Airports Bill

HL Deb 10 June 1986 vol 476 cc204-43

Report stage resumed.

Clause 29 [Traffic distribution rules]:

Lord Underhill moved Amendment No. 26: Page 25, line 2, leave out ("and").

The noble Lord said: My Lords, I hope that it will be convenient if I speak also to Amendments Nos. 27, 28 and 29. The four amendments relate to two clauses—Clause 29, which is relevant to traffic distribution rules, and Clause 30, which relates to the limitation on aircraft movement at certain airports. It is unfortunate that it is necessary in some of these debates to explain the purpose of the amendments and deal with previous arguments, because that all takes some time.

As the Bill stands, statutory provision is made only for consultation with aviation interests. The purpose of the amendments is to balance such interests against those of people on the ground. The value of that is recognised by the former CAA chairman, the noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter, whose knowledge of this matter we well respect. He said: I accept completely that it is necessary that they"— that is, the local authorities— should be consulted".—[Official Report, 22/5/86; col. 466.] To be fair, he added that he doubted whether the local authorities had any contribution to make from the air travellers' point of view. Of course there are aspects of this matter other than those relating to air travellers.

The noble Earl considered that wide and ample consultation would take place. He cited the example of the CAA's consultation on air traffic distribution in the London area. However, the 322 bodies consulted to which he referred overwhelmingly represented aviation and airline interests. Surrey and West Sussex county councils, for example, both vitally affected local authorities, were not consulted. They had to take it upon themselves to make their views known. That is the type of omission that these amendments seek to rectify.

By listing three interested groups to be consulted under Clauses 29 and 30, the Government have achieved the very thing that they are seeking to avoid: a fear that those who are not listed in the Bill will not be consulted. If consultees are to be listed, that list should be balanced and comprehensive. There is need to seek clarification from the noble Earl about what he meant when he said: a minimum level of consultation". He said that twice, at cols. 461 and 469 of Hansard. He said how that was justified. Does it mean that the Government do not want wide consultations, or do they want consultations only with those who have a vested interest?

I suggest that the noble Earl was mistaken when he said: The provisions of Section 35 of the Civil Aviation Act 1982, under which the BAA airports after privatisation will be under a requirement as to consultation, are virtually identical to those in the Airports Authority Act 1975 under which the BAA airports operate now".—[official Report, 22/5/86; col. 468.]

There are fundamental differences. The 1975 Act requires consultation with respect to matters affecting their interests. However, the 1982 Act specifies: consultation with respect to any matters concerning management or administration of the aerodrome which affects their interests".

Consultative committees, particularly those of the major international airports, have effectively contributed to issues far beyond the limitations of the management or administration of their respective airports:, for example, consultations with the CAA on air traffic distribution in the London area, the very subject of these amendments, on which the CAA has recently issued its report.

No safeguard exists within Section 35 of the 1982 Act for the Secretary of State to give aerodrome operators directions. Such powers under the 1975 Act may become particularly important, as he will no longer be dealing with a statutory authority but an independent company. The Gatwick Airport Consultative Committee, for example, has pointed out that at present it has direct links to both the airport operator, which is at present the BAA, and the Department of Transport. Those important differences between the two Acts were raised in Committee by the noble Lord, Lord Monk Bretton. I think that he will agree that he raised those differences.

Surely the noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter, was somewhat mistaken when he expressed his experience of consultative committees. He said that, they took a rather narrow view of problems, that their membership was restricted … and that the part they played was not especially helpful or influential".—[Official Report, 22/5/86; col. 467.] I recognise his great experience and knowledge, but I suggest that the annual reports of such committees illustrate the wide-ranging issues to which they have addressed themselves and contributed views. They also represent a broad spectrum of bodies—local authorities, chambers of commerce, ABTA, tourist boards, the consumers associations, passenger representatives and similar bodies.

I understand that the Secretary of State intends to issue guidelines on the formation and running of consultative committees. Would it not be appropriate to set them out as a schedule at the end of the Bill? The noble Earl also stated that he was sure that the Secretary of State would want to have the considered views of the local airport consultative committees in setting an ATM limit. Confirmation of that from the Secretary of State would be welcome. However, if that is the case why is there opposition to Amendment No. 29?

I do not know whether the noble Earl has seen a letter to the Permanent Under-Secretary of State at the Department of Transport, which is dated 9th June. He may not yet have seen it because today is only 10th June. It refers to the annual meeting held in Aberdeen last Friday, 6th June, when the chairmen of no fewer than 18 consultative committees of Britain's leading airports unanimously passed a resolution criticising the Government's refusal to include safeguards for consultative committees in the Airports Bill. I shall not quote the whole of the resolution, but it states: In view of Ministers' statements and assurances that they wish consultative committees to continue, this annual meeting places on record its inability to comprehend Government's apparent determination to resist the retention of a provision which would secure that objective".

The wording of Amendment No. 26, which seeks consultation with local authorities under Clause 29, is the same as the Bill's provision for such consultation under Clause 30. I cannot understand why the provision is in one clause and not in the other. The noble Earl indicated that air transport movements are essentially a planning tool, whereas air traffic distribution has nominal non-aviation planning implications. He said that in col. 468 of Hansard, but not in those exact words.

The air traffic distribution rules provide the framework for aviation activity and airport provision for any given area, and therefore must be planning relevant. So much support was expressed from all sides during the Committee stage that I hope that the noble Earl has now been able to reflect upon what was said and that he may now find it possible to accept these amendments. The first amendments are important because of the fact that they include the local authorities, while both sets of amendments feature the relevant airport consultative committee. I beg to move.

Lord Monk Bretton

This is a matter that concerns me. I was unhappy to discover that the local authorities were not consulted about the air traffic distribution rules in the London area recently. That surprised me. The noble Lord, Lord Underhill, said that he believed these things to be planning relevant. I should like to emphasise that I also believe that to be the case. There is no doubt that when Gatwick was starting, traffic had to be steered in its direction and that it did not particularly want to go there at first. This will happen again in the case of Stansted. Surely, there must be implications for planning connected with the speed at which traffic increases at Stansted, the types of aircraft landing there, the question of night flying, the amount of road traffic generated, and so forth. There is a good deal in that.

Airport consultative committees at the major airports want to keep their wider brief as at present. They want to ensure their link with the Civil Aviation Authority and, if possible, in view of privatisation, to strengthen it. The Gatwick consultative committee has until now been vouchsafed a direct link to the Department of Transport and the Civil Aviation Authority representative has sat with it. The committee wants these things to continue. It wants to know whether they will continue, and seeks a clear answer. I quite understand that my noble friend the Minister does not want to have to send Civil Aviation Authority representatives to every airport consultative committee meeting at every airport. But, surely, they should be present at the big ones and at the opportune moment. I hope that my noble friend will find a way to meet these problems. They are of considerable importance.

I know that it has been said that a rather narrow view should possibly be taken of consultative committees. But the present British Airports Authority does not agree with that. It believes that the consultative committees are a help. It likes consultative committees. It is better, I suggest, that this means of getting views expressed is used rather than explosions taking place elsewhere because consultation has not taken place.

8.45 p.m.

Lord Lloyd of Kilgerran

My Lords, in supporting these amendments, may I first apologise to the House for not being in my place for the first two or three minutes of the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Underhill? The noble Lord moved the amendment from a practical point of view with great skill and thoroughness. I hope that the Minister, even at this late hour, can apply his mind not only to what appears in his brief but also to the fact that this clause deals with traffic distribution rules. These rules are of fundamental importance in relation to airports. That is quite obvious.

When dealing with the distribution rules, it seems to me to be plain common sense that any local authority or authorities which appear to the Secretary of State to be affected by operations at the airports should be consulted. There is really no difficulty about this. It does not mean that any local authority can come forward. It has to be an authority that appears to the Secretary of State to be affected, the Secretary of State having complete and utter discretion to decide which authority should be considered. It is not, therefore, a matter, as suggested, of opening the door to a vast amount of opposition. Under the amendment, the Secretary of State has the power to decide.

When dealing with traffic distribution rules, it seems to me fundamental common sense to consult the relevant airport consultative committee. I repeat this because it seems to me that sometimes when the Minister replies he forgets the fundamentals of certain clauses. I am not referring to any airport consultative committee; it has to be the relevant airport consultative committee. Again, the Secretary of State has full discretion in deciding which airport consultative committee shall come in. It is not a matter of allowing anyone to come along and kick up a row, as is sometimes suggested. It seems to me from a plain, practical and pragmatic point of view that the amendment is a great help to the Government in dealing with these problems of traffic distribution at airports.

Traffic distribution is of fundamental importance. There is no need for me to stress the point. This amendment would help very much not only the Government but also the airports themselves in relation to traffic distribution. I strongly support the amendment so ably put forward by the noble Lord, Lord Underhill.

The Earl of Caithness

My Lords, Clause 29(4) sets out the consultation arrangements which shall apply before the Secretary of State can make traffic distribution rules. He must first consult the CAA, who may then canvass opinion from a wide variety of civil aviation interests. Similarly, Clause 30(6) sets out the consultations which the Secretary of State must undertake before he makes an order limiting aircraft movements at an airport. Of course I appreciate noble Lords' reasons for seeking to expand the range of interests consulted under this Bill and we have reviewed the position since we last discussed the matter.

I sought to explain at Committee stage that the list of potential consultees, such as that in Clause 29(4), wide though it is drawn, is not intended to be exhaustive. It merely sets out the prime candidates for appropriate consultation. I hope that this clarifies the point raised by the noble Lord, Lord Underhill, when he mentioned my reference to minimum consultation at an earlier stage.

We envisage with great confidence that the CAA will sound out views from a very much wider range of interests. I invite your Lordships to cast an eye at the consultation list for the CAA's recent review of London area traffic distribution to see the depth and breadth of the authority's consultation. The CAA consulted—I remind your Lordships that the consultation was carried out twice—322 different bodies, including 48 United Kingdom airlines and 154 foreign airlines, the three London scheduling committees, IATA, 35 airports, 19—that is most—of the airport consultative committees, local chambers of commerce, the trade union movement, the CBI, planning organisations, and a variety of environmental and noise abatement groups. Notwithstanding that exhaustive list, the noble Lord, Lord Underhill, mentioned two bodies that were not approached by the CAA but made representations to it. This highlights the problem of where one draws the line when one comes to putting lists in a Bill.

The noble Lord, Lord Lloyd of Kilgerran, said that the amendment refers—and he stressed this—to, "the relevant Airport Consultative Committee". If we look at the list that the CAA consulted when referring to air traffic distribution in the London area I wonder which airport consultative committees the noble Lord—let us imagine that he was Secretary of State at the time—would have considered it necessary for the CAA to consult. Would he indeed have said that Aberdeen Airport Consultative Committee would have been one? That committee was consulted by the CAA.

Lord Lloyd of Kilgerran

My Lords, is the noble Earl asking me personally a question about this matter? It seems to me that he has misunderstood the purpose of this amendment and does not realise how helpful it would be in relation to deciding distribution of traffic. The noble Earl has cited all these institutions which have been consulted. However, this kind of amendment would help the Secretary of State to decide who are the relevant persons for the purpose of dealing with the distribution of traffic in a particular area. He has forgotten that the main object of this amendment is to limit the activities and the discussions which have to take place.

The Earl of Caithness

My Lords, if the purpose of the amendment is to limit the consultation I should have thought that Aberdeen Airport Consultative Committee, to which I have just referred, would have been aggrieved at not being consulted by the CAA on air traffic distribution in the London area. It shows that the CAA consults on a very much wider basis than just the relevant body.

With due respect, I think that the noble Lord is wrong when he says that I have misunderstood the reason for this amendment. I see it clearly. I rather wish the CAA to consult on a wider basis than the narrower basis which the noble Lord advocates. The point that I seek to make is that traffic distribution rules, where they are warranted, will be founded on the widely acknowledged experience and expertise of the CAA complemented by the views expressed direct to the authority from as wide a spectrum of civil aviation interests as one might care to imagine.

Noble Lords will be familiar—I might say with some contrition, overfamiliar—with my concern that to extend the list of organisations which may be consulted would invite claims from even more bodies which could also legitimately claim an interest. The unavoidable question here is: where would one say "Enough"? At what point would the direct interest become so diluted as to render consultation what it should never be—a meaningless, mechanical exercise carried out merely to satisfy the niceties of bureaucracy?

I have no ready answer to that question. I suspect that there is no easy answer. While I appreciate the motives which underlie these amendments, I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Underhill, will not press them because, although we understand the reasons for them, we believe that the CAA will more than cater for them in its consideration.

I would say to the noble Lord, Lord Underhill, that I have indeed received a copy of the letter to the Permanent Under-Secretary of State, dated 9th June. The third point of the resolution is that it be conveyed to Ministers and Members of the House of Lords forthwith. It certainly has been, but nonetheless, as so many were consulted, I believe that the CAA has more than done its duty on that.

Lord Underhill

My Lords, the reply of the noble Earl has left me almost as dim as the lighting has suddenly become. However, I am very pleased that he has had the letter from the Gatwick Airport Consultative Committee to which I referred. I hope that the noble Earl will also have noted the very important airport consultative committees whose chairmen were at this annual meeting. It may be useful if I mention them: Aberdeen, Birmingham, Bristol, Cardiff Wales, East Midlands, Edinburgh, Glasgow, Leeds, Bradford, Liverpool, London Gatwick, London Heathrow. Luton, Manchester, Newcastle, Prestwick, Southampton, Stansted and Teesside. That is a not unimportant list of airport consultative committees.

For the noble Earl to say that what we are trying to do is merely to bring in the niceties of bureaucracy is a debating point that I am sorry he should make because it has nothing to do with that. Surely the points which the noble Lord, Lord Lloyd of Kilgerran, made are the important ones. As the noble Lord, Lord Lloyd, said, the amendment says: any local authority … who appear to the Secretary of State to be affected"— therefore he will decide— and the relevant Airport Consultative Committee". It could be argued, when one is talking about distribution of traffic in the London area, that it affects every single airport in the country. That may arise when we are dealing with another amendment later on.

I am very disappointed, particularly by the fact, as I mentioned, that Surrey and West Sussex—who are surely vitally interested in air traffic distribution in the London area—were not consulted. They had to seek their own consultation. It is suggested that this amendment would encourage claims from other bodies. People can make claims, but unless it is in the legislation we are fairly safe. Including the local authorities which the Secretary of State thinks will be affected and the relevant airport consultative committee surely means that the Secretary of State is covered. He does not then have to submit to every little body which feels it ought to be consulted. We want to provide exactly the same type of provision that the Government have already put in the Bill, but we want to make certain that these include the local authorities and airport consultative committees.

At this late hour I do not propose to divide the House on this amendment. But I am very disappointed, because we had the same arguments tonight as at Committee stage. We have made very little progress on a matter which is common sense. At the end of the day, as the noble Lord, Lord Lloyd of Kilgerran, said, it will help the Secretary of State rather than hinder him. In these circumstances, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

[Amendments Nos. 27 to 29 not moved.]

Clause 32 [Matters to be taken into account by CAA]:

Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove moved Amendment No. 30: Page 29, line 8, after ("in") insert ("all parts of").

The noble Lord said: My Lords, a similar amendment was discussed in Committee on 22nd May. I thought that the noble Viscount, Lord Davidson, on behalf of the Government, was rather too dismissive of it. He indicated that our intention to substitute "civil air transport industry" for "civil aviation" was too restrictive because our wording might not include both airlines and airports. He also thought that "United Kingdom" necessarily included all parts of the United Kingdom. I feel that this was a rather semantic argument. However, I am afraid that we on this side of the House, and I am sure a number of other Members, feel unconvinced. Indeed, I think that the noble Viscount, Lord Davidson, completely missed the purpose of the amendment.

We are not on this occasion questioning the Government's policy or the commitment to the regional airports. We were seeking to make clear in the duties of the civil aviation authority, in the way the powers in Part III of the Bill are exercised, that they should not forget that the United Kingdom airports are not just those located in London and that there are other airports throughout the country which need also to be considered.

I am sure that noble Lords who know Members who live and spend most of their time outside London will appreciate this feeling which is held by many people outside London in the civil aviation field that far too often the CAA looks at aviation issues as though the regional airports did not exist or were irrelevant. A case in point, which we have just dealt with at considerable length in the last group of amendments, is the traffic distribution policy and the fact that the regional airports were not really considered at all. That is despite the fact that over 25 per cent. of London's existing traffic has, on the face of it at least, no need to be met at London.

9 p.m.

The local authorities are all agreed that it would be wholly wrong to force passengers to airports which they do not want to use, and there might be little or nothing anyone can do to influence the emergence of a system which accurately reflects origin and destination patterns in the short-term. The noble Lord, Lord Monk Bretton, made the point earlier that people almost had to be forced to go to Gatwick by government and civil aviation subterfuges. That the same will need to be done as regards Stansted rather exposes the idea that there is no way of controlling people; that passengers will go where they want to go. Of course passengers will go where they want to go. According to the Government, every passenger coming to Britain wants to go to Heathrow and one realises that in the beginning there must be some degree of invisible persuasion to make them go to Gatwick and probably even more persuasion to make them go to Stansted. This is something that will arise more and more as we become involved in the Stansted-Heathrow-Gatwick controversy. We want to include in the Bill these few fairly innocuous but nevertheless very important words for areas outside London.

However, the point is that this Bill will be a major influence on the nation's civil aviation industry well into the next century. I cannot see many other civil aviation Bills being introduced before the end of the century. If the Government's policy to exploit the traffic potential at regional airports means anything, there can be no argument that we need to underline the national dimension to this policy with a long-term context in mind.

One such objective relates to tourism. At the present time over a third of London's future demand is attributable to tourism. The available scope to encourage greater use of gateway airports, like those in Scotland and Manchester, is quite considerable. This was a point which was sharply underlined in the report of the House of Commons Select Committee on Trade and Industry. The CAA has indicated that such policies would run—not "could" run—counter to the nation's international obligations. The issue whether those obligations should be reviewed as a long-term measure is not considered, let alone is it openly discussed.

It is this type of attitude as well as everything else that needs to be overcome. It will not happen overnight. We shall not suddenly have people thinking more broadly overnight. It will take quite a long time to develop. The time will depend on the extent to which the objectives can be established and efforts made to achieve them. This has particular significance for the CAA which is the licensing, regulatory and in some important respects the strategic arm of central government in the aviation field.

The local authorities firmly believe the amendment to be both necessary and desirable, and they hope that the Government Will look at it favourably. I was slightly disappointed when I reread what the noble Viscount, Lord Davidson, said last time, when he seemed to treat the matter politically on the basis of the North and the South. That is obviously involved, but it is not a party political point. It goes much deeper than purely a party political point. Therefore, I hope that the Government will accept that these words are much more important to those outside the London area than they are perhaps to those in the London area. I quite accept that in purely semantic terms, the need to secure the sound development of civil aviation in the United Kingdom does not seem to be a great deal different from, the need to secure the sound development of civil aviation in all parts of the United Kingdom. Apart from the South-East, I am speaking of the people in Devon, the people in Cardiff and Wales, and the people in Manchester, Glasgow, Edinburgh, Aberdeen and Birmingham. They all feel the same. It is a small concession for the Government to make, but it will be a big step in bringing the North and South a little closer together. I beg to move.

Baroness Burton of Coventry

My Lords, I should like briefly to support the amendment. If the Government were to say that of course the United Kingdom means all parts of the United Kingdom, I would accept that, but I do not think that that meets the case here. I believe that there is a strong feeling throughout the country that all parts of the United Kingdom do not receive equal consideration.

I know that the local authorities feel that, and I am quite convinced that those running the regional airports feel it. I cannot really understand what the Government could object to in inserting "all parts of" because if the "United Kingdom" means all parts of the United Kingdom, I can see no reason for not inserting it. I believe that it would give a boost to the regional airports and to the local authorities. I very much hope that the Government will accept the amendment.

Viscount Davidson

My Lords, I really do not think that I can be accused to having been dismissive at the Committee stage. I do not think that the noble Lord, Lord Carmichael, has really read the Official Report correctly. I certainly did not wish to treat the matter politically; that was certainly not my intention. Indeed, I remember quite well that I gave a definite assurance to noble Lords that the Government fully support regional airports.

Perhaps I may assure the noble Lord again, as I did at the Committee stage, that the words "United Kingdom" in Clause 32(3) are entirely inclusive of all parts of the United Kingdom. This convention of inclusion is consistent with the practice of previous legislation: for example, Section 4 of the Civil Aviation Act 1982, which Clause 32 directly substitutes for the purposes of Part III of this Bill, gives the CAA an objective to secure the sound development of the civil air transport industry "of the United Kingdom". I can assure your Lordships that, in giving advice under Part III of the Bill, the CAA will give the most careful consideration to all elements of civil aviation throughout the length and breadth of the country. If that assurance is not enough to convince the noble Lord, perhaps I may point out a major difficulty which lies at the core of his amendment. Clause 32, as it stands, requires the CAA to have regard to the sound development of civil aviation in the UK as a whole. Clause 32 enables the CAA to take the broad view of what is good for civil aviation throughout the United Kingdom. The amendment would at best confuse the CAA—to what exactly should the authority have regard?—and at worst would tend to compel it to consider implications of proposals for each part of the UK separately, on a piecemeal basis, area by area. So the CAA might be inhibited in giving advice which, say, argues for an improvement in services at a regional airport at the expense of the London airports, even though that was to the benefit of the industry at large. I am sure that this is not what the noble Lord intends.

I do of course fully appreciate the concern felt by the noble Lords opposite for the welfare of civil aviation in the regions. I have already said that I feel extremely strongly and agree about that; but there is no monopoly on that concern. Quite the opposite: this Government have done more for regional aviation than any of their predecessors. And the facts bear me out. There have been unprecedented levels of capital spending authorised since 1979—nearly a quarter of a billion pounds in fact. This has led to major developments at Birmingham, Manchester, Leeds/Bradford and Newcastle. Moreover your Lordships will know that one of the major policy thrusts of this Government has been for liberalisation within Europe. And a major plank of that policy has been the liberalisation of inter-regional air services within the European community. It was only last Thursday that I replied to a question from the noble Baroness, Lady Burton of Coventry, when I said we already have new bilateral agreements with the Netherlands, Germany, Luxembourg and Belgium. We plan further negotiations with other individual countries. The fruits of this bold endeavour can perhaps best be seen at Manchester which now offers scheduled services to over 35 foreign destinations, about half of which were introduced in 1985.

I hope that in the light of that very clear assurance which I have given about the Government's commitment to regional aviation, and in the light of the difficulties with the noble Lords' amendment, which I touched on at the beginning of my speech, this amendment will not be pressed.

Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove

My Lords, I am sure the noble Viscount will realise that I and my noble friends find his reply a rather disappointing one. We are not concerned about whether or not the intentions of the Government are necessarily good. Of course, expenditure has increased since 1979 for airports because air traffic is increasing, and will go on doing so for a long time. It would be very unlikely that for a matter of seven or eight years there would not be an increase in the capital investment in airports to account for this. I am sorry if the noble Viscount felt that I had dismissed his case earlier; but I still feel that really he has missed the point. The point is not whether the Government or the Civil Aviation Authority actually take account of "all parts of the United Kingdom" when they are making decisions.

In so many parts of the United Kingdom the feeling is that nothing happens outside the South-East; and this exacerbates—that is a word I hate using, but it is the only one which works in this case—the division between north and south. The very simple use of words could be slightly improved.

I do not believe that "all parts of the United Kingdom" therefore means that the CAA or the Government would need to start looking specifically at individual areas just to give them the feeling that responsibility for civil aviation was over the whole country instead of thinking of civil aviation as being Heathrow and Gatwick. They do not often think of Stansted, yet. When they do, there is annoyance in most parts of the country because it is felt that they are being left out again.

I do not want to be a grumpy Northerner, but this is the impression one gets; and this is not a party point. I was recently at our conference in Blackpool and sat with a group of press, television and Labour Party people. Somebody said to me—and he was very much a Southerner—"How did you come down?" I said. "I drove down". He replied, "Oh, you drove down. I suppose Blackpool is closer to Scotland that it is to England". To him England was somewhere below the old Watford Gap. This feeling is being increased by a refusal to accept quite simple words. However, if the noble Lord wishes to say something.—

Lord Ferrier

What about Prestwick my Lords?

Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove

My Lords, this is on another issue which perhaps we had better do without just now. My point is that I am disappointed; but I have tried it twice and we are not going to have the Government accept it, so I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

9.15 p.m.

Lord Underhill moved Amendment No. 31: Page 29, line 10, leave out ("and").

The noble Lord said: My Lords, in speaking to Amendment No. 31, I should also like to deal with Amendments Nos. 32 and 34. All three deal with the question of environmental consequences. It may be recalled that somewhat similar amendments were debated in Committee, but these three amendments have now been revised to avoid the ambiguous nature of the amendments of Committee stage which were highlighted by the noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter. The noble Lord assured the House that the CAA is extremely concerned to minimise the adverse environmental consequences of airport development and usage. If that is the case, why is there any objection whatever to amending the Bill to make such provision?

The noble Earl reminded the Committee (at col. 502 of Hansard) about the Government's policy towards the environmental impact of airports as set out in the 1985 Airports Policy White Paper. He quoted from that White Paper: to minimise the impact of airports on the environment generally; and to ensure that land use planning and conservation policies take fully into account both the development needs arising from airports and the environmental consequences. The noble Earl added that the White Paper set out a number of other policy intentions which could also be included within Clause 32, but that this would overburden the legislation.

However, a number of these points are already included in Clause 32, and a number of points are also included in Clause 37. Clause 32 relates to, Matters to be taken into account by CAA. Clause 37 relates to the Imposition of conditions by CAA. By accepting these amendments, the Government will be providing a balance, in accordance with the White Paper policy objectives, to those points already written into Clauses 32 and 37 of the Bill.

Under the Civil Aviation Act 1982—I shall not weary the House by going into the whole detail of the section—it is obvious that the direct responsibility of the CAA is to serve the interests of the air transport industry. This is primarily its duty. Also under the 1982 Act it has the duty to minimise adverse effects on the environment and any disturbance to the public, but that is subject to the objectives to which I referred in the 1982 Act, which generally are to serve the air transport industry.

Therefore, it is surely incumbent on the Secretary of State to ensure that environmental matters are taken into account. One cannot ignore environmental matters when dealing with aviation and airport matters. The noble Lord stressed that these points are made in the Government's White Paper on airports policy. Powers exist under Section 17 of the Civil Aviation Act 1982 for the CAA to refer matters to the Secretary of State where noise, vibration, pollution or other disturbances attributed to aircraft may be involved. The local authorities would welcome assurances that this will continue to be the case.

While clearly the CAA is primarily concerned with serving the interests of the air transport industry, the Secretary of State will take into account the environmental factors providing a balanced approach in accordance with the Airports Policy White Paper objectives. By accepting these amendments, the Government would give that assurance not to environmental bodies but to the local authorities. I hope that after reflection from the Committee stage, now that we have tidied up the amendments in a form which I think is acceptable, the Minister will be able to accept them. I beg to move.

Lord Lloyd of Kilgerran

My Lords, when I was preparing myself for the somewhat daunting task of replacing my noble friend Lord Tordoff in this debate at Report stage, and to deal with the 20 amendments with which I was landed, I came to Clause 32 dealing with, Matters to be taken into account by CAA.". and I found that there were amendments Nos. 32 and 34. The House is asked to consider in Amendment No. 34 the need, to minimise adverse environmental consequences of airport development and usage". I thought that this was an amendment that the Government would accept.

Clause 32 deals with matters to be taken into account by the CAA, and it refers to the international obligations, and then, subject to parts that I need not read, it says that the CAA shall have regard to the matters referred to in subsection (3). The matters are as follows. The first is, the need to secure the sound development of civil aviation in the United Kingdom". The second is, the reasonable interests of users of air transport services". The third matter laid down is, such policy considerations as the Secretary of State may notify to the CAA for the purposes of this section". Surely the Government should like to accept an amendment which adds to those matters the need to minimise, adverse environmental consequences of airport development and usage". It is not the need to minimise just anything, but, the need to minimise adverse environmental consequences". This is a matter for the Secretary of State. He has discretion in all these matters which is not appreciated. Consequently if the Government really consider that environmental matters are important, this is a simple amendment which will assist them in their action to deal with complaints. Complaints are inevitable when dealing with improvements to airports.

This is the kind of amendment which would help the CAA and therefore the Secretary of State; they would take into account "the need to minimise". The noble and learned Lord the Lord Advocate is present. He knows the difficulty of interpreting what "minimise" means in certain circumstances. Nevertheless, it would be helpful for the Government and the CAA to decide to minimise environmental consequences.

What would be the result of accepting this amendment? It would save the CAA or the Secretary of State an awful lot of trouble.

There are three very distinguished persons on the Front Bench and if they should like to have a consultation on the matters I have already raised before I go on, I shall be only too glad to pause in my approach to this matter. I see that they have now separated themselves and are smiling benevolently at me, and so I shall continue on this very interesting point.

The amendment would save the Government, the Secretary of State or the CAA from hearing the complaints that are always being made that the CAA is a bureaucratic concern or that the Secretary of State is a bureaucrat and that these matters have not been taken into consideration. If this were put into the Bill as a practical matter, in my view it would save the Government a lot of trouble.

I quite appreciate that the noble Earl the Minister at this late hour has had a difficult time on this matter. Perhaps he does not think it is a difficult time, but he has worked very well and very nobly. If only he would lift his visor just a little. Is the noble Viscount, Lord Davidson, advising him how to lift the visor? I am very glad that the noble Viscount nods to indicate that he is trying to persuade the noble Earl to lift his visor. If only he would lift his visor and look away from his notes and brief and think of this as a practical man, as a man accustomed to wonderful territories where he and his ancestors have lived for so long. All we are asking is for the Government to insert a provision that there is a need for the CAA to, minimise adverse environmental consequences of airport development and usage". If the noble Earl the Minister would treat this matter in the context of his knowledge of agricultural and environmental conditions, I think he would accept this amendment.

Lord Monk Bretton

My Lords, I should like to say a word or two in support of this amendment. The justification for it has already been pretty well urged, I think the House will agree. I shall not elaborate too much. I was grateful at Committee stage when my noble friend said that he hoped he had made it crystal clear that Government policy was to continue to take environmental factors into account. By way of environmental factors what I am thinking about particularly is what, in terms of compensation, is generally known as "injurious affection". Injurious affection is a species of damage that has to be paid for. It is injurious affection that airports create. It is a cost to the community. I made that point in view of what my noble friend Lord Boyd-Carpenter said earlier about the dangers of getting too much involved in worrying about the environment when you have to make money out of air traffic. You still have to pay for injurious affection.

The trouble is that although my noble friend made that admirable expression of purpose, on reading the Bill there certainly is not much sign of it. In fact my noble friend felt that it was not necessary to put this, as he said, on the face of the Bill. I recollect being far from alone in having anxieties about this. My noble friend Lord Cork felt that it was a great mistake to omit reference to this from the face of the Bill. At Committee stage I mentioned my anxieties about this and asked whether it was really adequate to leave the matter to Section 5 of the Civil Aviation Act 1982. I think that is really the case if we do not put something on the face of this Bill about it. It is a matter of whether these environmental matters would in this way be regarded pari passu with the air traffic matters. I think it is important that this should be dealt with pari passu.

My noble friend at that time did not venture an opinion about it but I do hope he will still say that he is prepared to have a further look at it. I think, from what he has said, that he does see the practicable desirability of having something on the face of the Bill but he sees the technical difficulty in doing that. I remain most anxious that this amendment should be in the Bill. I wonder whether this might be made possible if we were to repeat Section 5 of the Civil Aviation Act of 1982: the same procedure as we find in Clause 32 of this Bill regarding Section 4 of the Civil Aviation Act 1982—in other words, to ignore it for the purpose of reading Clause 32 of this Bill. In that way it would be possible to put this amendment as a part of Clause 32 and get it on the face of this Bill. I suspect it would be surer and plainer. I hope my noble friend may see his way to doing something on these lines.

The Earl of Caithness

My Lords, naturally I appreciate the motives which prompt this amendment, and I can assure the noble Lord, Lord Lloyd of Kilgerran, that I have lifted my visor on this but that, having looked, I shut it again pretty quickly. There are other amendments on which, as the noble Lord knows, I lifted my visor and where we made a lot of progress and a number of concessions, as a result of what has been discussed—

Lord Lloyd of Kilgerran

My Lords, I am sorry to interrupt but I have not noticed the concessions while I have been sitting here all day.

The Earl of Caithness

My Lords, I am disappointed with the noble Lord: I really am, after all we have gone through. I do not think he really means that. My noble friend Lord Monk Bretton mentioned injurious affection. That is a subject which I dealt with as an agricultural surveyor; but I do not think he is quite right in saying it is appropriate here, because most of the development has followed the airport. The houses and industry that come in with the airport reap a benefit from the airport. Perhaps it should be the other way round and they should pay the airport for the benefit of the increased rent and the capital value that accrue to them through being next to the airport.

9.30 p.m.

Lord Monk Bretton

My Lords, I wonder whether my noble friend is entirely aware of some of the bitter things that happened around Gatwick in the early days, when people were not adequately compensated and suffered very badly. I do not think he should take that view.

The Earl of Caithness

My Lords, I realise that there have been some occasions when certain people have not felt they were fully compensated. I was putting the alternative view that many have come in subsequently.

Lord Lloyd of Kilgerran

My Lords, I am sorry to interrupt the noble Earl again, but he does turn his back on the House and perhaps he was making concessions when he was turning his back towards me. I did not hear what he said, but I am sure it was very useful.

The Earl of Caithness

My Lords, indeed, I hope it was very useful. What I said—I will repeat it and look at the noble Lord; it is sometimes difficult to hear the Back-Benches too—was that there is the alternative agreement to that put forward by my noble friend. I come back to the point that, having looked at these amendments against, I am still of the opinion that they are unnecessary.

Clause 32 sets out those matters which the CAA must take into account in giving advice under Part III of the Bill, or in preparing a slot allocation scheme under Clause 31. In particular, Clause 32(3)(c) requires the CAA to have regard to—and it is a repetition of what I said at Committee stage— such policy considerations as the Secretary of State may notify to the CAA for the purpose of this section". That means that the Secretary of State can instruct the CAA to look to whatever policy issues he thinks appropriate in the formulation of its advice. This provides ample opportunity for the Government to draw the CAA's attention to environmental matters.

The Government's policy on airports and the environment is set out in last year's White Paper on airports policy. The noble Lord, Lord Underhill, has quoted a section which I read out in Committee, so I shall not repeat that. The White Paper dealt with a variety of other policy issues which could also be embodied in a notification under Clause 32(3)(c). However, there is no need to spell out all those various issues on the face of the Bill.

The Government naturally accept that aircraft noise is an unfortunate, though unavoidable, consequence of airport development. We are anxious that nuisance should be avoided so far as is practicable and reasonable. That is why the Government are so keen to see noise abatement measures at, for instance, Heathrow and Gatwick, such as maximum noise limits, noise preferential routes on take-off and restrictions on night movements. That is why I hope today to gain the approval of the House for a new clause which will allow an airport operator to be required to monitor the track-keeping of aircraft. Above all, the Government firmly believe that the most effective measure for reducing noise disturbance is to reduce aircraft noise at source—in the aircraft itself. That is why there are firm regulations which deal with the noise levels of aircraft operating in this country.

I shall not weary your Lordships with the ample evidence of the Government's concern that the impact of airports on the environment generally should be minimised. I shall simply reiterate that Clause 32(3)(c) provides the mechanism through which the Government can ensure that the CAA are given appropriate notice of policy relating to the impact of airport operations on the surrounding area in the context of requiring their advice under Part III of the Bill. That mechanism caters for the end which this amendment seeks to achieve, and in that light I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Underhill, will withdraw it.

Lord Underhill

My Lords, I am sure the noble Earl appreciates that at the end of the day I am almost certain to withdraw these amendments. But it is not good enough to say that there are three criteria laid down in Clause 32 and four criteria laid down in Clause 37, but pose a reason why this criterion should not be included. Yet the Government regard it as important, because the noble Earl stressed that time and time again.

Surely it is a question as to the CAA's balance between its responsibilities to the civil aviation industry and its responsibilities to the Government's outlook on environmental considerations. That is why these matters ought to be in the Bill, and I cannot understand the timidity of the Government, reflected through the noble Earl, in not wanting to put them in. What harm would it do to put them in?

But at this late hour, all I can do, once again, is to read what has been said and come forward at Third Reading with a better amendment which will really fit the Government's intentions in considering environmental matters and hope to put that in the Bill so that the CAA and other bodies will know that it is really the intention. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

[Amendment No. 32 not moved.]

Clause 34 [Interpretation of Part IV, etc.]:

The Earl of Caithness moved Amendment No. 33:

Page 29, line 23, at end insert— (" "the 1980 Act" means the Competition Act 1980;")

The noble Earl said: My Lords, in moving Amendment No. 33, I wish at the same time to speak to Amendments Nos. 44 and 48. These are technical amendments. I beg to move.

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Clause 37 [Imposition of conditions by CAA]:

[Amendment No. 34 not moved.]

The Earl of Caithness moved Amendment No. 35: Page 34, line 3., leave out ("and 47") and insert (" to (Breach of accounts conditions: criminal penalties etc.' ").

The noble Earl said: My Lords, in moving this amendment, I should like to speak at the same time to Amendments Nos. 45, 46 and 87.

The accounts conditions in Clause 38 have been the subject of previous debates, both here and in the other place. I believe that we all agree on their importance. They have two main uses: first, by ensuring full transparency in an airport business, they act as a disincentive to unfair cross-subsidy and other monopoly abuses, and equally importantly they will ensure that sufficient information is disclosed to enable, for example, other airports to decide whether there is a prima facie case for a complaint about predatory pricing.

If the accounts conditions are to work in the way intended, it is important that they are as difficult to breach as possible and, where such a breach occurs, that the remedy can be swift and certain. In the light of this, we have re-examined the procedure in Clauses 46 and 47 in relation to enforcement of accounts conditions. We have concluded that the existing enforcement procedure, while working well for conditions on prices and trading practices, is less effective in relation to accounts conditions. For example, a compliance order—which is intended as a means of remedying any breach of a condition—could probably only require an airport operator to comply with a condition in subsequent annual accounts: it could not do anything in relation to accounts already filed which failed to disclose the information specified in a condition.

This is clearly unacceptable. The new clause that I am proposing would avoid any such problems. It provides a separate enforcement procedure for accounts conditions, similar to the procedure that already exists in the Companies Acts for enforcement of the requirements to file annual accounts with the Registrar of Companies. The new clause provides that a failure to comply with an accounts condition is a criminal offence, subject to a fine. In addition, the CAA is empowered to impose further conditions to secure disclosure and publication within a specified period of any information omitted from the airport operator's accounts in breach of a condition. Failure to comply with such a condition within the time allowed will also be a criminal offence subject to a fine and to a daily default fine. The new clause includes some protection for the airport operator by providing a defence if he can prove that he took all reasonable steps to comply with a condition.

I hope that your Lordships will agree that this new procedure is necessary. It replaces a less effective procedure with something that is quick and clear. It will ensure that an airport operator cannot get away with non-disclosure of information that should be revealed, so we can be sure that every year published information will give a complete financial picture of an airport operator's airport related business.

The other three amendments grouped with the new clause are consequentials, making clear that accounts conditions are enforceable under the provisions of the new clause, and applying the new clause to accounts conditions imposed on associated companies of airport operators. I commend the amendments to your Lordships. I beg to move.

On Question, amendment agreed to.

Clause 38 [Mandatory conditions in case of designated airports]:

The Earl of Caithness moved Amendment No. 36: Page 34, line 35, leave out ("business carried on by him at") and insert ("his business so far as consisting of the carrying on of operational activities relating to").

The noble Earl said: My Lords, in moving this amendment, I should like to speak at the same time to Amendments Nos. 37, 39 and 40. These amendments simply bring the wording of Clauses 38 and 39 into line with the definition of "operational activities" in Clause 28 which was inserted at Committee stage. I beg to move.

On Question, amendment agreed to.

The Earl of Caithness moved Amendment No. 37: Page 34, line 45, leave out ("activities carried on at the airport (whether") and insert ("operational activities relating to the airport (whether carried on").

The noble Earl said: My Lords, I have already spoken to this amendment. I beg to move.

On Question, amendment agreed to.

The Earl of Caithness moved Amendment No. 38: Page 35, line 31, leave out ("for the time being in force under subsection (3)") and insert ("imposed in pursuance of subsection (3) (as they are for the time being in force)").

The noble Earl said: My Lords, this is a technical amendment. I beg to move.

On Question, amendment agreed to.

Clause 39 [Discretionary conditions]:

The Earl of Caithness moved Amendments Nos. 39 and 40:

Page 38, line 6, leave out ("the business carried on by him at") and insert ("his business so far as consisting of the carrying on of operational activities relating to").

Page 38, line 17 leave out ("the business carried on by it at") and insert ("carrying on operational activities relating to").

On Question, amendments agreed to.

Clause 41 [References to Commission in relation to imposition or modification of conditions]:

Lord Williams of Elvel moved Amendment No. 41: Page 41, line 7, leave out from ("(2)") to end of line 13.

The noble Lord said: My Lords, this is a very important amendment. I apologise to your Lordships for the fact that in Committee the other day this amendment passed through when we were in rather a hurry and, as I was otherwise engaged, I did not have time to speak to it. Therefore, I take this opportunity to speak to the amendment now.

There are two points to consider in relation to this amendment, which refers, as your Lordships will realise, to Clause 41(5)(b). The first is a general point, which is that, in defining the public interest, the commission is required in the Bill as at present drafted to have regard to matters that, in our view, are not really essential to the proper conduct of either the airports or the commission itself.

It is a strange subsection. In spite of referring to the general objectives specified in paragraphs (a) to (d) of Section (2), the Bill refers the Monopolies and Mergers Commission to a very curious section of interests which, in my view, are covered by paragraphs (a) to (d). In essence, it refers to the concessionaires at airports. We on our side can see no reason why they should be singled out for special preference by the commission when it is studying references that it will no doubt have to study when they arrive.

There is a further point, which is almost a constitutional point. Under the clause as drafted, the commission is required to have regard to: the following objective, namely the furtherance of the reasonable interests of persons granted such rights". I have a certain experience of competition legislation and I believe that this is the first time that I have seen in any proposed legislation that the commission should have regard to the furtherance of any interests. I believe that I am right in saying that there is no precedent in legislation for the commission—which is an objective body set up under its own statute and with its own terms of reference—to be directed to further certain interests, however reasonable they may be. It is that phrase that I find—and I must use this word to the noble Earl—objectionable.

If the noble Earl is prepared to say that the phrase "the furtherance of" might be left out, then we would take a slightly jaundiced but less hostile view of the clause. Nevertheless, we believe that the clause is, first, unnecessary and, secondly, discriminatory in favour of certain interests that are of a particular kind, and that those interests are already covered by paragraphs (a) to (d) of Section (2).

Furthermore, I believe that your Lordships will be very conscious of the definition of "public interest" which we are invited to approve. The "public interest" is defined in many statutes, and as privatisation goes on it is defined in different ways in different statutes. However, when instructing the commission to have regard to certain items in the public interest it is in my view vitally important that the objective role of the commission should be sustained. Any attempt to divert the commission from its objective role into pursuance of sectional interests, furtherance of other interests and specifying particular groups of people to whom the commission should have regard seems to be quite contrary to the role that the commission has performed for many years now in a very distinguished manner and appears to introduce into legislation a factor which I believe your Lordships should weigh very heavily before accepting.

I know that the noble Earl put forward an amendment in Committee, and again I apologise for not being here to respond to it, but I must tell him that I feel strongly about the substance of subsection (5)(b). I feel much more strongly about the words "the furtherance" in subsection (5)(b). In that spirit, I beg to move.

9.45 p.m.

The Earl of Caithness

My Lords, I have to admit to some surprise at seeing this amendment on the Marshalled List since the words it seeks to delete were in fact added by a Government amendment during Committee stage with the agreement of your Lordships. This was as a result of a commitment given in another place by the Government following a defeat in the Committee stage—a defeat engineered with the full support of the Front Bench of the noble Lord, Lord Williams. I now find it surprising to find him coming back to say that that is not what the Opposition meant when they defeated the Government in Committee. That is why I am puzzled.

I now turn to the meat of the amendment. A great deal of concern has been expressed that concessionaires of commercial activities at airports, who contribute substantially to airports' economic and business success, seem to have very little protection against monopoly abuse compared to airport users—that is, airlines and passengers.

In fact, the Bill provides some protection for concessionaires. In respect of "relevant activities"—that is, the aeronautical side of the airport Business—Clause 39(3)(b) enables the CAA to impose conditions to deal with unreasonable discrimination in the granting of concessions, unreasonable limitations on the numbers of concessions, or unfair exploitation of concessionaires. Then, as part of the quinquennial review provided for in Clause 41, the MMC will investigate whether any practice of the airport operator in granting concessions for all airport activities (aeronautical and commercial) operates against the public interest.

Before the Government amendment which your Lordships accepted in Committee, the MMC would have carried out its functions primarily with an eye to the end effect on the reasonable interests of airport users, and the other CAA objectives specified in Clause 37(2). The MMC was required to have regard to those objectives in carrying out investigations under the Bill—but not sole regard. This wording is quite deliberate. The MMC, as respected guardian of the public interest, has a great deal of knowledge and expertise of fair trading matters in the commercial world generally. In regulating airports, while it would naturally have airport-related objectives in mind, it would make no sense to prevent it from using its expertise in other commercial fields and taking into account other relevant factors in reaching its decisions.

The Government amendment in Committee brought out one other factor: the reasonable interests of concessionaires to which the MMC should have regard—and again not sole regard—in those circumstances where it was looking at business practices which affected those concessionaires. There is no presumption that in any set of circumstances one particular factor would override any other. Judging where the public interest lies always involves—as the noble Lord, Lord Williams, with his experience, will know—a balancing act to weigh the relative importance of various, sometimes diverging, interests. With the amendment, the objectives to which the MMC should have regard cover all the major aspects of an airport's purpose and operation. If the Bill is to be effective in regulating what could be substantial monopolies, this approach seems to me to be right.

The noble Lord raised the particular point with regard to the word "further".There is a precedent for it in Section 4(1)(b) of the Civil Aviation Act 1982 and, indeed, in this Bill in Clause 37(2)(a). However, as he has asked me to have a particular look at it then of course I shall. I give him that assurance and I hope that, in the light of the explanation that I have given, the noble Lord will withdraw the amendment.

Lord Williams of Elvel

My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Earl for his response. When I moved this amendment I apologised for not having been here at the Committee stage of the Bill when this amendment was discussed. Unfortunately I was detained on other matters and this point went through rather quickly; otherwise we could have had this discussion in Committee.

I hope that, in taking back the expression "furtherance of the reasonable interests", the noble Earl will assure me that he will remove those words. If he does so then I am happy to withdraw the amendment. If he does not, I must ask the House to express its opinion in the usual manner.

The Earl of Caithness

My Lords, with the leave of the House, perhaps I may just say that the noble Lord knows that I cannot give him that assurance because I have not yet taken the point away to look at. He asked me to do so and I said that I would, but I cannot give him an assurance.

9.52 p.m.

On Question, Whether the said Amendment (No. 41) shall be agreed to?

Their Lordships divided: Contents, 22; Not-Contents, 38.

DIVISION NO. 4
CONTENTS
Airedale, L.	Oram, L.
Attlee, E.	Ritchie of Dundee, L.
Brooks of Tremorfa, L.	Seear, B.
Carmichael of Kelvingrove, L.	Simon, V.
David, B. [Teller.]	Stoddart of Swindon, L.
Dean of Beswick, L.	[Teller.]
Elwyn-Jones, L.	Taylor of Blackburn, L.
Ferrier, L.	Taylor of Gryfe, L.
Kagan, L.	Underhill, L.
Lloyd of Kilgerran, L.	Williams of Elvel, L.
McNair, L.	Winstanley, L.
Monson, L.

NOT-CONTENTS
Allerton, L.	Gray, L.
Belstead, L.	Gray of Contin, L.
Boyd-Carpenter, L.	Grimston of Westbury, L.
Brabazon of Tara, L.	Hives, L.
Brougham and Vaux, L.	Hooper, B.
Butterworth, L.	Long, V.
Buxton of Alsa, L.	Lucas of Chilworth, L.
Caithness, E.	Lyell, L.
Cameron of Lochbroom, L.	Montgomery of Alamein, V.
Carnock, L.	Morris, L.
Coleraine, L.	Murton of Lindisfarne, L.
Cork and Orrery, E.	Renton, L.
Craigavon, V.	Saltoun of Abernethy, Ly.
Cranbrook, E.	Sanderson of Bowden, L.
Davidson, V.	Skelmersdale, L.
Denham, L. [Teller.]	Swinfen, L.
Elliot of Harwood, B.	Swinton, E. [Teller.]
Elton, L.	Ullswater, V.
Glenarthur, L.	Zouche of Haryngworth, L.

Resolved in the negative, and amendment disagreed to accordingly.

10.1 p.m.

Clause 42 [Supplementary provisions relating to references]:

The Earl of Caithness moved Amendment No. 42:

Page 42, line 16, at end insert— ("(i) it is within the power of the CAA to give, and (ii) ")

The noble Earl said: My Lords, I shall speak to Amendment No. 43 at the same time. These are essentially clarifying amendments which make it clear that the CAA's duty to provide information to the MMC which the latter needs for an investigation under Part IV of the Bill extends only to information which it is in the CAA's power to disclose. I beg to move.

On Question, amendment agreed to.

The Earl of Caithness moved Amendment No. 43: Page 42, line 18, leave out ("which is either") and insert—("(iii) either is")

On Question, amendment agreed to.

The Earl of Caithness moved Amendment No. 44: Page 42, line 34, leave out ("Competition Act 1980") and insert ("1980 Act")

On Question, amendment agreed to.

Clause 46 [Breach of conditions: investigation of complaints and making of compliance orders]:

The Earl of Caithness moved Amendment No. 45: Page 47, line 19, at end insert ("; but nothing in this section applies to a condition to which any provision of section (Breach of accounts conditions: criminal penalties etc.) applies.")

On Question, amendment agreed to.

The Earl of Caithness moved Amendment No. 46:

After Clause 47 insert the following new clause:

("Breach of accounts conditions: criminal penalties etc.

.—(1) Any airport operator who fails to comply with any condition imposed in accordance with section 38(2)(a) (in pursuance of either section 38(1) or section 39(1)) shall be guilty of an offence and liable—

1. (a) on summary conviction, to a fine not exceeding the statutory maximum;
2. (b) on conviction on indictment, to a fine.

(2) Any airport operator who, in the case of any condition imposed in accordance with section 38(2)(b) (in pursuance of either section 38(1) or section 39(1)), fails to comply with that condition before the end of the period allowed for compliance with it by virtue of that or any other such condition shall be guilty of an offence and liable—

1. (a) on summary conviction, to a fine not exceeding the fifth level on the standard scale; and
2. (b) on a second or subsequent summary conviction, to a fine of one-tenth of the amount corresponding to that level for each day on which the contravention is continued.

(3) Where an airport operator has failed to comply with any such condition as is mentioned in subsection (1) above, then (whether or not proceedings are brought under that subsection in respect of that contravention) the CAA may impose, in relation to the airport to which the contravention relates, such conditions as the CAA considers appropriate with respect to the publication of any matter to whose non-disclosure the contravention relates; and if the airport operator fails to comply with any condition so imposed before the end of the period allowed for compliance with it by virtue of that or any other such condition he shall be guilty of an offence and liable as mentioned in paragraphs (a) and (b) of subsection (2).

(4) In any proceedings for an offence under this section it shall be a defence for the person charged to prove—

1. (a) in the case of an offence under subsection (1), that he took all reasonable steps for securing compliance with the condition in question;
2. (b) in the case of an offence under subsection (2) or (3), that he took all reasonable steps for securing compliance with the condition in question before the end of the period mentioned in that subsection.

(5) Any reference in this section to an airport operator failing to comply with a condition is a reference to his failing to do so in contravention of section 37(1).")

On Question, amendment agreed to.

The Earl of Caithness moved Amendment No. 47:

After Clause 50, insert the following new clause:

("Orders under the 1973 Act or 1980 Act modifying or revoking conditions.

.—(1) Where, in the circumstances mentioned in subsection (3), the Secretary of State by order exercises any of the powers specified in Parts I and II of Schedule 8 to the 1973 Act or section 10(2)(a) of the 1980 Act, the order may also provide for the revocation or modification of any relevant conditions to such extent as may be requisite to give effect to or to take account of any provision made by the order.

(2) In subsection (1) "relevant conditions" means any conditions for the time being in force under this Part other than any conditions imposed or modified in pursuance of section 38(3) or (4).

(3) Subsection (1) shall have effect where—

1. (a) the circumstances are as mentioned in section 56(1) of the 1973 Act (order on report on monopoly reference) and the monopoly situation exists in relation to the carrying on of any operational activities relating to one or more airports;
2. (b) the circumstances are as mentioned in section 73(1) of that Act (order on report on merger reference) and at least one of the two or more enterprises which ceased to be distinct enterprises was an airport operator; or
3. (c) the circumstances are as mentioned in section 10(1) of the 1980 Act (order on report on competition reference) and the anti-competitive practice relates to the carrying on of any operational activities relating to one or more airports.

(4) Expressions used in this section which are also used in the 1973 Act or the 1980 Act have the same meanings as in that Act.")

The noble Earl said: My Lords, with this amendment I shall speak also to Amendment No. 90.

The Deputy Speaker (Lord Renton)

My Lords, it may assist the noble Earl if I point out that, according to the groupings which have been notified to the occupants of the Woolsack, Amendment No. 89 goes with Amendment No. 47.

The Earl of Caithness

My Lords, I apologise to the House for the error that I have just made. These are technical and, apparently, rather complicated consequential amendments. Their purpose is merely to ensure that nothing done by the CAA under Part IV of the Bill can prevent the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry from using his powers under normal competition law. I beg to move.

On Question, amendment agreed to.

Clause 52 [Co-ordination of exercise of functions by CAA and Director General of Fair Trading]:

The Earl of Caithness moved Amendment No. 48: Page 53, line 34, leave out ("Competition Act 1980") and insert ("1980 Act").

On Question, amendment agreed to.

The Earl of Caithness moved Amendments Nos. 49 and 50:

Page 54, line 4, after ("(1)") insert ("Subject to subsection (2A,").

Page 54, line 19, at end insert— ("(2A) During the period beginning with the coming into force of this section and ending with the coming into force of section 35 this Part applies to—

1. (a) any airport which is managed by a company to which any property, rights or liabilities have been transferred in pursuance of a scheme made under section 1 or 14; and
2. (b) any such airport as is mentioned in subsection (1)(b) above.").

The noble Earl said: My Lords, these amendments provide a safeguard, ensuring that an airport company established under this Bill, either a subsidiary of the BAA or a public airport company, could not lose for a period the statutory undertaker and related provisions, set out in Part V of the Bill. At present Part V of the Bill is tied in with Part IV, dealing with economic regulation. Part V applies to airport operators who have applied for a permission to levy charges under Part IV.

We wish to retain the freedom to bring Part IV into force at an appropriate time, without having the timing dictated by other factors. This amendment ensures that, whether or not Part IV is already in force, we shall be able to apply Part V as soon as any airport is transferred to a company under the Bill. So there will be no possibility of an airport company having to operate without the powers in respect of planning permission and such other matters as compulsory purchase which were enjoyed by its former owner. I beg to move.

On Question, amendments agreed to.

Clause 63 [Provision of special accommodation at airports]:

Lord Underhill moved Amendments Nos. 51 to 53:

Page 64, line 7, at end insert— ("( ) give the airport operator a direction requiring him to take such steps as may be specified in the direction for the purposes of, or in connection with, the use of such accommodation and facilities by such persons;").

Page 64, line 10, leave out ("so available") and insert ("available as mentioned in paragraph (a)").

Page 64, line 23, at end insert— ("( The Secretary of State may, with the consent of the Treasury, make grants to airport operators for the purpose of defraying or contributing towards expenses incurred by them in complying with directions given to them under this section.").

The noble Lord said: My Lords, the noble Earl said that when we came to these amendments he would have some joyous news to give because the Government would be accepting them. I must congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Tordoff, who, I believe, has been in correspondence on the matter. As his colleague, the noble Lord, Lord Lloyd of Kilgerran, happened not to be present during the two minutes when the Minister made this happy statement, I am moving the amendments formally in the hope that the noble Earl will repeat to us that they are accepted by the Government.

Lord Lloyd of Kilgerran

My Lords, I wish simply to say how delighted I am if this news is correct.

The Earl of Caithness

My Lords, we debated this matter during our consideration of the Bill in Committee and I referred to that debate when we discussed a similarly termed amendment to Clause 28, where I explained at some length why in that case I considered the question of compensation to be inappropriate.

As I previously indicated, I regard directions made under Clause 63 in respect of the provision and operation of special facilities as a different issue. Since our debate in Committee, I have, as promised, discussed the matter with the noble Lord, Lord Tordoff, and other noble Lords who have taken an interest in this question. As a result, I am happy to say that I accept these amendments tabled by noble Lords opposite. They serve to clarify the ambit of this clause and provide the discretion to make grants to airports operators in the way that the noble Lord, Lord Tordoff, so eloquently advocated at Committee stage. I have to say that the Government's intentions to pay an airport operator's additional operating costs in running VIP facilities remain as I stated in Committee. But thanks to these amendments your Lordships have ensured that the power behind these intentions is made explicit on the face of the Bill and this, I believe, makes for a more open provision. I am happy to accept these amendments on behalf of the Government.

On Question, amendments agreed to.

The Earl of Caithness moved Amendment No. 54:

After Clause 63, insert the following new clause:

("Monitoring of aircraft movements.

.—(1) Where an airport is designated for the purposes of section 78 of the 1982 Act (regulation of noise and vibration from aircraft), the Secretary of State may, after consultation with the airport operator, by order require him—

1. (a) to provide, maintain and operate such equipment as is specified in the order (in accordance with any instructions so specified) for the purpose of monitoring the movements, within an area so specified, of aircraft on flights to and from the airport, and
2. (b) to make to the Secretary of State such reports as are so specified with respect to the movements monitored by the equipment in pursuance of paragraph (a), and to permit any person authorised by the Secretary of State for the purpose to inspect the equipment on demand at any time;

and it shall be the duty of the airport operator to comply with the requirements of the order.

(2) Any reference in subsection (1) to the movements of aircraft shall be read as a reference to the routes taken by them measured by reference to both direction and height.

(3) Subsections (9) and (10) of the said section 78 (enforcement) shall apply for the purposes of this section as if, in subsection (9) of that section, any reference to subsection (8) of that section were a reference to subsection (1) of this section.")

The noble Earl said: My Lords, in moving this amendment I should like to speak at the same time to Amendments Nos. 77 and 80.

Under Section 78 of the Civil Aviation Act 1982 the Secretary of State has powers to require an airport operator to take certain noise abatement measures at aerodromes designated for the purposes of that section to minimise the disturbance caused by aircraft taking off and landing. One important noise abatement measure is the concentration of aircraft taking off from the designated airports along the least possible number of routes so that they overfly as few people as possible. The airports so designated are currently Heathrow, Gatwick and Stansted.

The Secretary of State has the powers under Section 78 of the Act to impose, after consultation with the person managing a designated aerodrome, the duty of providing, operating and maintaining a noise monitoring system. But similar powers are not available for monitoring the compliance of aircraft with the specified take-off routes.

The new clause enables the Secretary of State, after consultation with the airport operator, to impose on him a requirement to monitor the movements of aircraft (that is, their direction and height) on flights to and from the airport, and to make monitoring reports to the Secretary of State. This will be done at the airport operator's expense but it is a matter for the airport operator whether he chooses to recover the costs of installing and operating the monitoring system through airport user charges.

If the airport operator fails to comply with a duty imposed under the new clause, the Secretary of State is empowered to remedy the failure—for example, by installing and operating the equipment himself—and to recover the costs for so doing from the airport operator. Failure to make monitoring reports to the Secretary of State will make the airport operator liable to a fine.

The other two amendments are consequential, providing for the commencement of the new clause and for it to extend to Northern Ireland.

Enforcement of compliance with the noise preferential routes will remain with government.

This amendment will enable compliance with such routes to be more effectively monitored. It should thus encourage airlines to greater efforts to adhere to the routes and will therefore make for more effective limitation of aircraft noise disturbance around designated airports. It offers yet another positive assurance to communities around such airports that we are committed to caring for their environment. I commend it to your Lordships. I beg to move.

Lord Underhill moved, as an amendment to Amendment No. 54, Amendment No. 55: Line 3, leave out ("after consultation with the airport operator").

The noble Lord said: My Lords, Amendments Nos. 55, 56 and 57 go together. These are amendments to the government amendment to insert the new clause after Clause 63.

Needless to say, we are in complete agreement that monitoring arrangements should be carried out. We are quite happy to accept the principle. It must be emphasised that the new clause applies not only to the BAA but to designated local authority airports. There are three reasons why the CAA would be a more appropriate body than the BAA or the designated local authority airports to carry out this task.

First, it is the CAA which advises on the routes, tracks aircraft throughout their flights over the British Isles and is in a position to admonish pilots who do not follow the prescribed tracks. It is therefore logical that the CAA should monitor compliance with its instructions. To give this job to the BAA and other designated local authority airports seems a cumbersome and inefficient way of carrying out responsibilities which are essentially those of the CAA.

Secondly, airport operators will be poorly placed to carry out the task. Most have no experience in this field and do not have the necessary equipment. In practice, they would almost certainly rely on a feed from the CAA's own equipment in order to do the job.

Thirdly, to the extent that deviations might be the result of conscious decisions by CAA traffic controllers, the CAA would be in a much better position than the airport operators to report to the department the reasons for these apparent infringements. Were it otherwise, it could be suggested that the operators are being placed in the invidious position of regulating their own regulators, which I think everyone will agree is rather nonsensical. Therefore, the purpose of these amendments to the Government's new clause is that the monitoring should be carried out by the CAA and not by the airport operator. I beg to move.

10.15 p.m.

The Earl of Caithness

My Lords, I think that I might have misheard the noble Lord, Lord Underhill, when he said that there are local authority airports designated for this purpose. I hope that I did not hear him say that; but if he did so, then I am afraid that it was a slip of the tongue—which is most unusual for him—because there are no local authority airports designated for the purpose of this clause.

I think the House would agree that it is the business of the airport operator that causes the noise disturbance to communities near the airport. It is a well-established principle that the polluter pays for the pollution for which he is responsible. That principle is implemented for other noise abatement measures that the airport operator at designated airports adopts to mitigate the nuisance caused by his activities. For example, the BAA already, at its own expense, provides and operates equipment for monitoring aircraft noise. The operator can, if he so wishes, recover his expenses through user charges. It would be wrong not to follow those recognised and established principles.

The purpose of the noble Lord's amendments is to enable the Secretary of State to require the Civil Aviation Authority to monitor the movements of aircraft taking off and landing at an airport designated for noise abatement purposes. As the monitoring of track-keeping is not part of an air navigation service, the CAA cannot recover such expenses under Section 73 of the Civil Aviation Act 1982. But the CAA is entitled to recover those expenses from Government. The effect of the noble Lord's amendment is to let the polluter off the environmental hook at the expense of the taxpayer. The polluter—the airport operator customers—will not pay for mitigating the environmental impact caused by his activities, thus breaching a well recognised convention. For this reason alone, I hope that the noble Lord will withdraw his amendment.

However, there are other cogent arguments also. The airport operator is free to choose his own agency to provide air navigation services at his aerodrome and the extent of those services. Should he choose an agency other than the CAA, it would be unreasonable and impractical to require the CAA to monitor the track-keeping of aircraft taking off and landing at the aerodrome under instructions from another body. It is true that the British Airports Authority now employs the CAA to carry out the air navigation services at its airports including its designated London airports. But we cannot be sure that the BAA will do so for ever. In such changed circumstances it will be unreasonable to require the CAA to monitor the track-keeping of aircraft using those aerodromes.

The amendment makes the new clause technically deficient. Subsection (3) of the clause enables the Secretary of State to take steps to remedy the failure of a person to perform the duty of track-keeping monitoring imposed on him by the Secretary of State. Such steps may include asking the CAA to perform those duties. But, as with the amendment, the CAA is required to carry out track-keeping monitoring at a designated aerodrome, subsection (3) of the clause is incapable of rational interpretation.

There is one more question which we have fully considered before tabling the new clause: whether the airport operator could be expected to have the operational and administrative expertise to operate a track monitoring system. That question also applies to other specialised services. For any of these services the airport operator is free to contract with a suitable organisation to perform that duty. I hope that what I have said will persuade the noble Lord, Lord Underhill, to see fit to withdraw his amendments.

Lord Underhill

My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Earl for so fully explaining the purposes of the Government's amendment. Whether or not it was a slip of the tongue, I confess that I did not read Section 78 of the 1982 Act before I came into the Chamber. However, I am going by the Government's own Notes on Clauses, which refer to the fact that Section 78 of the Civil Aviation Act 1982 requires noise abatement measures to be undertaken at aerodromes designated for the purposes, and it then goes on: currently Heathrow, Gatwick and Stansted". The word "currently" I assume meant that others could be added to it, including the other BAA airports. I presume that is a possibility, and therefore I assume that if only three are currently designated it is possible for local authority airports to be designated, if so desired. But I shall consider carefully what the noble Earl the Minister has said and see whether or not my advisers are satisfied with the explanation, or whether we will come back on Third Reading. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment to the amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

[Amendments Nos. 56 and 57 not moved.]

On Question, amendment agreed to.

Clause 65 [Capital controls in relation to local authority airport undertakings other than public airport companies]:

The Earl of Caithness moved Amendment No. 58:

Page 65, line 30, at end insert— ("(5) This section applies to England and Wales only.").

The noble Earl said: My Lords, this is a purely technical amendment. I beg to move.

On Question, amendment agreed to.

[Amendments Nos. 59 to 61 not moved.]

Clause 68 [Restriction on disclosure of information]:

The Earl of Caithness moved Amendments Nos. 62 to 66:

Page 66, line 39, leave out ("or").

line 40, at end insert ("or a local weights and measures authority in Great Britain;")

Page 67, leave out line 6 and insert—

• ("(a) the Trade Descriptions Act 1968;
• (aa) the Fair Trading Act 1973;
• (ab) the Consumer Credit Act 1974;").

line 7, at end insert—

• ("(ba) the Resale Prices Act 1976;
• (bb) the Estate Agents Act 1979;").

line 22, at end insert— ("(6) In this section "the Commission" means the Monopolies and Mergers Commission.").

The noble Earl said: My Lords, I beg to move Amendments Nos. 62 to 66 and to speak to Amendments Nos. 95, 96 and 97. These are technical and consequential amendments. I beg to move.

On Question, amendments agreed to.

Clause 69 [Supplementary provisions relating to transfer schemes]:

The Earl of Caithness moved Amendments Nos. 67 to 69:

Page 67, line 37, at end insert—

("(1A) A scheme under section 1 or 14 may—

1. (a) provide that any functions of the transferor under any statutory provision not contained in this Act shall, to the extent to which that provision relates—
   1. (i) to property transferred by the scheme, or
   2. (ii) to any undertaking of the transferor, or part of such an undertaking, so transferred,
   be transferred to the transferee under the scheme; and
2. (b) define any such functions—
1. (i) by specifying the statutory provision in question,
2. (ii) by referring to all the statutory provisions (not contained in this Act) which relate to the property, of or to the undertaking or part of the undertaking, to be transferred by the scheme, or
3. (iii) by referring to all statutory provisions within subparagraph (ii), but specifying certain excepted provisions").

Page 68, line 5, at end insert— (" ( ) the reference in paragraph 8 to any of the transferred rights and liabilities shall be read as including a reference to any property or functions transferred by the scheme: ( ) the reference in paragraph 10, in relation to pending legal proceedings or applications, to any transferred property, right or liability shall be read as including a reference to any functions transferred by the scheme;").

line 12, at end insert— ("(5) In this section "statutory provision" means any provision (whether of a general or special nature) contained in, or having effect under, any Act (whether public general or local).").

The noble Earl said: My Lords, I beg to move Amendments Nos. 67 to 69 and to speak to Amendment No. 79. These are also technical amendments. I beg to move.

On Question, amendments agreed to.

Clause 73 [Orders and regulations]:

The Earl of Caithness moved Amendment No. 70: Page 70, line 38, after first ("order"), insert ("made by the Secretary of State")

The noble Earl said: My Lords, I beg to move Amendment No. 70 and speak at the same time to Amendments Nos. 76 and 78. This new clause is a technical amendment providing for the expansion of certain clauses in the Bill to the Channel Islands and United Kingdom colonies. I can expand on this if any noble Lord would wish me to do so. I beg to move.

On Question, amendment agreed to.

Clause 75 [Financial provisions]:

Lord Lloyd of Kilgerran moved Amendments Nos. 71 and 72:

Page 71, line 25, at end insert—(" (a) ")

line 27, leave out ("and") and insert— ("(b) any sums required by him for making grants under section 63; and (c)")

On Question, amendments agreed to.

Clause 76 [General interpretation]:

The Earl of Caithness moved Amendment No. 73: Page 71, line 33, leave out from ("means") to end of line 41 and insert ("the aggregate of the land, buildings and works comprised in an aerodrome within the meaning of the 1982 Act;")

The noble Earl said; My Lords, I beg to move Amendment No. 73. It is a technical amendment.

On Question, amendment agreed to.

The Earl of Caithness moved Amendments Nos. 74 and 75:

Page 72, line 25, at end insert— (" "subordinate legislation" has the meaning as in Interpretation Act 1978;")

Page 73, leave out lines 17 and 18.

The noble Earl said: My Lords, I beg to move Amendments Nos. 74 and 75 together. These are technical amendments. I beg to move.

On Question, amendments agreed to.

The Earl of Caithness moved Amendments Nos. 76 to 78:

After Clause 77, insert the following new clause:

("Application of provisions of Act to certain overseas territories.

(1) Her Majesty may by Order in Council direct that any of the following, namely—

1. (a) sections 28 and 33, and
2. (b) any provision of section 72, 74 or 76, shall extend with such modifications (if any) as may be specified in the Order, to any of the Channel Islands or to any colony.

(2) An Order in Council under this section may make such transitional, incidental or supplementary provision as appears to Her Majesty to be necessary or expedient.")

Clause 78 [Short title, commencement and extent]:

Page 74, leave out lines 14 and 15 and insert ("sections (Monitoring of aircraft movements) to 66;")

Page 74, line 16, at end insert—

("section (Application of provisions of Act to certain overseas territories).")

On Question, amendments agreed to.

The Earl of Caithness moved Amendments Nos. 79 and 80:

Page 74, line 24, after ("paragraphs") insert ("1A, 1B,")

Page 74, line 35, at end insert ("section (Monitoring of aircraft movements);")

On Question, amendments agreed to.

Schedule 1 [Application of Part IV to associated companies of airport operators]:

The Earl of Caithness moved Amendments Nos. 81 to 86:

Page 75, line 7, leave out ("in relation to an airport of") and insert ("under this Part (as it applies in accordance with this Schedule) of the following conditions in relation to an airport, namely—

1. (a) conditions under section 38(1) or 39(1) with respect to the accounts of an associated company of the airport operator, and
2. (b)").

Page 75, line 9, leave out ("an associated company of the airport operator") and insert ("such a company, and for related purposes;").

Page 75, line 16, after ("operator") insert ("with respect to whose accounts the conditions were imposed or (as the case may be) ").

Page 75, line 21, at end insert—

("Section 38.

2A.—(1) Where an associated company of the airport operator in the case of any airport either carries on operational activities relating to the airport or is entitled to grant rights by virtue of which any such activities may he carried on by other persons, section 38(2) shall have effect in relation to the airport with the modifications specified in sub-paragraphs (2) to (4) below.

(2) After paragraph (a) there shall be inserted the following paragraph— (aa) such conditions as the CAA considers appropriate to secure that the accounts of any associated company of the airport operator, being a company which either carries on operational activities relating to the airport or is entitled to grant rights by virtue of which any such activities may be carried on by other persons, disclose—

1. (i) any subsidy furnished (whether by the making of loans on non-commercial terms or otherwise) by any persons or authority to the company in connection with its business so far as consisting of the carrying on of operational activities relating to the airport, and the identity of any such person or authority,
2. (ii) any subsidy so furnished to that business by the company out of funds attributable to any other activities carried on by it, and
3. (iii) the aggregate income and expenditure of the company attributable to any such operational activities (whether carried on by the company or by some other person); and".

(3) After "the airport operator" where it occurs in paragraph (b) there shall be inserted "or the associated company".

(4) After "the airport operator" where it last occurs there shall be inserted "or in paragraph (aa) to the accounts of any associated company of the airport operator".

(5) Where—

1. (a) sub-paragraph (1) above does not apply to an airport at the time when conditions are imposed in relation to the airport under section 38(1)(a) or (b), but
237
2. (b) at any later time it appears to the CAA that that sub-paragraph then applies to the airport,

the CAA shall thereupon impose in relation to the airport such conditions as are mentioned in paragraphs (aa) and (b) of section 38(2) as modified by this paragraph.").

Page 75, line 23, at end insert— ("(aa) in subsection (1), the reference to section 38(2) shall be construed as including, in relation to an airport to which sub-paragraph (1) of paragraph 2A above applies, a reference to section 38(2) as modified by that paragraph,").

Page 76, line 19, leave out ("paragraph 3 above") and insert ("this Schedule").

The noble Earl said: My Lords, with the leave of the House I beg to move Amendments Nos. 81 to 86, and to speak also to Amendments Nos. 88 and 89. This brings us back to Amendment No. 47, when I moved that Amendment No. 90 should be discussed. There was a mistake on the Marshalled List that the Chair had. I was right in what I said—that it was Amendment No. 90 and not No. 89, so No. 89 is included with this group of amendments and No. 90 goes with No. 47. This rather long set of amendments completes a process which we began at Committee stage when Schedule 1 was added to the Bill. I beg to move.

On Question, amendments agreed to.

The Earl of Caithness moved Amendment No. 87:

Page 77, line 30, at end insert—

("Section (Breach of accounts conditions: criminal penalties etc.)

.—(1) In section (Breach of accounts conditions: criminal penalties etc.) any reference to an airport operator shall be construed as including a reference to an associated company of an airport operator.

(2) In that section, as it applies to any such company in accordance with sub-paragraph (1)—

1. (a) in subsection (1), the reference to section 38(2)(a) shall be construed as a reference to paragraph (aa) of section 38(2) (as modified by paragraph 2A(2) and (4) above),
2. (b) in subsection (2), the reference to section 38(2)(b) shall be construed as a reference to that provision as modified by paragraph 2A(3), and
3. (c) the references to sections 37(1) and section 39(1) shall be construed in accordance with paragraph 2 and paragraph 3(a) above respectively.").

On Question, amendment agreed to.

The Earl of Caithness moved Amendments Nos. 88 and 89:

Page 77, line 31, at end insert—

("( ) Section 48(3) shall apply in relation to any subsidiary conditions as if the reference to section 38(2) were a reference to that provision as modified by paragraph 2A above.").

Page 77, line 43, leave out ("mentioned in sub-paragraph (1)(a) above.") and insert ("with respect to whose accounts the conditions were imposed or (as the case may be) that pursued the course of conduct in respect of which the conditions were imposed.").

On Question, amendments agreed to.

The Earl of Caithness moved Amendment No. 90:

Page 77, line 43, at end insert—

("Section, (Orders under the 1973 Act or 1980 Act modifying or revoking conditions)

In section (Orders under the 1973 Act or 1980 Act modifying or revoking conditions) (3)(b) the reference to an airport operator shall be construed as including a reference to an associated company of an airport operator engaged in carrying on any operational activities relating to one or more airports.").

On Question, amendment agreed to.

Schedule 2 [Application of enactments relating to statutory undertakers etc.]:

The Earl of Caithness moved Amendments Nos. 91 to 93:

Page 78, leave out line 10.

Page 78, line 17, leave out ("and").

Page 78, line 18, at end insert ("and sections 283, 296 and 611 of the Housing Act 1985;").

The noble Earl said: My Lords, Amendments Nos. 91, 92, and 93 are technical. I beg to move.

On Question, amendments agreed to.

Schedule 4 [Consequential amendments]:

The Earl of Caithness moved Amendment No. 94.

Page 80, line 41, at end insert—

("TOWN AND COUNTRY PLANNING ACT 1971 (c.78)

1A.—In section 223(2)(b) (cases in which land is to be treated as not being operational land), after "the Gas Act 1986" insert ", the Airports Act 1986".

TOWN AND COUNTRY PLANNING (SCOTLAND) ACT 1972 (c.52)

1B.—In section 212(2)(b) (cases in which land is to be treated as not being operational land), after "the Gas Act 1986" insert ", the Airports Act 1986".").

The noble Earl said: My Lords, Amendment No. 94 is technical. I beg to move.

On Question, amendment agreed to.

The Earl of Caithness moved Amendments Nos. 95 to 97:

Page 80, line 46, at end insert—

("CONSUMER CREDIT ACT I974 (c.39)

In section 174(3)(a) (exceptions to general restriction on disclosure of information), after" or the Gas Act 1986" insert "or the Airports Act 1986" and after "the Director General of Gas Supply" insert "the Civil Aviation Authority,".").

Page 81, line 5, at end insert—

("ESTATE AGENTS ACT 1979 (c.38)

In section 10(3)(a) (exceptions to general restriction on disclosure of information), after "or the Gas Act 1986" insert "or the Airports Act 1986" and after "the Director General of Gas Supply," insert "the Civil Aviation Authority,".").

Page 81, line 12, at end insert— ("( ) In section 23(6) (disclosure of information), for "28 and 29" substitute "and 28".").

The noble Earl said: My Lords, Amendments Nos. 95 to 97 were discussed with Amendment 62. I beg to move all three en bloc.

On Question, amendments agreed to.

10.30 p.m.

Lord Monk Bretton moved Amendment No. 98:

Page 81, line 12, at end insert ("

( ) In section 35(2) at the end insert— and shall, in doing so, give effect to any direction given to him by the Secretary of State." ").

The noble Lord said: My Lords, this is the last amendment in the series on airport consultative committees. In a nutshell, the Secretary of State is in any case keeping consultative committees under Section 35 of the Civil Aviation Act. I suggest that it is prudent, and this amendment provides, that the Secretary of State should have a reserve power to instruct, when he deems it necessary, an airport management as to whom they must appoint to their consultative committee. I would agree that to date there have not been problems over this.

It has been particularly evident that the British Airports Authority likes its consultative committees. But the British Airports Authority will now cease to exist and instead there will be commercial concerns in its place. There is not really quite the certainty that there was before about what policy will be adopted in appointing to these committees. There is no question but that consultative committee memberships are very anxious about this. There is no doubt that they would sleep a lot better at night if they knew the Secretary of State had this power. It is purely a discretionary power and I believe they are right to ask for this.

This amendment was not put down at Committee stage because I am afraid we received it rather too late. It very nearly missed out again this time and was put down hastily by me at Report stage only. I hope—in fact I am sure—my noble friend will look at it with all due care and consideration because I know that there are strong feelings that something should be done about this. I believe the airport consultative committees regard it as a kind of minimum last stand. The noble Lord, Lord Underhill, on a previous amendment earlier read out the telegram, the resolution from the conference that the consultative committees have held in Glasgow which makes a very good preface to this amendment. I shall not trouble the House with it again.

I know I should take a very firm line over this and say that it is vital we come to a decision about it and so forth, but I doubt whether at this moment there is any great possibility of dividing the House. I should have thought that one might have even more chance if one adopted such policies of finding that there was not a quorum. I do not know, but I beg to move.

Lord Underhill

My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Monk Bretton, referred to a previous statement I made about the meeting of the chairmen of the airport consultative committees. I want briefly to say that I have received a communication from the consultative committee for Stansted airport, who themselves have reminded me (I do not know about other noble Lords) that this meeting of the chairmen, which was held only on 6th June, decided unanimously to press for this power of direction as explained by the noble Lord, Lord Monk Bretton. I hope the views of the chairmen of all these 18 consultative committees will be taken into consideration.

Lord Lloyd of Kilgerran

I also have been approached on this matter, strange to say, and I hope that the Government will take care to consider this very carefully even at this late hour.

The Earl of Caithness

I can assure the noble Lord, Lord Lloyd of Kilgerran, that we will not take care now because we have already taken care at the moment when the amendment went down.

Once the BAA is privatised it will be required to provide facilities for consultation under the powers in Section 35 of the Civil Aviation Act rather than Section 2 of the Airports Authority Act 1975. Section 35 already applies to non-BAA aerodromes. There is no practical difference in the wording of the two provisions except that the Airports Authority Act includes a power of direction for the Secretary of State.

This power of direction has never been used. Indeed, it is not clear how it could, in practice, be used and we do not consider that it is necessary. BAA has set up consultative committees under the duty in the Airports Authority Act while local authority airports have set them up under the duty in Section 35 of the Civil Aviation Act. They are clearly an effective means of consulting with local interests and local authorities, as well as airport users, and we expect that they will continue to function at all sizeable airports in future.

The amendment would give the Secretary of State a power of direction over local authority airports and some smaller private airports, such as Biggin Hill, which are designated under Section 35, as well as over BAA airports. After much consideration of the matter, I consider that this would be an unnecessary imposition on their freedom. The existing duty in Section 35 provides a satisfactory means of ensuring that airports consult as required with local interests and users, and, if necessary, there is a legal remedy. I hope that with the assurances I have given my noble friend will see fit to withdraw his amendment.

Lord Monk Bretton

My Lords, I should like to thank my noble friend the Minister very much indeed for this thorough reply. This is obviously a fairly complicated issue and I should like to reserve my position to the extent that if there were reason for it, I might like to return to it on Third Reading. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Schedule 5 [Transitional provisions]:

The Earl of Caithness moved Amendment No. 99:

Page 84, line 49, at end insert—

("Compulsory purchase orders

A compulsory purchase order made under section 17 of the 1975 Act which is in force immediately before the appointed day shall have effect as if made under section 55 of this Act; and the provisions of section 55 shall apply accordingly.")

The noble Earl said: My Lords, this is a technical amendment. I beg to move.

Lord Williams of Elvel

My Lords, I shall be very brief. I wonder whether the noble Earl can help us on the interpretation of the word "immediately". I do not quite understand whether it is a day before, a week before, two weeks before, three weeks before, or five months before. What is the meaning of the word "immediately" in this context? If the noble Earl can help us on that, I am sure it will be to the benefit of the House.

The Earl of Caithness

My Lords, "immediately" means immediately—the second before. I hope that clarifies the situation for the noble Lord, Lord Williams of Elvel.

On Question, amendment agreed to.

The Earl of Caithness moved Amendment No. 100:

Page 85, line 44, at end insert—

("Extensions of Shops (Airports) Act 1962.

14.—Any order designating an airport for the purposes of the Shops (Airports) Act 1962 and in force at the commencement of section 64 of this Act shall, as from that commencement, be treated as designating that airport for the purposes of that Act as amended by this Act.")

The noble Earl said: My Lords, this is a technical amendment. I beg to move.

Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove

My Lords, I thoroughly accept that this is a technical amendment in terms of its wording. When one looks at it, it is so technical that it is extremely difficult to understand. That is one of the reasons I rise to ask the Minister whether from his notes he can explain the purpose of the amendment to the House. I am sure that if he is not able to do so, he will write to me.

I appreciate the fact that the shops Act would work in a different way in the foreign section of the air side of an airport as against the rest of an airport, but on the other hand, how does it affect the ordinary passengers who—I think this was raised at an earlier stage—may be quite legitimately flying from, say, Aberdeen or Glasgow to London, or from London to Glasgow, which would be much better for them? If they were travelling in that direction, they may very well require things in the airport before they left. At the same time one can see the danger of creating an additional shopping space, almost subverting the Shops Bill which we dealt with recently, if the area merely became a place where people could go on a Sunday to do their shopping. I wonder whether the Minister is able to clear up our worries. The noble Lord, Lord Mountevans, intended to speak to this and that, among other reasons, is why I should like the Minister to help us either now or by correspondence.

The Earl of Caithness

My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove, is absolutely right to mention the noble Lord, Lord Mountevans, because this is not only a technical amendment but it is partially consequential on the new clause moved by the noble Lord, Lord Mountevans, at Committee stage. As your Lordships will recall, shops at designated airports are already exempted from the restrictions on opening hours in Part I of the Shops Act. The new clause of the noble Lord, Lord Mountevans, extended this exemption to cover also Part IV of the Shops Act which restricts Sunday trading.

This amendment provides that designations already in force (covering 19 United Kingdom airports) will continue to apply when the new provision is introduced. Currently designated airports will then be exempt from both the hours of opening and the Sunday trading restrictions. If the amendment were not made, we would need separately to designate the airport for Sunday trading, which would be a rather bureaucratic and inefficient way to proceed. So we sought to make life very much easier for the noble Lord, and for all the users of the airports, by introducing this amendment.

Lord Boyd-Carpenter

My Lords, can my noble friend make it clear whether the shops allowed to open at airports on Sundays, despite the collapse of certain other legislation, include shops not only on the air side but in all parts of the airport?

The Earl of Caithness

My Lords, I believe the answer to that is, yes, but I will check and, if I am wrong, I will come back to my noble friend. I have just been informed that it is all shops within the airport terminal.

On Question, amendment agreed to.

Schedule 6 [Repeals]:

The Earl of Caithness moved Amendment No. 101:

Page 87, line 57, at end insert—

("1985 c.71.

Housing (Consequential Provisions) Act 1985.

In Schedule 2, paragraph 29.")

he noble Earl said: My Lords, this is a technical amendment which adds to Schedule 6 a repeal that was inadvertently missed out. It is an additional repeal added to Schedule 6. The Housing (Consequential Provisions) Act 1985 contains a reference to the Airports Authority Act 1975. Since the latter will be repealed in its entirety once the BAA is vested in a successor company under the Airports Bill, all references to it in other Acts also need to be repealed. My Lords, I beg to move.

ord Williams of Elvel

My Lords, in responding to this amendment may I thank the noble Earl for the courteous way in which he has conducted the discussions on the Report stage. May I also thank the noble Viscount, Lord Davidson, for his informed and, if I may say so, dextrous contribution. From the Opposition Benches I should like to pay our very sincere tribute to the way in which the Government Front Bench have handled this Report stage.

Lord Boyd-Carpenter

My Lords, perhaps I may echo the very courteous and very appropriate words that the noble Lord, Lord Williams of Elvel, has spoken, and also say, as one who has been here through a good deal of these proceedings, how much I have admired the courtesy, the good temper and the sheer physical stamina which my noble friend has shown in dealing with this Bill.

Lord Lloyd of Kilgerran

My Lords, I join the noble Lord, Lord Williams of Elvel, in his tribute to the Ministers who have dealt with this Bill. May I also thank them for the tolerance and sympathy which they have extended to me, in coming in as a substitute for my noble friend Lord Tordoff.

The Earl of Caithness

My Lords, I am extremely grateful for those kind words. I should like to say that my task has been made very much easier by the helpful and constructive way in which the Report and, indeed, the Committee, have been handled by noble Lords opposite, and by the noble Lord, Lord Lloyd of Kilgerran, today and his noble friend Lord Tordoff at Committee stage.

I think that many of the concerns of noble Lords opposite, and indeed of my noble friends, have been taken into account. We are making a better Bill as a result, which is typical of this House and indeed its great strength. There are one or two matters to which we shall have to come back at Third Reading, and the assurances that I gave to noble Lords that I will look at matters again will be fulfilled. I hope that I shall have the opportunity to discuss some of the points with noble Lords before a later stage.

On Question, amendment agreed to.

House adjourned at a quarter before eleven o'clock.