Civil Aviation Bill

Yes, I can confirm that. That is exactly why we have referred to the commercial flights officer. We chose our words carefully to address exactly the concern that the hon. Gentleman has expressed. I hope that that adds even further to the powers of persuasion that we are able to exercise. We hope that the Minister will accept our argument. I could speak for much longer on these matters but I do not wish to dwell on them. Other Members wish to speak and there are other amendments that I want to address. My hon. Friend the Member for Uxbridge (Mr. Randall) will, with your permission, Mr. Deputy Speaker, speak on new clause 6. I will leave that clause primarily to him, especially as he is an expert on insulation. He will hit me later. Amendment No. 9 arises because of our concern that the Bill does not form part of a coherent and complete environmental policy. Consideration in Committee showed that it did not do so. We believe that airlines have a right to be properly consulted and informed. The Minister stated in Committee:"““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.””—[Official Report, Standing Committee B, 5 July 2005; c. 6.]" The Bill states that aerodromes may fix their charges by reference to noise and emissions and may do so to encourage the use of quieter aircraft that produce lower emissions. Both objectives are laudable and we do not demur from that. However, the Minister’s response does not quite square with the fact that achieving lower noise and emissions objectives perhaps requires targets. At present, there are no determinants of success and there is no compulsion even to report progress. My hon. Friend the Member for Canterbury (Mr. Brazier) went further into that in Committee. Evidently, seeking the cover of legislation has little to do with an appreciation of real environmental impact. We know that some airports levy charges, but no evidence has yet been presented to show that these have helped reduce emissions or, for that matter, noise. The amendment is an attempt to ensure that we have the facts at our disposal to make sure that the improvements that we want to see can properly be measured and appreciated. Amendments Nos. 8 and 10 very much come together. Amendment No. 8 states:"““Any aerodrome authorities, making charges under””" the relevant subsections"““shall be under a duty to  . . . monitor emissions  . . . and  . . . publish a statement of intent””." Amendment No. 10 describes the concomitant duties of the Secretary of State in respect of the same objective. The amendment proposes that aerodrome authorities should publish details"““of any charges made under subsection (1) for those purposes laid out in subsection (2)””." They would also have a duty to monitor emissions and to publish annual figures and a statement. Crucially, airlines would have a power of appeal against such charges.