and Kensington North)

It always makes me feel uncomfortable when there is an outbreak of unanimity, but we are at one on the basic principle and in recognising the importance of climate change and the fact that aviation must play its part. I am grateful to the hon. Member for Carshalton and Wallington for a recognition that the aviation industry, through its sustainability agenda, is engaging constructively in the debate on the way forward.

As the hon. Gentleman knows, and as those who contributed on this point on Second Reading know, the provision is outwith the scope of the Bill. I am glad that we have had the opportunity to spend a few minutes on it, but we would all accept that it neither could nor should be central to the thrust of the Bill. On the specific point, I can confirm the understanding of the hon. Member for Canterbury that clause 1, by referring to

''emissions produced by the aircraft'',

allows all emissions to be taken into account, including greenhouse gas emissions. In a sense, therefore, amendments No. 16, 17 and 18 are already covered by the Bill.

The key thrust of the comments of the hon. Member for Carshalton and Wallington is a Government agenda that we have been driving forward internationally, particularly through the development of the emissions trading scheme in Europe. I hope that we would all agree that it is sensible for the agenda to be tackled at an international level, as many issues remain to be worked through properly, including the allocation of emissions for international flights.

Julian Brazier (Conservative, Canterbury)

Nobody could deny that the work has be done internationally, but the fact is that the data must be collected nationally.

Karen Buck (Labour, Regent's Park and Kensington North)

The hon. Gentleman is right in a sense, but we are waiting for a European Commission paper on the next stage of the ETS, and we must be clear about what we want to achieve. There is no point in setting up a monitoring system until we are clear about what we want to monitor and what the allocation processes might be. The hon. Gentleman referred to some of the areas of science that are important and not subject to disagreement on the principle, but the science is still unclear on, for example, the issue of radiative forcing. To move forward and achieve what I suspect we all want to achieve, we shall have to do so on the basis of a more solid international agreement on that science. No one country is going to be able to make the kind of progress that we wish to see until we have established that.

Hon. Members know that a greenhouse gas trading scheme is already in operation in Europe, and that we have been working to include intra-EU air services in the EU emissions trading scheme. It is a priority for the UK presidency of the EU to see whether aviation can join that scheme in 2008, or as soon after then as possible. The hon. Gentleman gave a different time scale, but we remain absolutely committed to that happening either in 2008 or as soon as possible thereafter.

As I have said, I do not disagree with the principle of new clause 5, but I think that its purpose—creating the monitoring regime—is premature. We need to ensure that we move forward to an international agreement on aviation joining the emissions trading scheme, and on some of the issues of disputed science and the allocations of emissions. Following on from that, I am sure that there will be an opportunity to discuss again exactly which monitoring regime should be put in place to ensure that the trading scheme delivers effectively the kind of reductions in greenhouse gases over the long term that we all wish to see.

Tom Brake (Liberal Democrat, Carshalton and Wallington)

On the basis that the Minister has clearly set out, that she is seeking to achieve the more ambitious target of getting aviation emissions within the EU trading scheme by 2008 in recognition of the impact from aviation of greenhouse gases, I beg to ask leave to withdraw amendment No. 16.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Nicholas Winterton (Conservative, Macclesfield)

Before we move on to the next amendment, if hon. Members get a little warm, and wish to remove their jackets, I am happy for them to do so. I congratulate them on their discipline in not derobing without the sanction of the Chair. Secondly, I intend to allow a wide-ranging debate on the amendments that have been selected under clause 1, so I give notice to the Committee that it is not my intention to permit a clause stand part debate. I hope that hon. Members will bear that in mind and participate if they wish as the remaining amendments are debated.

Julian Brazier (Conservative, Canterbury)

I beg to move amendment No. 2, in page 2, line 9, leave out 'attributable' and insert 'directly related'.

This is a small probing amendment, which considers the use of the word ''attributable'' in clause 1. Subsection (2)(c) contains the words:

''controlling the level of noise or atmospheric pollution in or in the vicinity of the aerodrome so far as attributable to aircraft taking off or landing at the aerodrome''.

I think that that means what it appears to mean, but in focusing on the wording ''directly related'', rather than ''attributable'', the amendment is a first stab. The airport authorities will have considerable powers confirmed in law to them—we think that they already have them, but we are clarifying that they definitely have them. In some cases, they are fairly monopolistic organisations: well over 90 per cent. of the landing slots around London are controlled by the British Airports Authority. They are imposing them on airlines in a tight, competitive market, and we should pin down whether emissions are a direct consequence of the aeroplanes themselves.

Airport authorities have, for example, enormous terminals, which use lots of heating in winter and lots of air conditioning in summer: they push out lots of emissions. It would not be beyond the wit of a clever lawyer to argue that if a badly designed airport terminal was creating large emissions, it was due to the passengers and those who work at the airport because of the flights taking off or landing.

I could make other small points but I will not detain the Committee with comments about noisy and smoky old vehicles pulling baggage around and the state of airport buses. My point is that in future, when these proposals have been toughened up as expected, it would be grossly unfair if, on clever legal advice, airports were to be told that they could shove on to the airlines—

Adam Afriyie (Conservative, Windsor)

I agree with my hon. Friend. It seems to me that the Bill's intention is not to capture other legislation on emissions but is purely related to the emissions generated by aircraft. I fully support what my hon. Friend says—that other emissions that are common to most businesses should not accidentally be brought within the Bill's framework.

Julian Brazier (Conservative, Canterbury)

I thank my hon. Friend for his intervention. How people get to and from airports is a legitimate issue and there will be much scope for debating it, not least in the Crossrail Bill, when we consider the impact on rail access to Heathrow and the number of extra journeys that Crossrail will create.

De facto, the clause proposes fining aircraft by imposing higher charges on them. It would be unfair if, on legal advice, airports, especially those of the British Airports Authority with its monopoly powers, were able to make operators shoulder matters for which the airports are wholly responsible. They build the terminals, after all. The clause as drafted may be adequate in that respect, but the amendment is designed to tease out from the Minister whether she is confident that it relates only to the directly attributable emissions and not to those from airport buildings and their surroundings.

Tom Brake (Liberal Democrat, Carshalton and Wallington)

So far, I have been comfortable with the amendments proposed by the official Opposition. However, this amendment may have unforeseen consequences; it may push at the boundaries of the science. If the words ''directly related'' were substituted, would the Minister confirm that a possible scenario is that of a chemical interaction between an aircraft's emissions and other particles in the atmosphere which could lead to greater pollution in the vicinity of the airport? If the change proposed was made, could the airlines argue that the pollution was not directly related to emissions from the aircraft because it was caused by a subsequent chemical reaction? That could have the consequence of loosening the controls rather than tightening or maintaining them and providing clarity in ensuring that the emissions or pollution for which airlines are responsible are from their aircraft, rather than their taking responsibility for pollution from other sources. I hope that the Minister will clarify that point when she responds.

Karen Buck (Labour, Regent's Park and Kensington North)

I am extremely loth to tread on what, if the hon. Gentleman is correct, will be lawyers' territory. In the event of these matters being tested in court, it is, almost by definition, impossible to predict the outcome of the arguments. However, the Bill makes it clear that the emissions to be charged for are those caused by the aircraft, and creates the framework in which the charging authority must satisfy itself—

Julian Brazier (Conservative, Canterbury)

I apologise for intervening on the Minister so soon, but the clause does not say that. Unless I am mistaken, the word ''cause'' is not in there anywhere. That is why I am slightly concerned about the wording.

Karen Buck (Labour, Regent's Park and Kensington North)

My understanding is that the reference makes it clear that it is about emissions caused by the aircraft. I shall seek further guidance in the hope that inspiration will come to me. Inspiration has now come to me to confirm that this would be covered by the provisions as currently drafted. My understanding is that it will be for the airports to satisfy themselves that the emissions concerned are caused by the aircraft. That will have to be determined to a certain extent at local level, within the context of local conditions.

The broader point is valid, in that we all recognise that roadside emissions are a contributory factor in local air-quality problems at airports. In cases in which there is evidence of a problem, those emissions have to be monitored separately, and that is the case at the designated airports and many others. In addition, action is under way at a number of airports to tackle roadside emissions directly. Those airports will be in a more confident position. They will be a little further down the line in being able to demonstrate that they have, for example, permits for airside vehicles and licensing arrangements for vehicles in and around the airports. They will be able to demonstrate that they are taking action separately to control roadside emissions, which will make them more confident in respect of the action that they take on aircraft emissions. I am confident that under the current phrasing of the Bill it is clear that the airport levying the charges must attribute those to the aircraft that it believes caused the emissions.

Julian Brazier (Conservative, Canterbury)

The Minister mentions some welcome moves to consider the approaches to airports, but is making it clear that those will not be attributable to the airlines. Is that the case?

Karen Buck (Labour, Regent's Park and Kensington North)

Certainly my understanding is that there are airports that are engaging in monitoring and control of emissions from vehicles in and around the airports, and that is a separate issue to emissions from aircraft.

Adam Afriyie (Conservative, Windsor)

I believe in the principle of the polluter paying for the pollution that they cause. Judging by what the Minister has said, I welcome the measures in the Bill that identify that the airline may pay for the pollution that it causes. I think, from her answers, that I am also comfortable that the principle that the polluter pays in respect of other emissions that come from airports can be dealt with elsewhere.

Julian Brazier (Conservative, Canterbury)

I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Julian Brazier (Conservative, Canterbury)

I beg to move amendment No. 3, in page 2, line 24, at end insert—

(a) The Secretary of State shall report on the effectiveness of any charges made under subsection (1) in reducing noise and emissions.

(b) The first report under this section shall be in respect of the period of twelve months beginning with the passing of this Act.

(c) Subsequent reports under this section shall be in respect of the period of twelve months beginning with the end of the previous reporting period.

(d) Any report made under this section shall specify the sources of information used in its compilation.

(e) The Secretary of State shall—

(i) lay a copy of each report under this section before each House of Parliament, and

(ii) publish each such report in such manner as he thinks fit.

(3B) The Secretary of State shall, by regulation, following the publication of each report made under subsection (3B), set targets for emissions and noise reductions by aerodrome authorities for the following twelve month period.'.

Nicholas Winterton (Conservative, Macclesfield)

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following: Amendment No. 29, in page 2, line 31, at end insert—

'(5A) The Secretary of State shall, by regulation, set targets for the reduction of noise and emissions by aerodrome authorities, using charges made under subsection (1), within a twelve month period following the passing of this Act.

(5B) Targets made under subsection (5A) shall be revised downwards annually thereafter.'.

New clause 6—Reduction of noise targets—

'The Secretary of State shall review no less than every 5 years, the maximum noise limits on aircraft taking off from designated airports and shall take account of the target of reducing the perceived external noise of new aircraft by 50% by 2020 compared to 2000.'.

Julian Brazier (Conservative, Canterbury)

With amendment No. 3, we are looking at the heart of the Bill. I shall not trouble the Committee by reading out the amendment, as there is quite a lot of it, but it focuses on reporting. When tabling the amendment, we made it clear that we wanted it to stretch across the full range of emissions and noise. I do not want to detain the Committee by restating in detail the argument that I advanced earlier when I said that there was a flaw in the Liberal Democrat approach although I supported the principle behind it. Essentially, my party believes that we must consider emissions as a whole, including the NOxes, the nitrogen compounds. We support the principle that there must be more reporting.

The amendment focuses on the Secretary of State. We think that the Secretary of State, because he is the person responsible to Parliament, should be responsible for reporting on effectiveness. We would require him to report every 12 months, and to provide copies of the report to Parliament.

We think that the report should make clear the sources of the information used. One of the concerns that was raised frequently in the debate on Second Reading was that the airport operators have too much power: at some points in the process they seem to be acting as policemen, lawyer, court and everything else.

There are other ways of measuring the noise of aircraft. I shall give a parallel example. One of the problems experienced by my constituents is the noise from Shoeburyness military testing centre. I support much of the activity there—it is essential for military purposes—but it causes considerable nuisance to my constituents. It is a nuisance of a kind that is analogous to aircraft flying; there is a combination of noise and rather more low frequency problems, which occasionally cause damage to my constituents' houses. The Ministry of Defence has from time to time called in independent noise and vibration consultants to measure the noise; they sometimes come to different conclusions from Qinetiq, who are the site operators.

The amendment would gently press the Secretary of State to make clear the sources of the information used for the reports on noise and emissions, because there are a variety of different sources for emissions, and a number of ways of measuring nitrogen oxides. Indeed, measurements are already taking place on roads, for which the Department for Transport is directly responsible. I think that those sources would add something to the value of the report.

Justine Greening (Conservative, Putney)

My hon. Friend starts to get to the heart of the problem, which is the absence in the Bill of provisions to compel airports—or indeed the Secretary of State or any other body—to measure actual facts and data, rather than using estimates on which a control framework is based. That is perhaps the main issue for my constituents in Putney, in terms of noise created by aircraft landing at designated airports. That matter is at the heart of some of the amendments already tabled.

There is no point in having a robust framework for managing carbon dioxide emissions if we are not in a good position accurately to measure the actual emissions. I hope that, as we go through the remaining debate and scrutiny today, we will reach some firm conclusions on the need to start measuring the actual pollution, whether it be noise, carbon emissions, nitrogen oxide emissions or any other emissions that we believe could be created by airports, but that are not at present being measured.

Julian Brazier (Conservative, Canterbury)

I certainly welcome my hon. Friend's intervention. The amendments do go to the heart of the issue. There is consensus in the Committee that the kind of issues raised by the Tyndall report, to which reference was made many times on Second Reading, are the crying concern in aviation matters. That does not mean that those issues are the only concern; we are also concerned to have a healthy and vibrant aviation industry, and to give many people an opportunity to travel that previous generations would never have dreamt of, but those issues are at the heart of the matter. There is a definite need for the Secretary of State to prepare some sort of proper schedule of information.

In her reply to the earlier debate, the Secretary of State said quite rightly that such matters have to be the subject of international agreements. Britain cannot go it alone on getting aviation into emissions trading, something which the airport operators themselves call for in their excellent document ''Sustainable Aviation''.

However, saying that the agreement will have to be international does not detract one jot from the fact that an international agreement is completely worthless unless the individual countries are preparing proper data on which its implementation can be based. Proposed new subsection (3A) in amendment No. 3 is designed to set out that data collection.

Proposed new subsection (3B) is brief and proposes:

''The Secretary of State shall, by regulation, following the publication of each report made under subsection (3B), set targets for emissions and noise reductions by aerodrome authorities for the following twelve month period.''

I am sure that the Minister will say that we are not ready and must wait for an international agreement, but just as there is a compelling case for getting hold of the data that we need to fulfil any international agreement, many of us cannot see any reason why Britain should not set an example with some targets for reducing emissions.

Noise is a national matter. I do not need the Minister to remind me that there are international agreements on noise, but, unlike the effects of CO?2? emissions, its effects are local rather than global. Noise affects those who live around airports and, as my hon. Friend the shadow Secretary of State constantly reminded us on Second Reading, people who may live a long way from an airport but are none the less directly under flight paths. We should not be timid in setting targets.

Justine Greening (Conservative, Putney)

The debate is moving in an important direction from my perspective, and we can start to see how local, national and European regulations could fit together. It is incumbent on our national Government to start talking about what they believe is excessive noise. That would give residents in Putney and other places close to airports, but outside what would normally be regarded as an airport's immediate vicinity, a better understanding of what they should be expected to put up with. It would also give them a chance to say what they think is excessive. That could then set the context within which a local debate could happen.

That is clearly something that we could decide nationally, but it could then fit into a broader framework. Indeed, I suggest that Britain leads the debate in Europe by trailblazing and establishing what we think is excessive noise, perhaps linking to other bodies such as the World Health Organisation, which has already gone down that path itself.

Nicholas Winterton (Conservative, Macclesfield)

Order. Before the hon. Gentleman replies, I should say to the hon. Lady that interventions should be brief. She is clearly following the debate closely, but I would ask Committee members to keep interventions brief.

Julian Brazier (Conservative, Canterbury)

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for a good intervention, and I hope that we will hear from her in a longer speech. She made clear on Second Reading the extent to which she is championing her constituency and other interested parties around Heathrow, as did my hon. Friend the Member for Windsor (Adam Afriyie).

New clause 6 specifically concerns aircraft noise limits and the target of reducing perceived external noise. I have no doubt that the Minister will say that it is too ambitious, and I am well aware that it would create problems with some of the international agreements that we have signed. It has been pointed out that operators from some of our new European partners have aircraft that would have trouble meeting the limit and are likely still to be in service by 2020.

I do not intend to push the new clause to a vote. However, I want to try to tease out from the Minister what progress she is hoping to make on maximum noise. We shall come later to some of the issues concerning how noise is measured, such as whether we have night caps, or whether noise can be spread out, so I shall leave those for a later debate. However, maximum noise, which the new clause addresses, must surely be a crucial issue.

Over the last generation, it would be churlish of any speaker not to acknowledge that the suppliers to the airlines, the aircraft builders, including our own British Aerospace as part of its consortium, and the engine maker Rolls-Royce, have made huge progress. Aircraft are less noisy than they were a generation ago, although the number of flights has grown enormously.

Adam Afriyie (Conservative, Windsor)

I would in no way wish to disagree with new clause 6, but can my hon. Friend clarify what he means by ''perceived external noise'' of new aircraft? My concern, and that of my constituents and other hon. Members' constituents, is the actual noise on the ground. Is that how that is to be interpreted?

Julian Brazier (Conservative, Canterbury)

Yes. I am grateful to my hon. Friend for pointing that out. One of the problems that we had on Second Reading was the issue of how noise is measured. I shall not bore the Committee by repeating my earlier point about Shoeburyness, but it is clear that there are direct methods of measuring noise that can be done independently of the theoretical noise that aircraft are supposed to make. Those several different methods measure the different noise levels and the profile of the noise, particularly at the bottom end, where low-frequency rumble is probably the most damaging noise of all. ''Perceived noise'' should be the perception on the ground, as my hon. Friend said.

I turn now to the Liberal Democrat amendment No. 29. I do not have a huge problem with it, although it is less ambitious than what we are trying to do. Trying to reduce targets annually is comparable with our new clause. I do not have a problem with that, as the aim of all the amendments tabled by the Liberal Democrats and the Conservatives is to probe the Minister on what she envisages doing. The Bill is all about empowering: what all Opposition Members, and, I suspect, some Government Members here want to know, is how will the Bill translate into action? Are we going to see more charges, are we going to see the data collected for it, and are we going to see real reductions in noise and the various forms of emissions?

Tom Brake (Liberal Democrat, Carshalton and Wallington)

I wish to say a few words about amendment No. 29, which I think is broadly similar to the proposals put forward by the official Opposition. Its purpose is to ensure a reduction in noise and emissions. The Minister said a few moments ago that the noise created by individual aircraft is reducing. Clearly that is reducing year on year. The advantage of this would be to give the industry the steer it needs.

I had an interesting meeting a couple of days ago with one of the associations representing airports. Its view was that one of the strongest drivers for introducing the chapter 3 planes and their reduced noise levels was the fact that the aircraft manufacturers and the airframe manufacturers were given a clear steer that they would have to achieve those targets. The industry considered those targets difficult to achieve and there was nothing in the pipeline to help, but it responded to the steer and addressed the issue.

The person I was speaking to then told me that the industry was disappointed that no clear steer was given on chapter 4 aircraft and so there was not a huge amount of difference between those two in terms of noise. Had a stronger steer been given to the industry there would have been every prospect that those aircraft would have been considerably quieter. Both the Conservative amendment and our amendment No. 29 are aimed at ensuring that the overall envelope of noise and emissions reduces. That is entirely appropriate.

Our amendment would address the problem of Coventry airport. How can the issue be addressed where both the airline and the airport are so closely linked? Clearly it would be a challenge to require the airline that is linked to the airport operator to levy charges for noise and emissions. If the Minister does not feel that this is an appropriate way of dealing with Coventry airport she must tell us whether she feels comfortable with the regulatory arrangement that is currently in place. If she is not, surely the Government are duty bound to come forward with some proposals. I know that it is a complex issue that the Government wish they did not have to address, but they must do so for the benefit of the local community.

There is no disagreement between the two Opposition parties. We may take a slightly different approach but the end game is the same. There is one point about which there is a possible difference of opinion and the hon. Member for Canterbury could perhaps intervene to clarify this. New clause 6 states that the Secretary of State

''shall take account of the target of reducing the perceived external noise of new aircraft by 50% by 2020''.

My reading of that is that it would not give the aviation industry the steer that it needs. If all the Secretary of State would do is take it into account, but then perhaps accept that there are reasons why it is not appropriate to hit that target, that would not give the industry the steer that it needs to go out and hit those very challenging targets.

Julian Brazier (Conservative, Canterbury)

The hon. Gentleman is right in the sense that it would not compel the Secretary of State to do it. The amendment seeks to tease out the Secretary of State's plans. This is an important target. People want to see a further reduction in aircraft noise built on the progress that is already made in terms of the total noise.

Tom Brake (Liberal Democrat, Carshalton and Wallington)

I had concluded my remarks. I look forward to the Minister's explanation of how she will deal with the regulation of Coventry airport.

John Pugh (Liberal Democrat, Southport)

I just wanted to make a few, thoroughly unhelpful remarks. Amendment No. 3 works on the presumption that we are in a data vacuum, as the hon. Member for Canterbury seemed to imply. I presume that we will not be in that situation; if there is to be a charging regime and carriers are to be charged on a regular basis they must know what they are being charged for. The issue is whether that information—the stream of data—is commercially confidential or will be disclosed. I would like the Minister to clarify that point because if the data is out in the open, it would provide a reasonable basis for assessing the effectiveness of a scheme. I would hope that in a good scheme, the number of penalty charges would come down in time showing that the scheme worked, which would save everyone the burden of collecting further and additional data—assuming that the standards set by the scheme were adequate and appropriate.

It is a bit of a quibble, but the Liberal Democrat amendment and the Conservative amendment No. 3 set targets for emissions that are lower and lower each year. The logician in me says that if that is continued indefinitely there will be quiet airports with no noise whatever, assuming that the legislation remains in place. It is an inelegance in the amendments, and I hold my hand up if I have played any part in it.

I therefore warm to new clause 6, which is fairly specific in its requirements. However, I also have a quibble with that proposal: whether there is a place in legislation to specify figures on emission targets that may be relative to developing technology and the like and whether we will want to revise them upwards or improve them later, but we may subsequently be bound by legislation in that respect.

Although the spirit of these probing amendments is sound and their intent is good, I have reservations about their practical operation in legislation.

Julian Brazier (Conservative, Canterbury)

If I may, Sir Nicholas, I shall speak again in the light of the two constructive contributions to the debate. It is worth stressing that the British aviation industry is already committed in principle to halving; it is in the sustainable aviation document. However, it is important to realise that besides British airlines, many other operators fly out of our airports, including Ryanair, which is not British although it is in the British isles. As we know, it is an Irish operator, which has distanced itself from the target. Airlines are committed to the target only for new aircraft, not for existing aircraft.

I reiterate my earlier point: the aim of the amendments is to tease out of the Minister what is in the Secretary of State's mind in terms of delivering the proposal and creating a level playing field, working with the British airlines who want to achieve the target.

Justine Greening (Conservative, Putney)

We must consider the low rumble of an aircraft versus the concept of maximum noise being extremely disturbing to people. That is at the heart of our debate and it is why I am not in favour of removing the movements limit. It is very important that we define what we believe to be excessive noise.

A Bill that proposes to rely purely on the quota system for managing noise is dangerous. When we measured the noise of 747–400 planes going over Wandsworth, we found that they seemed a lot louder—74 per cent. louder, in fact—than the quota system would have suggested. We need to be able either to address at European level the European directives and legislation on which we rely to monitor and manage noise in Britain, or to find a way of acknowledging them nationally and therefore taking a lead.

Julian Brazier (Conservative, Canterbury)

My hon. Friend makes a powerful point. Does she agree that nothing in the Minister's saying, ''Oh, but we've signed this agreement and because aviation is international we have to abide by the agreement and the rest'' prevents the Government from setting up independent noise measures? If we can then show that those have a track record of diverging heavily from the internationally agreed ones, we have something to go back to the table and negotiate with in future.

Justine Greening (Conservative, Putney)

I absolutely agree and I thank my hon. Friend for his intervention. It is incumbent on the Government to ensure that any system that we use to measure noise is robust, and that when we discover that it is not, we are seen to be acting to address the anomalies. It might be possible to use the quota count system, but not if its estimated noises are so divergent from actual noises as measured on the ground. Perhaps there are flaws in the existing plan. Our experience legally in Wandsworth—I have taken advice on the matter myself—is that we can take into account actual noise as well as the estimated noise currently used in the quota count system, and I urge the Government to do so.

Alan Keen (Labour, Feltham and Heston)

Tribute was paid to you at the beginning of the Committee, Sir Nicholas, and I wanted to pay a special tribute, because I was under the impression when you were calling people to speak that you were calling out ''Comrade'' and I was very impressed by that. Then I thought that you were showing favouritism to the hon. Member for Carshalton and Wallington. I was even more disappointed to discover that you were actually calling out ''Tom Brake'' and not ''Comrade'' at all.

My constituents suffer the greatest noise. It does not matter what chapter the aeroplanes are—we could get the epilogue or even vertical take-off planes and my constituents would still suffer tremendous noise. I am, however, encouraged by the debate because right across the Committee hon. Members are genuinely concerned about noise. It is really impossible to bring in any statistics to help my constituents, but I wanted to make the point that it is important that we continue to consider the issue as a Parliament. I am interested in what my hon. Friend the Minister has to say about help for my constituents, who suffer intolerable noise. No amount of reduction in aircraft noise will really help them, until planes are, as the hon. Member for Southport (Dr. Pugh) suggested, completely silent.

Rather than speaking a number of times, I shall refer now to the problem of emissions from traffic. We have already talked about that. I know that there is money, and money could be spent on improving the roads close to Heathrow, which would mean an immediate improvement. Such a step would pay for itself a number of times over in only a few years, but that matter does not seem to be addressed.

I am, however, encouraged by the Bill and by the attitude of hon. Members. If the Minister and the Secretary of State go along with that, I think that we will begin to tackle the serious problems that my constituents face. I repeat, so that people are not under any misunderstanding, that my constituents, probably more than anyone else's in the Room, understand the problem, because they work at Heathrow. If they do not, their relatives do and certainly their next-door neighbours do, so they are great supporters of Heathrow airport, but Heathrow has a special problem, which other airports have not yet encountered—I hope that they never reach the point at which they have to face the same problems as we do. I compliment hon. Members on what they have said today and I appeal to the Minister to take note of those comments. We have to take an overall look at the problems that aircraft cause. I want my constituents and everyone else's to enjoy air travel. I do not want that to be restricted, but we cannot keep piling it on to one airport.

Justine Greening (Conservative, Putney)

May I add that it is particularly incumbent on the Government to consider night-time noise? Certainly many of my constituents are pragmatic about the fact that they live reasonably close to Heathrow and use it. They recognise that it is a vital part of our economy, but I draw to the Minister's attention in particular the fact that night-time noise is most disruptive to their lives, especially in the context of excessive noise and rumble noise, as it has been called.

Adam Afriyie (Conservative, Windsor)

During the election campaign I was in an area of my constituency called Colnbrook, trying to elicit the key issues for the people there. As I was asking the question, an aircraft went overhead. I could not hear a thing, and the lady to whom I was speaking could not hear a thing, so we stopped speaking for about 15 or 20 seconds while the aircraft rumbled over. I then said, ''Are there any particular issues that you are concerned about in this area?'' and she said, ''Well, there are weeds on the pavements and that really upsets me.'' It is interesting that, despite the crashing noise of aircraft, people under flight paths tend, as has been said, to accept it over time.

In an ideal world, aircraft would be silent and non-polluting. The principle of stepped targets, which has been brought up by several hon. Members, is a key one. Coming from a business background, I know that people are looking for certainty. If people know that in 20 or even 30 years' time a certain goal has to be achieved by a step process or they will be in trouble commercially, they tend to achieve that goal. As the hon. Member for Carshalton and Wallington has said, chapter 3 and chapter 4 aircraft designs, and the steer that the Government gave for chapter 3 aircraft, worked well. The aircraft manufacturers knew where they had to go. The more vague steer on chapter 4 aircraft meant that that has not come about in the same way. I strongly urge the Minister to consider the principle of stepped targets.

Some targets are very welcome in certain areas, such as what we are discussing. To make a quick general dig, the hundreds of targets in other areas of our lives are less necessary than those in key national and international issues over which individuals and small organisations have little control. There is a general harmony: all parties in the House want the level of aircraft noise to come down, but there is perhaps a little disagreement about the use of targets in that process.

Julian Brazier (Conservative, Canterbury)

My hon. Friend makes a powerful point. I should like to highlight his example of weeds on the pavement by citing a parallel one. When I visited Shoeburyness, which causes so many problems for my constituents, I was struck by how supportive the local community was—the people living right on top of the range. Many work for the MOD or closely within its framework and have got used to it. They know exactly where they are with the MOD. The gist of my hon. Friend's speech is introducing predictability and dependability, so that people know that there will not be a lot of noise at night. Knowing when noise will occur would make a big difference, and it is why the amendments should tease some proper answers out of the Minister.

Adam Afriyie (Conservative, Windsor)

I thank my hon. Friend for his intervention. We are in agreement that what is important is certainty.

To go back to the example that I gave about people not really hearing noise, there is one area of concern, to which my postbag testifies, as I am sure do those of other hon. Members, and that is night-time noise. That is currently the key issue. I am concerned that as a result of the proposed measures, the movements limit—perhaps inadvertently—will disappear. At 4.30 am, what matters is not general noise quotas or theoretical engine noise but the noise of the Hong Kong flight coming in. It is one flight that destroys a good night's sleep.

Were I able to have a dream in Windsor, without being woken up at 4.30 am, that dream would be that clear targets should be set each year for the reduction of the noise level from aircraft on the ground, and for emissions. That would give people certainty, even if they were under a flight path, or moving into an area that was affected by aircraft noise, that three, five, ten years ahead—

Tom Brake (Liberal Democrat, Carshalton and Wallington)

Does the hon. Gentleman agree that simply putting charges in place will not be sufficient to reduce the overall level of noise and emissions?

Adam Afriyie (Conservative, Windsor)

I agree that variable landing fees, levies and charges are a mechanism, not the outcome. The point that I am trying to make is that it is the outcome that people want.

I am sure that the Minister will have heard me, on many previous occasions, talking about the actual noise on the ground. We seek a reduced level of noise on people's eardrums; that is the outcome. The Bill is a lot more to do with mechanisms than outcome.

I support the Bill to the extent that it enables some of those targets to be set, or, at least, gives the aerodromes a route by which they can achieve some of those goals. However, it is incumbent on the Secretary of State to set those targets a long way in advance, while taking into account the international and European context. I urge the Minister to introduce some of the measuring techniques and target setting within the next few months, so that people can rest assured that they know what will happen in the future.

Karen Buck (Labour, Regent's Park and Kensington North)

We have rehearsed quite a lot of arguments that will come up a little later, so I will try to deal in general terms with some of the points that were raised.

I shall start by saying that I suspect that I shall disappoint Opposition Members, because the basic premise from which we start is the one that was laid out in the air transport White Paper. In terms of certainty, I would argue that setting a framework, as we did in the strategic document for airport development, gives people a fairly clear steer on where the Government are seeking to go in the long term, even if in some constituencies there will be people who are very unhappy about it.

Many of us, in our opening speeches on Second Reading, emphasised that there is a balance to be struck; between the value that aviation brings to the country's economy, through employment and the benefits of travel, and the great importance of tackling its wider environmental and local environmental implications. In essence, therefore, I am not in a position to agree to targets, because I believe that those targets would conflict with the balance that was laid out in the White Paper.

Tom Brake (Liberal Democrat, Carshalton and Wallington)

The Minister said, in effect, that the targets, or the framework, are set by the aviation White Paper. Could she remind hon. Members of what targets the White Paper set for reducing noise and emissions?

Karen Buck (Labour, Regent's Park and Kensington North)

I do not have them in front of me—[Interruption.] Yes, I am sure that inspiration will strike me in a moment. However, as hon. Members know, the general context is to seek to bear down on noise and emissions. A great deal has already been achieved; in particular, a great deal has been achieved at Heathrow in terms of noise, and that needs to be recognised. However, the White Paper set out that framework some time ago, and it is set against the background of continuing development of the aviation industry. I therefore believe that the kind of target structure that is proposed by hon. Members will fundamentally conflict with the balanced approach taken by the White Paper.

Julian Brazier (Conservative, Canterbury)

The Minister is right that there is a balance to be struck. Certainly, we as a party support a healthy aviation industry. However, does she accept that the reality is that CO?2? emissions have risen under this Government, and that aviation has been responsible for part of that rise? The levels fell in the few years before the Government took office. That is the first party-political point that I have made, but it is something that she must recognise.

It is true that noise has improved as airliners have become quieter, but the problems that my hon. Friends have raised, such as aircraft operating outside the envelope and problems at night, have worsened in some respects. That point was echoed by the hon. Member for Feltham and Heston (Alan Keen) as well. As the number of flights increases, there will be plenty of scope for them to worsen still. Will the Minister accept that her answer will fill a lot of people with gloom?

Karen Buck (Labour, Regent's Park and Kensington North)

The hon. Gentleman will not be surprised to hear me say that I hope not, because the argument about balance is important too. People who travel and who are employed and benefit economically from the aviation industry also have an interest, and it is a fact of politics that we have frequently to deal with conflict between different interests.

Let me deal with some of the specific points that were raised. Noise was mentioned on Second Reading, and it emerges elsewhere in the Bill. I hope that the hon. Member for Putney will accept that, particularly in the context of the sustainable development of Heathrow White Paper, a great deal of work is being done, which could also be applied elsewhere, to consider how noise is measured and establish whether the onset of community annoyance is still valid. Indeed, the EU directive due to come into effect in 2007 will create the opportunity for another means of monitoring, which could consider in particular matters such as the weight of aircraft and night noise movements.

The hon. Member for Putney mentioned what she called the restrictions of EU regulations in terms of the actual versus the certificated noise. We need to be careful that we do not throw out the baby with the bath water. We have a regulatory framework that allows us to ensure that noise monitoring is fit for purpose as part of the Heathrow expansion and that we are learning constantly from the science. On the wider issue, the sustainable development of Heathrow project includes scientific panels to consider whether the current monitoring of air quality is robust and stands up to independent peer review. The Government are in a position to say that we must constantly look at the science to be sure that our systems are robust and people can have confidence in what is monitored. It is not in anyone's interests not to do that.

That leads into the issue of movements, which Members have mentioned and to which we will return. Scepticism about movements limits has been voiced by Opposition Members, but I hope that even if I do not reassure them, the statement from HACAN will. HACAN confirms:

''The Civil Aviation Bill doesn't propose abandoning the movements limits as such. It merely confers the power to do so. At Heathrow it may not be used before 2012''

because of the current night flights consultation.

I hope that hon. Members can be reassured that we have no sinister intention on the movements limit, and the introduction of the scope for using noise contouring should be a powerful incentive, in a way that a movements limit on its own is not, to bear down on noise by encouraging the use of quieter aircraft. It is important that we always examine different ways of addressing the problem as it is one on which we all agree. We all want noise minimised as far as possible, and we want to strike the balance between the needs and interests of local communities and of the aviation industry.

New clause 6 refers to the aviation industry's target stated in its recently produced sustainable aviation strategy to reduce the perceived external noise of new aircraft by one half by 2020 as compared with 2000.

Julian Brazier (Conservative, Canterbury)

The Minister has moved on from responding to amendment No. 3. Although she made a large number of comments, they mostly relate to the output. She does not seem to have answered the first point, which is why should there not be a 12-monthly report on measures. I take her point that there is now a diversity of noise measures, although I was not quite clear what the framework is for using them. What is the objection to having a 12-monthly framework for reporting on these matters? It would hardly be an expensive arrangement and it would be a good way of reassuring public opinion.

Karen Buck (Labour, Regent's Park and Kensington North)

The hon. Gentleman is correct. I was taking a number of different points together. Let me finish my point on new clause 6 and then I shall return to amendment No. 3. The strategy is very much welcomed by the Government. We hope that the industry will manage to meet it, but we do not believe that it is appropriate to make the Secretary of State responsible for policing a target that is adopted voluntarily by the industry or to give that target statutory force.

Amendment No. 3 would require the Secretary of State to report annually on the impact of airports' charging schemes on reducing noise and emissions. I do not believe this would be an appropriate requirement. Firstly, the levels of noise and emission at an aerodrome may quite possibly vary for reasons other than the imposition of charges relating to noise and emissions arising from the Bill, such as changes in the type of aircraft using the airport, changes in the local economy, or improvements in operational practice driven by an airline operator's wish to improve fuel efficiency. In other words, the sense in which the monitoring would be done in order to establish the effectiveness of the Bill is not covered by the amendment.

Julian Brazier (Conservative, Canterbury)

I am grateful to the Minister for giving way again. I do not think that I could have heard her correctly. She read out a list of factors that were unrelated to the charging policy but some of them seemed to be directly related to it. The first was changes in the type of aircraft using the aerodrome. Surely one of the purposes of an emissions-related charging system would be to encourage operators to use aircraft which emit less emissions and noise at that aerodrome. I simply do not follow her logic on that.

Karen Buck (Labour, Regent's Park and Kensington North)

Of course that could be a consequence. It may result in an entirely different set of practices such as changes in the way that the airport is being used. Basically, the requirement to monitor implies a degree of causation in response to the clauses of the Bill, whereas a whole of range of factors can be brought to bear on an airport that are not necessarily a consequence of the Bill. The major argument is that the Government do not believe that this level of oversight is appropriate for airports that are not designated under section 78 of the Civil Aviation Act 1982.

John Pugh (Liberal Democrat, Southport)

Clearly there will be penalty charges under these schemes. Some airports will go out of their way to indicate where the penalty charges have fallen, on whom they have fallen and the extent of the breach. Does the Minister expect that when these schemes are established in non-designated airports, all details of all penalty charges when levied will be in the public domain or can they be protected under any circumstances by the plea of commercial confidentiality?

Karen Buck (Labour, Regent's Park and Kensington North)

I apologise to the hon. Gentleman but a couple of specific points have been raised which I have not answered. My understanding is that the charging schemes are part of the airport's conditions of use and that many are publicly available such as those of the Manchester airport group and the British Airports Authority. If another operator suspected anti-competitive behaviour he could lodge a complaint to the Civil Aviation Authority or the Competition Commission. In that sense it is variable, but it should be accessible if there is any suspicion that the charges are not being levied in a way that is fair to all concerned.

That leads me to the issue of Coventry airport, which was raised by the hon. Member for Carshalton and Wallington. The key answer to his question is that aerodromes are required to offer their facilities to operators on a non-discriminatory basis, which means that any penalty scheme would need to apply equally to all airport users including freight operators. I understand that Thomson is the main scheduled carrier out of Coventry but the airport has other users, including Hapag-Lloyd Express, and freight traffic. If there were any suspicion that Thomson was being treated favourably, other operators would rightly challenge that and, if it were proved, the airport would be in breach of its duties. That provides a strong safeguard that the airport would not be soft on favoured companies. The need for non-discriminatory treatment applies to penalties but also to landing charges and to the use of services.

Tom Brake (Liberal Democrat, Carshalton and Wallington)

I understand the Minister's point that there would be a level playing field between the principal airline and other users of the airport, but that does not address the issue of the impact on the local community and the extent to which the airport operator may choose to take action in relation to noise or emissions.

Karen Buck (Labour, Regent's Park and Kensington North)

There is no requirement to introduce a penalty scheme in the first place. If a penalty scheme is introduced, it must be non-discriminatory. The broader point then applies to Coventry as it does to other airports but if there were reasons to be concerned about the need for noise charges and noise penalty schemes such measures would have to be introduced, as they would be at other airports, in a non-discriminatory way, and applied equally. I hope and believe that that would be enough to deal with the matter.

I emphasise that any additional action to tackle the environmental impact of aviation must give due regard to the effects on the competitiveness of the UK economy and the impact of consumers, as well as on local communities. That balanced approach is at the heart of the ''Future of Air Transport'' White Paper.

Tom Brake (Liberal Democrat, Carshalton and Wallington)

In relation to the non-designated airports, will the Minister clarify whether the Government have any remit whatever to review the effectiveness of the charges?

Karen Buck (Labour, Regent's Park and Kensington North)

Again, I shall have to wait for inspiration to strike me on that point. The Government retain the ability to intervene to designate if all else fails. Considering how the schemes have operated so far in different parts of the country there is reason to believe that the partnership and voluntary approach within the permissive powers—some exist now and some have been clarified within the new legal framework being introduced by this Bill—will be enough to respond to that. Those powers will continue to exist as a fallback if there are reasons to believe that the airport authority is not delivering the quality of service that the local community has the right to expect.

The balanced approach is at the heart of the White Paper and I invite—

Adam Afriyie rose—

Karen Buck (Labour, Regent's Park and Kensington North)

I was getting to my last word.

Adam Afriyie (Conservative, Windsor)

I am grateful to the Minister for giving way; I appreciate that she was coming to the end of her speech.

I completely disagree with the hon. Lady on the setting of targets, especially in relation to new clause 6. It seems obvious to me that one has to have a target; it is not worth having tools and mechanisms if there is no target to achieve. I would like the opportunity to vote on the proposal.

Karen Buck (Labour, Regent's Park and Kensington North)

I can only repeat that this is an issue of balance; there is evidence of a capacity to bear down on noise, and new powers in the Bill strengthen and clarify the airport authorities' ability to do so. However, it would not be appropriate to constrain new and expanding airports with targets.

The air transport White Paper strikes a balance between benefit to aviation and the economy and the need to preserve the environment and do the best for local communities. The permissive powers and the new controls set out in the Bill enable us to do that without the additional regulatory structure of targets.

Julian Brazier (Conservative, Canterbury)

I was rather disappointed by the Minister's response. As she tried very hard to deal with our points in detail and was generous in giving way to interventions, I do not want to introduce an acrimonious note into the Committee, but there is a real difference between the Government and the official Opposition in this regard. Obviously, I leave it to the Liberal Democrat spokesman to speak for himself, but I suspect that that applies to the Liberal Democrats, too.

The Minister makes the point in the context of amendment No. 3 that different airports have different circumstances. My party is not strongly in favour of detailed and burdensome regulation. The main point of the amendment was to try to tease out of the Minister what the Government think about the gathering of information, which is crucial, and about the setting of targets. I am rather disappointed that she feels unable to agree with us on the modest new clause 6. It does not say very much.

As I said, the Minister said that different airports around the country have different circumstances, but the new clause refers only to designated airports, so that point is hardly relevant, and the designated airports have been designated precisely because of the sorts of factors that we are discussing.

New clause 6 is designed to work with the grain of what the British aviation industry is already constructively proposing. It refers to ''new aircraft''. That is the target coming out of British airlines, anxious both to be seen to be promoting a responsible attitude to the environment and, quite rightly and reasonably, to be operating on a level playing field with the foreign competitors that compete against them in a very tight, difficult market in this country.

I cannot see why the Minister does not agree to the new clause, so although I am happy to withdraw amendment No. 3, we will seek a vote on new clause 6. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Nicholas Winterton (Conservative, Macclesfield)

I have to advise the Committee that we will not take that vote at this moment. It depends on precisely what the Opposition spokesman is seeking to achieve. He could have a vote on amendment No. 3, but if he is determined to withdraw that amendment and to indicate to the Government that he wants to have a vote on new clause 6, I am happy to agree to that and we can have the Division at the appropriate stage in the Bill.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Julian Brazier (Conservative, Canterbury)

I beg to move amendment No. 4, in clause 1, page 2, line 25, leave out 'specified' and insert 'designated and non-designated'.

This amendment is relatively small in terms of the number of words, but it is of particular interest to those who live around non-designated airports. In terms of aviation movements, those airports represent quite a small minority, but in terms of the number of airports, they represent a very large majority. We seek to replace the word ''specified''—that appears to mean the same as ''designated'', but I would be grateful if the Minister clarified that—with the words ''designated and non-designated'', so that the arrangements in the clause apply to all aerodromes. It came up again and again on Second Reading that the Secretary of State has powers in respect of designated airports, but not in respect of non-designated ones.

As it is quite short, I shall read out subsection (4), which would be amended:

''The Secretary of State may by order direct specified aerodrome authorities''—

we would like that to say ''designated and non-designated authorities''—

''to fix their charges in exercise of any power conferred by subsection (1) above; and any such order may contain directions as to the manner in which those charges are to be so fixed.''

I do not want to go into a lot of material that we have already covered—you would probably restrain me if I did, Sir Nicholas—but I think that, for the Committee's benefit, I can anticipate what the Minister is going to say. The Minister will say to us that there is no need to extend the clause to non-designated airports because the Bill confers on the Secretary of State the power to convert a non-designated airport into a designated airport.

Ms Buck indicated assent.

Julian Brazier (Conservative, Canterbury)

The Minister nods helpfully. I think that the Minister's nod also confirms that ''specified'' means the same as ''designated'' for those purposes.

The Minister may say that if she wishes, but it seems to many of us that there is no reason why the Secretary of State should not have that quite modest power. It is only a power, and not a requirement, to extend the provision to all airports. Why should the Secretary of State not have the power to press on an airport the requirements of the clause in terms of fixing of charges, where there is public pressure to do so, without having to go through the business of designating the airport, with all the other legal consequences that that will have?

One group that is particularly concerned about this issue are the Leicestershire constituents of my hon. Friend the shadow Secretary of State, my hon. Friend the Member for Rutland and Melton (Mr. Duncan). Another group that is concerned is a small number of constituents at the extreme end of my constituency who, with the boundary change, will shortly move across from the constituency of Canterbury to that of my hon. Friend the Member for North Thanet (Mr. Gale). What those two groups have in common is that they are not adjacent to an airport—in one case, Nottingham East Midlands Airport and in the other, Manston—but are under its flight path, or the flight path for some of its flights.

Such groups tend—I shall allude to the Shoeburyness experience without going over the same ground again—to be much less supportive of an airport than the people who live immediately around it, many of whom work there and are used to it. Indeed, some of the constituents of the shadow Secretary of State live a long way from the airport and have only comparatively recently found themselves heavily affected by flights.

This charging regime is already in place in many airports but the Minister, for reasons that I understand and which my party supports, wants to encapsulate it in law to prevent some expensive piece of litigation in the future. However, the question that the Minister needs to answer is why those arrangements should not be potentially put in place for the benefit of all airports rather than just for the small number of airports that are designated. The amendment is short but simple, and it goes to the heart of the concerns of many people. I urge the Minister to consider accepting it.

Karen Buck (Labour, Regent's Park and Kensington North)

The hon. Gentleman was half right in predicting what I was going to say. Where he was not right was in assuming that ''specified'' means ''designated''; it does not. It means an airport that the Secretary of State can specify for that purpose.

I shall first outline the broader reason why I disagree with the amendment. The Government's policy, as we have stated in earlier amendments, is that decisions on how to deal with the local environment should, as a general rule, be left to those local circumstances, reflecting the diverse nature of airports and their operation. The new subsection contained in clause 1 gives the Secretary of State the powers to direct specified, not designated, aerodromes to make use of the powers in section 38 as amended by the clause. The Government's intention in making the provision is to ensure that where an airport operator is unwilling to take up those powers, even though local circumstances mean that there is a strong case for so doing, the Secretary of State could ensure that charges might be fixed by reference to noise or emissions of aircraft.

The hon. Gentleman's amendment would mean that rather than being able to make such directions to specified airports, all airports—both designated and non-designated—would have to be directed to fix their charges with regard to noise and emissions. The Government are not comfortable with that blanket approach, for the reasons that I have given.

Julian Brazier (Conservative, Canterbury)

I can be extremely comfortable with the Minister's answer on the matter, but can she clarify one point. What is the mechanism for specification? She said that the matter is specified by the Secretary of State, but can she tell us what the mechanism is?

Karen Buck (Labour, Regent's Park and Kensington North)

I do not think that I can answer that in terms of the mechanism. My understanding of it is that it is where the Secretary of State believes, on the basis of information provided—[Interruption.] No, I am absolutely wrong. I apologise. It is specified in the order.

Julian Brazier (Conservative, Canterbury)

I shall keep talking for a moment, to give time for the information to be passed to the Minister. Can she clarify what that means? Will it be by statutory instrument, by orders that will come out with the Bill, or by resolution? I see that the inspiration is just arriving.

Karen Buck (Labour, Regent's Park and Kensington North)

The inspiration tells me that the matter is dealt with in section 38(4). I am not sure whether that answers the hon. Gentleman's question. It is specified in a statutory instrument made under section 38.

Julian Brazier (Conservative, Canterbury)

On the basis of those assurances, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Julian Brazier (Conservative, Canterbury)

I beg to move amendment No. 15, in page 2, line 31, at end insert—

'(5A) Aerodrome authorities, both designated and non-designated, shall publish details of any charges made under subsection (1) for the purposes set out in subsection (2).

(5B) Aerodrome authorities which make charges under subsection (1) shall be under a duty to—

(a) monitor emissions and noise levels on an annual basis;

(b) publish annual figures for pollution and noise levels; and

(c) publish a statement of intent as to what levels of emissions and noise can be expected for the following twelve month period and what actions they intend to take to reduce noise and pollution levels.

(5C) Airlines may appeal to the Secretary of State against any charge made by an aerodrome authority under subsection (1).'.

The amendment proposes that aerodrome authorities, both designated and non-designated, should publish details of any charges made under new subsection (1) for the purpose set out in subsection (2). They would also have a duty to monitor emissions, and publish annual figures and a statement. Crucially, airlines would have a power of appeal against charges.

Dealing with new subsections (5A) and (5B) together, the Bill, as I and my hon. Friend, the shadow Secretary of State said several times on Second Reading, gives airports a number of powers. However, it does not give them many duties. I agree with the Minister on the principle that, wherever possible, matters should be resolved locally. That has been a current theme: everybody would like to see matters resolved locally if that is possible. There are also occasions, examples of which we have heard about in this debate, where matters cannot be satisfactorily resolved locally. We think that it is perfectly reasonable to ask that aerodrome authorities, which have been given these powers, should publish the details of the charges that they have made. They should not be kept as commercial in confidence, so that people who want to feel reassured that something is happening in airports about which they are concerned can see what is going on.

We are asking that airports monitor emissions and noise levels annually, and publish the annual figures and statement of intent. It hardly seems unreasonable to remind people that the very considerable powers that we are clarifying—that is the word that the Minister uses in the Bill—can be used legally. They are powers exercised by a virtual monopoly in the case of south-east England, as the British Airports Authority controls well over 90 per cent. of the flights in and out of the area. It is nearly a monopoly, which deals with airlines that, in contrast, are involved in extremely tight competition. It does not seem burdensome that they should be required to publish those details.

That brings me on to proposed new subsection (5C) in the amendment. In the past few weeks, I have had a number of meetings and exchanged correspondence with airlines. Not one representative has said that they are opposed to the Bill, and the way in which the British airlines signed up to the excellent document ''Sustainable Aviation'' shows the extent to which they want to play the game. They want to be seen to be responsible and to be doing the fair thing. However, the point that they made to me, which was reinforced by the British Air Transport Association, is that the Bill lacks checks and balances. For airlines dealing with an extremely powerful negotiating partner in the British Airports Authority—as they do in south-east England—it would be reasonable for the Bill to include a provision such as that in proposed new subsection (5C).

There is a case for saying that the proposal is at its strongest when we consider the designated airports—basically, the British Airports Authority airports. It seems reasonable that airlines should be able to appeal to the Secretary of State if they think that the charges are unreasonable.

Graham Stringer (Labour, Manchester, Blackley)

I have been listening all morning to the hon. Gentleman's enthusiasm for targets, regulation, centralisation and giving the Secretary of State powers. Could he explain why the Secretary of State, rather than the Civil Aviation Authority, is mentioned in subsection (5C)?

Julian Brazier (Conservative, Canterbury)

One difficulty that we have had with many clauses of the Bill concerns the breakdown of responsibilities among a range of bodies, including the CAA, air traffic control bodies, the Secretary of State, individual non-designated airports and the British Airports Authority. There is a string of overlapping responsibilities. As the body who is ultimately answerable to Parliament on climate change, which is at the heart of much of the Bill, the Secretary of State is the appropriate person for the airlines to appeal to.

If the hon. Gentleman said that the clause would be better drafted if it mentioned the CAA, we could debate that. Personally, I think that it should be the Secretary of State because he is answerable to Parliament, and we should bear in mind that the CAA does not have a responsibility in its charter for the health of the aviation industry. That may be astonishing, but it is true: its focus is entirely, and rightly, on the interests of the travelling public. The only person who can pull all the factors together within this complicated and fragmented structure—that is not a criticism of the Government, as it has always been complicated and fragmented—is the Secretary of State.

The Minister said a great deal about striking a balance. In fact, she said more than that: she rightly noted that on Second Reading people from all parts of the House talked about striking a balance between the needs of the aviation industry and their customers—a large proportion of our constituents enjoy from time to time the opportunity of taking a holiday that would not have been possible a generation or two ago—and the various environmental, climate and noise concerns that we have mentioned.

In striking that balance, is it not fair, as we propose in proposed new subsection (5C), to consider the balance between the terrific power of the airports and the British Airports Authority on one hand and the airlines on the other? I am not suggesting that the likes of British Aerospace are weak players, but every airline has, to some extent, been frail since 9/11. The fact that they have had to build up these large cash balances and protect them, even in the case of the strongest players, reflects that, and the idea that there should be no appeal of any sort here seems to many of them to be unreasonable.

John Pugh (Liberal Democrat, Southport)

There is an analogy in the rail industry. The people who control the track—Network Rail, Railtrack or whoever—charge people and carriers from time to time. But there is an appeal mechanism. There is a rail regulator. There was much discussion about the privatisation of justice on Second Reading: an appeal mechanism counteracts that.

Julian Brazier (Conservative, Canterbury)

The hon. Gentleman makes an excellent point. We will return to the privatisation of justice. It also brings us back to that point that you and your advisers, Sir Nicholas, needed the wisdom of Solomon to split these overlapping amendments. The privatisation of justice is an issue here. It seems a rough form of justice if there is no appeal at all. I look forward to hearing the Minister's response to the points on new subsections (5A) and (5B) and on having an appeal mechanism in (5C).

Tom Brake (Liberal Democrat, Carshalton and Wallington)

I am comfortable with amendment No. 15. It goes with the grain of other proposals. The Government should consider it helpful. It could ensure that they have a means of assessing whether airlines are meeting the targets for reducing noise and emissions as set out in the White Paper. During an earlier exchange the Minister was handed a note on that point. I hope that she can tell us precisely what those targets are in relation to noise and emissions and perhaps accept that the amendment would enable her to monitor effectively the targets set in the White Paper.

Karen Buck (Labour, Regent's Park and Kensington North)

I am afraid that again I must disappoint the hon. Member for Canterbury by asking him not to press his amendment. First, as I said in response to an intervention from the hon. Member for Southport (Dr. Pugh), details of an aerodrome's charging policy will be available as part of the condition for use of the aerodrome. In the case of BAA, which runs the designated airports, the conditions for use are made publicly available on the internet. Similarly, Manchester is an example of a non-designated airport that does so. The Government do not believe that it is necessary for this requirement to be made statutory as in amendment No. 15.

Amendment No. 15 also provides that airports making charging regimes under new subsection 38(1) should be placed under a duty to monitor their emissions and noise levels and publish their figures. Again, we do not believe that these reporting requirements need to be statutory. While we believe that the charging scheme has a valuable role to play, which is why we are clarifying the role in the Bill, it is not the only influencing factor on noise and emissions from aircraft.

The larger airports, which are more likely to take up the powers of new section 38 have already been designated under section 35 of the 1982 Act and have consultative arrangements in place. Nottingham East Midlands airport, for example, which the hon. Gentleman mentioned, monitors noise and reports to the local consultative committee. A number of noise monitors, both fixed and mobile, are in place to help. Reporting on noise and emission monitoring will take place through those arrangements.

As regards noise, the largest airports are covered by the Aerodromes (Noise Restrictions) (Rules and Procedures) Regulations 2003 which implement the European directive on noise-related restrictions. Where operating restrictions are proposed, it places obligations on the airport operator, or the Secretary of State in the case of designated airports, to take into account a range of information. That is set out in full in annexe 2 of the directive. It includes a description of the effect of a noise climate without further measures and, for those measures already planned to lessen noise impact over the same period, forecasts noise contours, including an assessment of the number of people likely to be affected by airport noise.

The amendment would require aerodrome authorities to say what actions they intend to take to reduce noise and pollution. Insofar as that involves operating restrictions covering noise it would overlap with existing requirements on airport operators. As I said in responding to amendment No. 3 and others in the group, in the case of an expanding airport it will not necessarily follow that establishing a noise and emissions charging regime will lead to reductions in noise and emissions—the balance argument that has been rehearsed a number of times in the debate.

On the right of appeal, proposed new section 38(4) allows the Secretary of State to direct an aerodrome authority to fix its charges in exercising powers under section 38(1). The direction may cover the manner in which the charges are fixed. I am not persuaded that there is any need for the Bill to include a separate right of appeal.

John Pugh (Liberal Democrat, Southport)

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?

Karen Buck (Labour, Regent's Park and Kensington North)

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.

Julian Brazier (Conservative, Canterbury)

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 (Conservative, Putney)

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.

Julian Brazier (Conservative, Canterbury)

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.

Justine Greening (Conservative, Putney)

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.

Julian Brazier (Conservative, Canterbury)

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 (Conservative, Windsor)

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.

Julian Brazier (Conservative, Canterbury)

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 (Labour, Vale of Glamorgan)

Is the hon. Gentleman aware that airlines have no statutory obligation to record any health issues affecting passengers or crew?

Julian Brazier (Conservative, Canterbury)

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 (Labour, Vale of Glamorgan)

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.

Julian Brazier (Conservative, Canterbury)

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.

Karen Buck (Labour, Regent's Park and Kensington North)

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 provide. By his own admission, most airports already do what we are discussing.

Julian Brazier (Conservative, Canterbury)

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 (Conservative, Windsor)

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?

Julian Brazier (Conservative, Canterbury)

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.

Clause 2 - Regulation by Secretary of State of noise and vibration from aircraft

Justine Greening (Conservative, Putney)

I beg to move amendment No. 14, in clause 2, page 2, line 41, leave out subsection (2).

Nicholas Winterton (Conservative, Macclesfield)

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 (Conservative, Putney)

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 (Conservative, Windsor)

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 (Conservative, Putney)

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.

Standing Committee B

Clause 2 - Regulation by Secretary of State

Nicholas Winterton (Conservative, Macclesfield)

I remind the Committee that with this we are discussing the following:

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 (Conservative, Putney)

I think that I will start with a reprise of the comments that I made before lunch, to set in the context of the amendment. The amendment would remove the part of clause 2 that gives the Secretary of State the powers to remove the movements limit. As I was explaining, at present, noise at designated airports is controlled via a mix of controls. On the one hand there is a quota count system, which examines the absolute estimated noise that people have to bear on the ground, and on the other there is the control exerted by the movements limit, which limits the absolute number of aircraft able to land during periods such as the night-time period, during which, currently 16 flights come into Heathrow.

My argument is that, while we have the next regime of the night flights consultation, which will run up until 2012, we should use that time to get the real facts and data that is needed to make an informed assessment of whether the Secretary of State should have the powers to remove the movements limit. By that I mean several things. First, we need to start to measure the actual noise, as we have already discussed in the Committee. Close to the immediate Heathrow area, for example, there are noise sensors, but further out—in the hinterland, where local people are very much affected by aircraft noise—there are far fewer controls in place to manage what they have to put up with. There is a similar situation with regard to many of our airports. We must therefore start to look seriously at measuring actual noise on the ground.

Secondly, returning to the speech that I made on Second Reading, we must look at how that noise affects people. I believe that it is something like 20 years since the last large-scale study that examined the impact of prolonged and sustained aircraft noise on people who have to bear it day to day and, in my constituents' case, every night.

Thirdly, we need to examine whether there is an economic case for continued night flights at Heathrow. There are currently 16 night flights, transporting 2,000 to 3,000 passengers every morning, each of which will manage to wake up several hundred thousand Londoners, who also contribute to the London economy. I am not aware of any robust public work that has been done that adequately stacks up whether there is an economic case for those night flights that outweighs the economic benefit that my constituents, and many others who are woken by night flights, contribute to London's economy.

Finally, I believe that before we confer any further powers on the Secretary of State to remove the movements limit, we need to be clear as to what the Opposition's and the Government's policies are on excessive noise. We touched on that matter earlier today, and it has been made all the more relevant by our earlier discussion on targets. I urge the Minister, if she is not able to give us further information on that policy today, to give us the information on Report, or to issue some guidelines about what might constitute excessive noise. I would be happy to discuss that matter further with the Minister at a meeting, when we could address face-to-face some of the issues that my constituents have to put up with on a day-to-day basis.

Julian Brazier (Conservative, Canterbury)

I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Putney (Justine Greening) on her cogent defence of her constituents in this matter. Putney, as she has reminded us already, is under the flight path for Heathrow.

The provision that amendment No. 14 would strike out is one of the most controversial bits of the whole Bill. We spent time discussing it in a more general way on Second Reading, but my hon. Friend has given us the opportunity to focus closely on it. It is worth quoting one or two of the protestor groups. For example, Mr. Steve Charlish, the leader of a group of Leicestershire residents, who is concerned about noise from Nottingham East Midlands airport, comments:

''The Civil Aviation Bill is looking at discretionary powers to allow a greater number of relatively less noisy aircraft into London airports. This surely is going to lead to more night flights, not only around the airports but along flight corridors nationwide where these aircraft will be transiting through night time hours, destroying tranquillity over very wide areas.''

That view is echoed by the Stop Stansted Expansion campaign, which has made a number of points:

''As it stands, this amends the Civil Aviation Act in such a way as to empower the Secretary of State to discontinue applying limits to the number of night aircraft movements at Heathrow, Gatwick and Stansted and replace these with noise quotas alone.''

I am sure that we shall get a technical explanation from the Minister and that we shall be reassured that the Bill will do no such thing. However, looking at the wording, I can understand why the protestor groups are concerned at the idea of replacing a straightforward cap on numbers with a concept of noise restriction. That could mean, effectively, that if aircraft were a bit quieter, there could be more of them at night.

The Secretary of State has said that there would be consultation before there were changes on this issue, although I am not clear about what form of consultation that was. The fact is that flights at night are perhaps the number one concern of people who live near airports. I support the concerns raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Putney in such an articulate fashion. I shall be looking carefully at the Minister's response on what the proposal that my hon. Friend seeks to strike out would do if it were left in the Bill, and at the Government's plans in that area.

Amendment No. 35, in my name, is grouped with amendment No. 14. There is a real concern about excessively noisy aircraft. On Second Reading, that was the issue that came up second most often, after the issue of the number of night flights. As somebody put it, ''You can hear any number of low background noises, but it is the one really shrieking sound that can ruin your afternoon and certainly your night.''

I shall quote a constituent of my hon. Friend the Member for Hertford and Stortford (Mr. Prisk):

''Maximum noise limits for aircraft taking off from designated airports have been set for many years, but have only been fully effective since the British Airports Authority was required to install monitoring equipment in the early 1990s. Maximum noise limits are extremely important because obviously it is the noisiest aircraft which cause the most annoyance and because they put a pressure on aircraft manufacturers to produce quieter aircraft. The present limits were set in 2001 and have not been reduced since the banning of chapter 2 aircraft in 2002. The fact is that the limits are very little lower than they were in the early 1990s because some old types of aircraft are still flying. When it is suggested to the Department for Transport that the limit should be reduced and that the penalties should be reduced and that the penalties should be regarded as a charge on noisier aircraft in line with Government policy that airlines should cover their external costs, the civil servants' reply is always that they cannot impose penalties on aircraft which are otherwise legally permitted to fly.''

Hence the wording of the clause that aircraft that are otherwise legally permitted to fly but are exceeding the maximum noise limits should now be fineable. We seek to give the Government that power. The Government have been clarifying powers in a variety of areas that we dealt with this morning. We suggest that they should have an additional power which seems thoroughly justified. To summarise amendment No. 35, where an aircraft is landing and taking off completely legally, but exceeds the Government's noise limits, there should be a power to fine it. I look forward to hearing the Minister's reply to both points.

John Pugh (Liberal Democrat, Southport)

As I understand it, this is an amendment to an amendment to the Civil Aviation 1982. I read the original script fairly carefully. However one reads it, it appears that the sole, if not the main, tool with which one can mitigate the effect of traffic flights on people living near airports is by limiting the number of flights taking off, particularly at night.

The Government amendment appears to leave that tool there but to make it an option. The other option available is to limit the effect of noise on the surrounding airport by taking noise quotas into account. One is in effect replacing the clear criterion of movement—one knows how many planes have been in—by a less clear criterion. Presumably a quantum of noise is fixed and within that quantum there may be appreciable variation at inopportune times. That causes anxiety. It is not just a matter of what might be the subjective effect of particular noise, or how it might be felt in particular areas, but the fact that within that quantum there could be a significant and disturbing variation.

There is the suspicion that the Government intend to make it easier for big carriers to have more flights late at night, perhaps on quieter airlines that use quieter planes, but none the less to increase the total volume of traffic. There is an argument against doing that. There is a quite clear environmental argument that says that we should give an incentive to carriers not to increase the number of flights but to ensure that planes are run full at night rather than, as often happens, at only 80 per cent. or 70 per cent. capacity.

The Government could quite easily get rid of the suspicion by adopting a belt and braces approach. They could keep the limit on flights but bring that limit further down if those flights do not fit in with the noise quota. They can get round the difficulties that they have had in court over setting noise quotas and at the same time keep the advantages of the current system. From a tactical point of view too, as the hon. Member for Putney (Justine Greening) pointed out, with consultation now going on about night flights, this is possibly not the right signal to send.

We support the amendment and would like some strong reassurance from the Government, which the public also wants, that this is not a kind of Trojan horse by which we can increase the total volume of air traffic under the excuse that it fits in with some overall noise ceiling.

Robert Syms (Conservative, Poole)

I have some sympathy with the arguments advanced by the hon. Member for Southport (Dr. Pugh). Aircraft can be counted, but noise is rather more of an arguable proposition. As we all know, when a council gets its measuring equipment out, the noise is never as bad as the constituents who think they are victims of noise say that it is. Both proposals are needed in the Bill, as belt and braces.

If the Bill is to be relevant, significantly more monitoring equipment is needed to reassure constituents who are under the flight path of busy aerodromes. Some of the concerns raised by the hon. Member for Putney might be met if the constituents knew that there was a much more robust system for measuring noise.

I presume that there is a noise level; let us call it X. Aircraft are getting quieter because of technology and the noise may fall below that level. Is it the Government's intention to reduce the noise over a period of time? Or will they keep the noise level at X and allow aircraft technology to move noise below that level but not necessarily reduce the levels of noise for people who live around aerodromes?

Is there a different measurement of noise during the night? We all know that when there is traffic, when the television is on and when people are doing things at home, their tolerance of noise is different from at night when things are quiet and people are in bed. Noise tends to travel further at night and night noise is the biggest problem for people who live adjacent to aerodromes or under a flight path. I hope that as the Bill progresses through the House the Minister will reassure us about investment in measuring equipment—over the years we will get much better at measuring levels of noise and understanding the problem—and how one measures noise.

On Second Reading the Minister mentioned different types of noise. If Government money were to be invested in universities or anywhere else, investigating people's tolerance to noise and types of noise might, in these more environmentally sensitive times, be a good investment.

Karen Buck (Labour, Regent's Park and Kensington North)

As with so much else that we have discussed today, the proposal exemplifies the need to strike a balance between economic and other national interests that are served by the aviation industry and the need to bear down on noise and protect the interests of our constituents and the general public. I say that first because it is important to remind the hon. Member for Putney that as part of the current night flights consultation issued by the Government we are asking airlines for their illustrations of the economic benefits of night flights. The hon. Lady raised that point, and it is a fair one. Although we try to do what we can to protect members of the public from noise it is important that we ask for the case to be reviewed and for the airlines to give us advice.

I repeat that is important for people to recognise that the Government have no sinister intent in tabling the clause. The existing powers date back to a time when limiting the number of movements was the only feasible means of controlling noise. However, other methods such as noise quotas are now possible. We therefore believe that the legislation should be amended to ensure that the most appropriate method, or methods, of noise control can be used in any given case.

Clause 2 gives the Secretary of State the option—I stress the word ''option''—to impose other controls that would provide a continuing incentive to switch to quieter aircraft at night while permitting movements to grow with the accompanying economic benefit. The Secretary of State will be able to impose noise quotas and other restrictions relating to aircraft taking off and landing as appropriate and will not have to specify the number of movements as at present.

The present situation is based on section 78(3). It enables the Secretary of State by notice to prohibit aircraft of descriptions specified from taking off or landing during periods specified in the notice, and to stipulate the maximum number of occasions on which specified aircraft may be permitted to take off or land at an aerodrome during specified periods. That power is used for avoiding, limiting or mitigating the effect of noise and vibration connected with the taking off or landing of aircraft at night at a designated aerodrome.

Rather than setting out the maximum number of occasions on which aircraft can take off or land, under the powers in the Bill the Secretary of State might wish to introduce noise quotas, the effect of which will be to limit the number of aircraft movements, even though the maximum number of movements is not explicitly stated. The imposition of such a noise quota or noise contour would mean that a limit on noise exposure was fixed, and the existence of that limit would mean that there was an attendant limit on the number of aircraft movements at an airport.

If I have correctly understood the example of the hon. Member for Canterbury (Mr. Brazier) about the one noisy aircraft that could destroy a night's sleep, I would argue in response that it provides a strong argument for using the noise contour or noise quota approach, because it is precisely through that noise measurement that one would be able to bear down on individual aircraft that are excessively noisy.

Julian Brazier (Conservative, Canterbury)

On Second Reading, it was stressed that the method by which we measure noise is laid down by various conventions to which we have signed up. Can the Minister confirm that her argument is about not the actual noise as experienced by an individual on the ground or by an independent noise monitor, but the putative noise as per the out-of-date method of calculation used in the relevant treaties?

Karen Buck (Labour, Regent's Park and Kensington North)

I will not be drawn to respond in the way that the hon. Gentleman's slightly loaded question invites me to. As he is aware, there is a recognised form of measurement that has been extant for some time. He will also be aware, because it was discussed on Second Reading and today, that the project for the sustainable development of Heathrow and the regulations that will be introduced in 2007 will study certain other aspects of noise measurement, including the differential impact that noise can have in different parts of the day. Therefore, work is being done to establish that the exact way in which noise is perceived is fit for purpose. I cannot make any statements as to what the outcome of that process will be, but I can say that work is being done to address some of the points that the hon. Gentleman and others have made.

John Pugh (Liberal Democrat, Southport)

I am trying to follow the argument, and I think that I might have a better handle on it now than I had at the start of this debate. Under the current system, if a plane makes an horrific noise when it starts off but that instance of noise is within the number allowed for that night, then so be it. Is it the case that if at the start of an evening a plane taking off from Heathrow makes an inordinate amount of noise, when a noise quota system operates that will have consequential effects on the number of scheduled flights allowed to leave Heathrow that evening?

Karen Buck (Labour, Regent's Park and Kensington North)

I am not sure that I can answer that detailed question on my feet; I would hate to answer it incorrectly. I will establish what the right answer is. Clearly, there would have to be a consequential impact, or else the whole point of the quota system would be undermined. However, I will answer the hon. Gentleman's question later.

Justine Greening (Conservative, Putney)

I think that I can answer that question. It goes to the heart of why relying purely on the noise quota system is problematic: namely, that it is based on estimate noises. The hon. Gentleman is right. Currently, we have no mechanism to address the case of a landing plane that is significantly louder than its estimate. That is my fundamental concern about relying on the noise quota system; it is impossible to address what the people on the ground experience versus what we would expect via the system, which is why I ask the Minister to agree to the amendment. It would give us a second lock on the door of noise management.

Karen Buck (Labour, Regent's Park and Kensington North)

In terms of an overall noise framework, a movements limit would not have any impact, even if the hon. Lady is correct in the way she presents it. A movements limit would have no impact at all on that excessively noisy aircraft, so it still makes sense to consider the option of a noise quota or noise contour as part of the means of control.

I should like to repeat the confirmation that I gave on Second Reading. The next night restriction regime, running until 2012, which is currently being consulted on, will be based on current legislation and will continue to incorporate movements limits. That is, as I mentioned earlier, a matter on which HACAN has expressed its approval. There has been a long-standing convention that proposals to change to the night restrictions regime for designated airports and the other main noise controls, such as the departure noise limits, are subject to public consultation. There is no question of any future removal of night movements limits being sprung on to the communities affected. I hope that that explanation has provided the hon. Lady with some comfort, although I suspect that we may still have a disagreement on the matter.

As for amendment No. 35, no amendment is needed to enable the Secretary of State to set departure noise limits at designated airports. The present departure limits at Heathrow, Gatwick and Stansted are set, and will continue to be set, under the existing powers of section 78. However, previous Administrations and the current Government have accepted that it would not be compatible with the UK's international obligations to set a daytime limit so low that most of the large long-haul aircraft, certificated to ICAO standards and legally entitled to operate in the UK, would not be able to be operated.

Similarly, the night-time and shoulder period departure noise limits must be broadly compatible with the night flying restrictions that we set under section 78(3). Any new departure noise limits that acts as a restriction in its own right would be subject to directive 2002/30 on noise-related operating restrictions, which we have incorporated into UK legislation by the Aerodromes (Noise Restrictions) (Rules and Procedures) Regulations 2003. I therefore ask the hon. Lady to withdraw the amendments.

Justine Greening (Conservative, Putney)

I will withdraw amendment No. 14, but I am not satisfied with the Minister's response. I understand that my hon. Friend the Member for Canterbury will return to the subject on Report. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Julian Brazier (Conservative, Canterbury)

On a point of order, Sir Nicholas. Forgive my ignorance of procedure—I should know this after all the years that I have been in the House—but at what stage do we take the vote on new clause 6, which was deferred earlier? Is it taken at the end of the sitting?

Nicholas Winterton (Conservative, Macclesfield)

The hon. Gentleman has given the answer to his question. It will be at the end.

John Pugh (Liberal Democrat, Southport)

I beg to move amendment No. 30, in clause 2, page 3, line 30, leave out '10%' and insert '20%'.

This is a simple and straightforward amendment, with which we need not detain ourselves for too long. It puts up the rate of fines from 10 per cent. to 20 per cent. It is a probing amendment, the thrust of which is to understand where the figure of 10 per cent. comes from. We do not want to end up with a situation where the penalties and costs of both pollution and generating noise are simply read into passengers' bills and the costs are passed on down the line and become part of trading practice. They must be effective, and we are not entirely convinced that a 10 per cent. level is completely effective.

Statistics for Birmingham international airport, which currently has a system, show that it collected £9,448 in fines in 2003–04, accounting for 15 infringements of the code then in place. That works out at £630 per offence, which is a sizeable chunk. About 22,000 people in the vicinity of Birmingham international airport are affected by each of those infringements. Their recompense—if I can put it like that; their trouble—is 3p per person. It makes minimal difference in terms of the penalty that they see delivered, and it probably makes a limited difference to the operational costs of the airlines. The suggestion that the fines be increased from 10 per cent. to 20 per cent. is throwing the gauntlet down to the Minister, and is questioning whether that 10 per cent. is sufficient, and if it is thought to be sufficient, how its sufficiency was established.

Robert Syms (Conservative, Poole)

The hon. Gentleman made a brief point about the levels of fines. He gave us information specific to one airport, and I should like to hear from the Minister whether the CAA collects from all airports the information on fines allocated first to airlines and secondly to particular aircraft. Is there a league table? Is there an aircraft that has been fined the most? Beyond the daily fining of aircraft, do we try to use that information? The relevant point is not whether the fine is £500 or £600. To be honest I am not too worried about the levels of fines; I am worried about what we do with the information. Do we have nasty aircraft and quiet aircraft lists? Do we know which carriers specifically are better and which are worst, so we can differentiate the regime? If we do not have that information, is it not something that we ought to hold?

I should be interested to know what we do with the information about noisy aircraft, because if one or two make the most noise and one or two carriers are the worst noise polluters, we should hit those who cause the most nuisance, rather than those who cause the least nuisance but occasionally make the odd infringement. When we discuss the penalty system in more detail, it would be better to set it to hit airlines that transgress the most, rather than those that by and large undertake to respond reasonably to their environmental records.

Julian Brazier (Conservative, Canterbury)

This is a good probing amendment, as it simply tries to get to the bottom of the scale of the fines. I thoroughly agree with the remarks made by my hon. Friend the Member for Poole (Mr. Syms). It would be interesting to know what is done with the information. I stand to be corrected, but as I understand it a level five fine is only £5,000. When reference is made to the manager, it is actually the airport that will end up paying it, and for a particular offence the effect of the amendment would be to raise the maximum fine from £500 to £1,000. It seems rather a modest amount, particularly for the persistent offender.

The hon. Member for Southport (Dr. Pugh) made it clear that this is a probing amendment, and I shall not go into the appropriate amount for a fine. However, what seems to be missing is the discretionary power to levy a substantial fine against the sort of persistent offender whom my hon. Friend mentioned.

The airlines are not cash cows, and I shall develop that point shortly in another debate in which I shall seek to restrain an amendment. However, it would seem reasonable to allow greater discretion in circumstances involving a particular persistent offender.

Karen Buck (Labour, Regent's Park and Kensington North)

It may be helpful if I set out the purpose of the power in section 78(9) of the Civil Aviation Act 1982 to impose fines on the operator of a designated aerodrome. The fines are payable by the manager of an aerodrome designated under section 78 if he fails to perform the duties set out under section 78(8) when the Secretary of State requires him to do so. Those duties are to provide, maintain and operate noise measuring equipment in the vicinity of the aerodrome, as specified by the Secretary of State, and to report the noise measured by the equipment to the Secretary of State and to permit the inspection of equipment. There is no fine for noisy aircraft. There may be some misinterpretation of this element of the Bill.

The powers in section 78(8) have never been required, as BAA has voluntarily provided noise monitoring equipment and reports at the designated airports of Heathrow, Gatwick and Stansted. As a result, fines have never had to be levied. The Government's reasoning in providing for a daily fine of up to £500 in the new provisions is that a daily fine equal to that imposed for the first offence appears disproportionately high. I believe that we may be dealing with different issues and on that basis I ask the hon. Member for Southport (Dr. Pugh) to seek leave to withdraw the amendment.

John Pugh (Liberal Democrat, Southport)

We have had an interesting debate. Of course, it was tangential to the clause, but we will have words with our researcher. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 2 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 3 - Power for aerodromes to

Tom Brake (Liberal Democrat, Carshalton and Wallington)

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 (Conservative, Macclesfield)

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 (Liberal Democrat, Carshalton and Wallington)

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 (Labour, Manchester, Blackley)

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 (Liberal Democrat, Carshalton and Wallington)

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 (Conservative, Canterbury)

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 (Conservative, Poole)

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 (Labour, Regent's Park and Kensington North)

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 (Conservative, Poole)

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 (Labour, Regent's Park and Kensington North)

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 (Labour, Manchester, Blackley)

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 (Liberal Democrat, Carshalton and Wallington)

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 (Conservative, Canterbury)

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 (Conservative, Macclesfield)

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 (Conservative, Canterbury)

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 (Liberal Democrat, Carshalton and Wallington)

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 (Conservative, Canterbury)

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 (Liberal Democrat, Carshalton and Wallington)

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 (Conservative, Windsor)

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 (Liberal Democrat, Carshalton and Wallington)

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 (Conservative, Poole)

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 (Conservative, Windsor)

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 (Labour, Regent's Park and Kensington North)

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 (Conservative, Windsor)

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 (Labour, Regent's Park and Kensington North)

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 (Conservative, Canterbury)

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 (Labour, Regent's Park and Kensington North)

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 (Conservative, Canterbury)

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 (Conservative, Canterbury)

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 (Conservative, Putney)

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.

Jim McGovern (Labour, Dundee West)

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 (Conservative, Putney)

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 (Conservative, Windsor)

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 (Conservative, Putney)

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

Karen Buck (Labour, Regent's Park and Kensington North)

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 (Conservative, Windsor)

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 (Labour, Regent's Park and Kensington North)

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 (Conservative, Canterbury)

I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Julian Brazier (Conservative, Canterbury)

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 (Liberal Democrat, Carshalton and Wallington)

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 (Conservative, Canterbury)

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 (Conservative, Poole)

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 (Labour, Regent's Park and Kensington North)

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 (Liberal Democrat, Carshalton and Wallington)

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 (Labour, Regent's Park and Kensington North)

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 (Conservative, Canterbury)

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 (Conservative, Canterbury)

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 (Conservative, Macclesfield)

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 (Conservative, Canterbury)

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 (Liberal Democrat, Carshalton and Wallington)

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 (Conservative, Poole)

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.

Jim McGovern (Labour, Dundee West)

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 (Conservative, Poole)

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.

The rest of the debate is in Hansard.