Civil Aviation Bill

Julian Huppert Excerpts

Wednesday 25th April 2012 Commons Chamber

[Mrs Villiers]

What I am saying is that we are opposed to a third runway and that we believe it is essential to protect the quality of life of the communities who would be affected by it.

[Dr Julian Huppert (Cambridge) (LD)]

Is the Minister aware of the paper by the Aviation Environment Federation for WWF UK on capacity across the country? It found that there was space for

“a 52% growth in passengers”

and a twofold increase in air traffic movements with existing capacity. Does that mean that there is less need for the expansions that the Opposition seem to be keen on?

[Mrs Villiers]

I warmly agree with my hon. Friend that it is essential to make the best use of the existing capacity in the south-east and around the country. We will explore that in the process that we are undertaking on the future of our aviation capacity needs.

--- Later in debate ---

[Seema Malhotra]

The new clause is intended to ensure that airport operators establish and implement a noise pollution compensation scheme for residents and organisations around an airport.

I welcome the Government’s recognition of the need to address the environmental impact of aviation, which the Minister has expressed on many occasions. In Committee, I moved an amendment with similar intentions to those behind the new clause. I asked the Minister about the possibility of adding to the Bill a provisional compensation scheme for noise arising out of licensed activities affecting persons residing in, or occupying business or community premises in, an area designated in the licence conditions.

The Minister responded that the meaning of “licensed activities” was not entirely clear, and that if I intended to refer to the definition of airport operation services as licensed activities in clause 68, the amendment could not be accepted, as the clause expressly excluded air transport services from that definition. She added that a more substantive reason for her opposition to the amendment was that she believed that

“environmental protection measures should not depend on whether an airport happens to be subject to economic regulation. If there is a case for environmental regulation, this should depend on the airport’s environmental impact, regardless of whether the airport happens to have substantial market power and fall within the scope of the economic regulation framework set out in the Bill.”––[Official Report, Civil Aviation Public Bill Committee, 6 March 2012; c. 216.]

New clause 6 is intended to deal with some of those issues.

We all recognise the need for aviation to support our economy and the vital importance of airports in providing local employment. I may well recognise that more than many others, as my constituency borders Heathrow airport, which supports more than 110,000 local jobs—approximately 22% of total local employment—and provides gross value added of £5.3 billion. It is a vital national economic asset, but for Hounslow’s quarter of a million residents and the residents of neighbouring boroughs, the daily environmental impact of Heathrow includes flights overhead every 60 seconds. The majority of the borough is located within the 55 dB(A) Lden aircraft noise contour.

New clause 6 has the support of my local authority—the London borough of Hounslow—and of neighbouring MPs. In essence, it seeks provision relating to a compensation scheme for noise pollution. The measure would support local residents, business and community premises to be insulated according to a formula based on geographic zone or noise level, which could be decided or kept under review by the Secretary of State as a minimum level of the airport’s responsibility to its local area.

All hon. Members know that noise impacts on health and well-being. That debate continues. For example, the secondary analysis of the London Heathrow sample of children from the RANCH project—the EU project on road traffic and aircraft noise exposure and children’s cognition and health—examined the effects of daytime aircraft noise exposure at home and at school. It concluded that aircraft noise exposure at school had a significant effect on children’s cognitive development, and that schools needed to be an important focus for the protection of children from aircraft noise.

I have drawn on examples from my local area, but aircraft and aviation noise is a national issue that affects neighbourhoods in every airport location. The good practice guide on noise exposure and health from the European Environment Agency states that 27% of people in the 55 dB(A) Lden areas are highly annoyed by aircraft noise, and there are implications for irritation, anxiety and stress. However, one set of stakeholders whose needs are not sufficiently well recognised or reflected in the Bill or the CAA’s environmental consultation documents are local residents who live around airports and are exposed to aircraft and other noise that results from licensed activities such as aircraft taking off and landing and surface transport.

The CAA is the regulator of aviation activity in the UK, but its responsibility for the environmental impact of aviation continues to be the subject of debate, not least today. The new clause seeks to ensure that the CAA has authority to help to control the effects of noise and the quality of insulation and noise mitigation schemes that each of the major UK airports operates in the interests of local residents and the local work force. The idea is particularly relevant in respect of a change in our airport infrastructure that could mean multiple operators at a single airport. That could result in confusion over who has responsibility.

[Dr Huppert]

The hon. Lady makes an interesting argument. Will she help me by saying how many people and premises would need to be given compensation according to the new clause?

[Seema Malhotra]

That is an interesting point. I have mentioned that compensation could be determined by geographical zone or noise level. In Hounslow, all households have been assessed, as have households further afield, on where they sit within the noise contours. That minimum standard should be kept under review. If a person has had access to insulation measures in the past, they might not need them again, notwithstanding any new developments. We know that the third runway is off the agenda, but we should not have such conversations only as part of a new planning application on a new development; the matter should be kept under review all the time.

The idea is not without precedent. For American airports, airport-related noise-insulation schemes are not only regulated but administered by the Federal Aviation Administration. The UK, on the other hand, has implemented only a voluntary system of noise insulation for communities affected by aircraft noise. In Heathrow’s case, BAA administers a voluntary scheme that provides noise insulation grants. There is a review of its adequacy and we await the results of the response.

In Committee, I welcomed the CAA’s reporting of environmental impacts, and I do so again here, because it will lead to greater consistency in monitoring and a more robust evidence base to support a dialogue between local authorities and airports. However, residents who live near airports need clarity about who will be responsible for negotiating with local authorities and the formula under which different operators may have different levels of responsibility.

In my initial amendment in March, we argued that, in addition to a passive reporting role, the CAA’s role should include those of adviser and referee—although not necessarily of policeman and woman, as referred to by the Minister—and that the airport operators’ responsibilities to communities should be clearly referred to as part of the licence conditions under which they operate. That would help to provide greater clarity about, and consistency in, the principles of noise mitigation schemes, which may vary, as needs vary, across the country. Clear minimum standards should be set, however, and local authorities be given the tools and support needed to negotiate effectively for the needs of their local communities.

A process should also be in place to help if there is disagreement between airports and communities. I understand that the Minister might disagree with our proposal, but currently there appears to be no clear route for compensating for and minimising noise pollution, other than under section 78 of the Civil Aviation Act 1982, which gives the Transport Secretary powers to regulate noise. That has tended to focus on night flights and to be implemented on a voluntary basis, but it does not give adequate protection to local residents and is not future proof. In the future, the situation might be different, so we need a process and some form of regulation to guarantee the rights of local communities.

[Dr Huppert]

Those who served in Committee will know that I am passionate about environmental concerns and their effect on the aviation industry.

We should remember that air travel is a wonderful thing: air freight is great, it benefits business and tourism, and allows families to keep in touch. There are wonderful aspects to air travel, but it also has damaging consequences, such as noise, as we have just heard. It affects those who live nearby. Roughly one quarter of those in Europe affected by heavy aircraft noise live under the Heathrow flight path into London. It also has huge effects on the environment. Carbon dioxide and a range of other contaminants are released as a result of aviation. This is a huge, international problem that does not only affect, and cannot only be controlled in, the UK. As the former chief scientific adviser to the previous Government, Professor Sir David King, said, climate change is the greatest threat facing mankind. Aviation is a large and growing component of that, and one that is particularly poorly dealt with around the world.

We need a balance between aviation and reducing the harm it does. The CAA is already doing some work and is better now than it was a couple of years ago at taking account of environmental issues. I very much welcome that. However, I would not like to see what we heard earlier about trying to provide as much as is demanded. I am pleased that new clause 1, tabled by the hon. Member for Blackley and Broughton (Graham Stringer), was not selected. It would lead to unlimited growth and expansion, which would be extremely worrying for us all. I hope to hear from the Opposition Front-Bench spokesman that Labour dissociates itself from such a policy, but if not, we must assume that it supports it. I look forward to hearing the answer.

The policy in new clause 1 would, however, be consistent for a party that pushed for the third runway at Heathrow and the second runway at Stansted, despite the fact that the latter is operating at about only 50% of its capacity—what it really wants is a better railway line. That policy would lead to mass expansion and mass destruction around the world. And it is simply not needed. The Committee on Climate Change has come up with a climate budget for how much we can afford to increase capacity by. It estimates that it can cope with a 60% increase in passenger numbers by 2050. Conveniently enough, as I referred to earlier, the Aviation Environment Federation did some work for WWF UK showing that existing capacity will give us 52% increases by 2050—almost the same the figure, but then we do not know exactly how big the planes will be. A number of airports are already able to use bigger planes—Stansted is already set up to use A380 aeroplanes, which are code F, I think—so there is simply no need for the vast expansion that was pushed for by the Labour Government. Indeed, a number of Labour MPs still seem to be pushing for it. It would be great to have some clarity on exactly what the Opposition’s position is, as their Front Benchers seem to differ from their Back Benchers.

I was quite taken by the comments we have heard about noise pollution generally. I was interested in the numbers, because I am concerned about how such a scheme could work. I have to say that I am not persuaded that I understand how it could operate, although I would be happy to hear what is said later and see whether I can be persuaded. For example, HACAN Clear Skies—from the Heathrow Association for the Control of Aircraft Noise—estimates that about 1 million people are currently affected by noise under the Heathrow flight path, which would clearly impose too big a load when it comes to serious compensation. I would be happy if there were some way of developing further some semblance of that concept, but I am not persuaded. If the hon. Member for Feltham and Heston (Seema Malhotra) puts new clause 6 to a vote, I am afraid I will not support her, although I recognise where the idea comes from and I find it an interesting one.

[Seema Malhotra]

In response to the hon. Gentleman’s point about how we might determine such a scheme, there are existing processes in place, which operators such as BAA use to measure where the noise is greatest, so that they can then respond with a proportionate scheme. I see no reason why that principle could not be applied to something more comprehensive in future.

[Dr Huppert]

I hear with interest what the hon. Lady says, although if that is already happening, I am not quite sure what her new clause would achieve. Perhaps a worked example to give some sense of the numbers and costs involved would make the case more persuasive for me. Perhaps there will be time later—at a future date, as the Bill progresses—to understand exactly what is proposed. I would personally be interested to understand that, but at the moment I do not feel I have enough of a handle on it to support the hon. Lady’s proposal.

[Graham Stringer]

I do not suppose that the hon. Gentleman and I are likely to agree on this, but I would like to understand his position a little more thoroughly. Is it his contention that constraining capacity in the south-east will reduce the number of flights, or will it in fact increase the number of flights—as is my contention—as people fly to other European hubs?

[Dr Huppert]

The hon. Gentleman is quite right that we will agree on very little in this area, other than on the fact that we will disagree quite strongly. At the moment, we have a number of people travelling to the south-east, by road and all sorts of other means, in order to fly out. We can use some of the capacity in other areas, in the north. My contention is that by not expanding capacity in the way the previous Government wanted to, we will see less environmental degradation and we will better be able to stay within our carbon budget, which we can afford for the good of the rest of the world as well as ourselves. However, I do not think the hon. Gentleman and I are going to agree on this one, however many times we discuss it.

Turning to the amendments that deal with environmental issues, let me be clear what I would like to see. I would like to see lower emissions at every airport in the country. Some of that can be done technologically. Planes are coming out that are more and more efficient, which I very much welcome. I have mentioned some of the excellent work being done by Rolls-Royce, and some research has been done in my constituency specifically to enable that, which I very much welcome. I would also like to see more public understanding of the effects of climate change, and of what aviation does and how it compares with other things. I would also like to see some certainty that airports will be able to reclaim when they implement environmental measures—a point that was made very clear to me by AirportWatch, along with others concerned about a lack of certainty.

We had a number of discussions in the Public Bill Committee about the exact nuances of the amendments and their technical aspects. It is important to get things right for the longer term, rather than jumping to agree to half-baked or 99%-baked amendments. Although I recognise the spirit in which the shadow Minister will, I presume, be pressing some of his amendments, I do not think we are quite there yet. I hope that he will accept that concern, and I am sure he will take a different line when we come round to it.

Amendment 3 is definitely much improved. I am much more persuaded by it, but there is still the problem that it would apply only to the regulated airports. I am sure that the shadow Minister would accept that that is a concern, and if we could do something that affected all airports, that would go further—I will return to that point later. The same thing applies to amendment 7. I find it an interesting amendment, and I would be supportive of it, were it not for the fact that clause 84 already requires the same information to be published—I am sure that the Minister will correct me if I am wrong about that. That information should be published, as clause 84 says, so we do not need to move it to clause 83 merely to solve a problem. In Committee, I praised the Minister’s environmental credentials. She turned her party towards the Liberal Democrat position of supporting high-speed rail and opposing a third runway at Heathrow and a second runway at Stansted. She did a good job, and I again pay tribute to her. She made strong arguments that were more persuasive for Conservatives than those that we made.

It is not clear that the Opposition have made that leap, and I seek clarity as to why many Labour Back Benchers argued against the position adopted by shadow Ministers and why they are still hung up on providing more capacity and more runways across the south-east. When I raised that with the Minister she agreed to look further at what environmental benefits could be achieved. I am grateful to her for doing so, and for the time that she has spent with me discussing the matter. She understands quite well what I am trying to achieve.

My ideal is something that has not yet been included in the Bill, because there are some problems with the wording of my proposal, which was recommended by the Aviation Environment Federation. In paragraph 31 of its submission to the Bill Committee, it said that what it would most like to see was an

“amendment to section 4 of the Civil Aviation Act 1982 to clarify that CAA has a duty to the general public, rather than only to the aviation industry or its consumers, and that environmental impacts are as important a determinant of aviation policy as consumer demand”.

That is something that I would love to see. I understand that there are some technical problems with the precise wording of the proposal, which is why I have not been able to table a detailed amendment that I could persuade the Government to accept. I should like to get these things right for the longer term, rather than put on a small show now. However, I hope that such a proposal would be considered, and I look forward to hearing from the Minister as to whether there is any prospect of her doing so.

A key issue made clear to me by AirportWatch and others was the need for certainty for airports. We all agree that we do not want any predatory airlines—I will not suggest any that might fall into that category—to exploit a lack of clarity to avoid paying what we all believe they should pay towards environmental improvements at airports. I believe that the Minister has received legal advice that the Bill provides such certainty, but I hope that she accepts the concern expressed by AirportWatch, the AEF, others and me that there is a lack of clarity. If there is a risk that the Bill is not absolutely water-tight legally, I hope that the Government will table an amendment in the other place to ensure that we do not encounter that problem, as we all agree that we do not want to have that concern. I look forward to hearing the Minister’s thoughts.

How do we achieve the overall environmental progress that we would like? I believe that the Government will shortly publish a draft aviation policy framework. We expected them to publish it in March, but it has taken time to get it right. We welcome the fact that such work has been undertaken, and I hope that the framework looks at the possibility of environmental regulation across all airports. That would be the best solution, rather than fitting the measure into one particular route, and applying it only to regulated airports. I hope that the Minister will be able to confirm that the aviation policy framework, which we all anticipate with great excitement, will deal with those environmental concerns.

There is a prospect of the Bill doing some very good things by improving the information flow and making the CAA more aware, and by making sure that we deal with risks to airports. I hope that the aviation policy framework will offer a visionary solution that ensures that we have a sustainable aviation future.

[Jim Fitzpatrick]

It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Cambridge (Dr Huppert), who will not be surprised to learn that he features quite strongly in the opening passage of my speech. I perceive that he has an eye problem, and I am sorry if that is the case. I hope that he is not in too much discomfort: we would not wish to see anyone in pain.

This is probably the key debate of the afternoon, because the subject of whether an environmental duty should be included in the Bill invited the most disagreements in Committee. The amendments take account of our discussions in Committee. I am grateful to the hon. Members for Amber Valley (Nigel Mills) and for Cambridge for their advice on drafting amendments, and to the Minister for the guidance that the Government have given to the Opposition about how to address those issues.

In Committee, my hon. Friend the Member for Scunthorpe (Nic Dakin) said of the hon. Member for Cambridge:

“He seems to be arguing for an environmental duty, but he does not like the amendment.”

No change there, then. The hon. Gentleman does not like these proposals either. My hon. Friend went on:

“He has not tabled any amendments of his own”—

the hon. Gentleman was having difficulty writing one in Committee, and he is still having difficulty six weeks later—

“but he is looking for the Minister to come up with an alternative. Is that correct?”

The hon. Member for Cambridge replied:

“That is an extremely good summary of my position. I would like to see an environmental duty and I hope we will be able to work across all parties to find one that delivers the aims that we share. I have faith in the Minister’s ability to find that.”––[Official Report, Civil Aviation Public Bill Committee, 28 February 2012; c. 119]

Sadly, no such measure has arrived today, so he is going to have to wait.

The hon. Member for Cambridge criticised our proposal in Committee, just as he has done today. At that time, he said:

“First, it does not mention what the shadow Minister himself mentioned at the beginning of his speech—the Committee on Climate Change. It is a great shame that the amendment does not talk about working with it; it advises the Government on setting and meeting carbon budgets and has already done a huge amount of work.”––[Official Report, Civil Aviation Public Bill Committee, 28 February 2012; c. 117.]

The hon. Gentleman went on, rightly, to congratulate the Committee on Climate Change. I am sure that most Members would do the same. I would have hoped that our new amendment 3 would adequately address the points that the hon. Gentleman was raising.

A key recommendation of the Committee on Climate Change’s report on international aviation and shipping, which was published this month, states:

“Our report concludes that international aviation and shipping emissions need to be formally included in carbon budgets. Emissions from these sectors were initially left out of carbon budgets…when the Climate Change Act became law. However, they have been informally included in the 2050 target…Under the Act, a decision on the inclusion…is required by the end of 2012. Formal inclusion of these emissions will ensure a more transparent, comprehensive and flexible accounting framework under the Climate Change Act and provide more certainty for the future.”

I would have hoped that amendment 3, which now makes reference to the Committee on Climate Change and to greenhouse gas emissions, would cover the points that the hon. Gentleman was unhappy with in Committee. Amendments 4 and 5 cover issues similar to those that were so ably raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Feltham and Heston (Seema Malhotra).

[Dr Huppert]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for praising my consistency. I have made the same arguments throughout our proceedings. As I think I said earlier, the amendment that he has tabled today is a significant improvement on the one that he tabled in Committee. I think that we agree on the reasons for that. Does he accept, however, that it would still affect only the economically regulated airports, and not all of the rest of them? Does he accept that that is a genuine concern for those of us who wish to see the environmental regulation of all airports?

[Jim Fitzpatrick]

It is almost breathtaking that, when we are proposing an environmental duty that would cover the busiest airport in the UK, the hon. Gentleman should say, “No, let’s not do that. Let’s wait till we get Southend right.” That just does not make sense. We are arguing for the introduction of an environmental duty now. He is arguing that, although he wants one, this one just does not fit the bill. I was not praising him for his consistency, by the way, and just because he is consistently wrong does not mean that I agree with him.

[Jim Fitzpatrick]

The Minister knows full well that the shadow Secretary of State made our position on the third runway quite clear when she invited Members to attend cross-party talks on the subject. To date, as far as I am aware, my hon. Friend has not even had an answer from the Secretary of State. Our position is clear.

[Dr Huppert]

rose—

[Jim Fitzpatrick]

I want to make some progress, given that other colleagues want to speak in the debate.

In Committee, the Minister said of environmental requirements:

“Such requirements should come with the sanction of Parliament and Ministers, rather than being delegated to the CAA in its capacity as economic regulator.”––[Official Report, Civil Aviation Public Bill Committee, 28 February 2012; c. 137.]

It is our view, however, that the CAA should have an environmental duty, given the new powers and duties that it is taking on. Why is no such duty being proposed? We would have put an environmental duty in the Bill. The initial drafting included an environmental duty, although I am not sure whether the hon. Member for Cambridge would have supported that one.