HL Deb 16 January 2004 vol 657 cc797-818

2.42 p.m.

Lord Beaumont of Whitley

My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill he now read a second time. The Bill proposes a reduction in emissions of CO, NOx and greenhouse gases due to air traffic. As well as reducing pollution around airports and in the upper atmosphere, the intended effect is to reduce the amount of air traffic and thus eliminate the demand for new runways to be built.

The Government have predicted that demand for air travel will treble during the next 30 years and, in the White Paper on aviation published in December, proposed that new runways be built at Stansted, Heathrow, Birmingham and other airports to meet that demand. At the core of my Bill is that that is an old-fashioned "predict and provide" policy. Predict and provide was abandoned for roads policy after the Standing Advisory Committee on Trunk Road Assessment reported that more roads would simply attract more traffic, not end congestion. Predict and provide is not a sound policy for many things; it is certainly not for air transport.

The Green Party is not alone in that view. In its 18th report on transport and the environment, the Royal Commission on Environmental Pollution stated: an unquestioning attitude toward future growth in air travel, and an acceptance that the projected demand for additional facilities must be met, are incompatible with the aims of sustainable development". Aviation is the most highly polluting transport mode on earth and its pollution constitutes a major hidden cost to the economy. Aviation is also subsidised directly and indirectly by the taxpayer and is a major drain on the UK balance of payments.

The most important but least obvious impact of aircraft is a contribution to climate change. When burnt, aircraft fuel is converted to carbon dioxide and water. The global warming effects of carbon dioxide are well recognised, and much attention is new being paid to the issue. However, carbon dioxide emitted by aircraft on international flights is excluded from the national targets for the Kyoto agreement.

We know that flying is causing us real problems with greenhouse gases and climate change in a way that is exacerbated by the total global warming effect of air craft emissions high above the earth's surface. So far, aviation has led a charmed life and escaped its responsibilities in the debate about greenhouse gas reduction. The matter is serious: we will pay for our cheap flights with devastating effects all over the globe. Incidentally, it will also result in the death of the insurance industry, as there will be no possibility of insuring against the damage being clone. The cost of UK aviation's contribution to climate change is estimated at well over £2 billion a year. By 2050, aviation could be contributing up to 15 per cent of overall global warming effects produced by human activities, with staggering economic and environmental costs.

Aircraft emit large quantities of air pollution on their landing and take-off cycles. The most important pollutants are nitrogen oxides. At Heathrow, aircraft are the major contributor to NOx pollution, but around smaller airports, other sources, especially road traffic, contribute more. Small particulate matter is less of a problem from aircraft; the majority of such pollution around airports comes from road traffic and fixed sources such as power plant. The health costs of air pollution from the UK aviation sector are estimated at more than £1.3 billion a year.

The impact that most concerns people who live near airports is noise. The way in which the Government measure noise—loudness equivalent (Leq)—enables the industry and government to claim that noise levels are not increasing, when public perception is often the reverse. The economic costs of aircraft noise in t he UK are estimated at £330 million a year. I had considerable experience of such noise when I lived in Kew, right under a flight path. If there was any value or virtue in the sermons that I preached on Sunday mornings in the two churches in Kew the effect was lessened by the necessity to stop at times because it was impossible to talk from the pulpit over the aircraft noise. One had to pause for 30 seconds or more before proceeding. Such interruptions are a great irritation, not because I pretend that people would have been better off for being able to hear every word that I spoke without interruption, but it is merely symbolic of the amount of noise that local people have to put up with.

Night flights are a particular problem for those living beneath flight paths. At night, Leq is of little significance; it is individual aircraft that are most important—whether they are loud enough to wake people up. However, the number of flights is still important. Most people can get back to sleep after being woken by one plane but are kept awake by a succession. Any measure that reduces the number of flights will reduce the need for night flights and so help to ensure that people can get a decent night's sleep.

The construction of new runways is enormously damaging. Large swathes of countryside, often including whole villages, are required, and many people's homes have to be demolished. Many more are affected by yet more noise pollution and road congestion. The proposed new runways at Stansted, Heathrow and elsewhere would devastate the local communities in their vicinity. Professor John Whitelegg in the Green Party's Aviation's Economic Downside report—I am most grateful to him, and to Alan Francis for the material that they have given me to introduce this Bill—stated that, The overall hidden economic costs of the European Union's aviation sector are currently estimated at £14.3 billion a year—of which the UK alone accounts for £3.782 billion, or 26 per cent. This does not include the cost of aviation accidents and accident services". Aviation is undertaxed compared with most other sectors of the economy. Flight tickets, aircraft and aviation fuel are zero-rated for VAT. which costs HM Treasury £1.8 million a year in lost VAT alone. Aviation fuel pays no tax at all. If aviation fuel were taxed at the same rate as unleaded petrol, this would raise £5 million a year. No tax is paid on duty-free sales. Effectively, society is subsidising the aviation industry, through a colossal tax break of £9.2 million a year. All of these costs and subsidies are increasing rapidly as the aviation sector grows. Government policy continues to support such growth, regardless of the consequences. If remedial action is not taken, UK air passenger numbers are forecast to increase from 130 million in 1995 to 400 million in 2020; the equivalent of an extra four airports the size of Heathrow, or 12 new airports the size of Manchester.

The application of a fairer tax regime on aviation could cut UK passenger numbers to 59 per cent of the figure forecast for 2020, and no new runways would be required. The aviation industry claims that flying is good for the economy, but it likes to ignore the fact that tourists coming into Britain by plane spend a lot less than tourists from Britain spend abroad. Assessed in this way, flying is a drain on the national economy; it makes a loss.

The aviation industry is greedy and has a lot of influence. It makes donations to all three of the big parties; regrettably not to the Green Party. BAA is the ninth largest donor to Labour; the seventh largest donor to the Conservatives; and the fourth largest donor to the Liberal Democrats. Former Aviation Minister Chris Mullin was quoted in a recent New Statesman special supplement on aviation. He said: I learnt two things. First, that the demands of the aviation industry are insatiable. Second, that successive governments have usually given way to them. Although nowadays the industry pays lip-service to the notion of sustainability, its demands are essentially unchanged. It wants more of everything—airports, runways, terminals". I have in my brief a large section on the aviation White Paper, which your Lordships will be relieve to hear I am not going to recite. I wish just to pick out one or two things. To address the problem of aircraft noise disrupting lessons in schools near airports, the White Paper suggests in paragraph 3.23 that funding should be provided for school trips away from the noisy environment, especially where the loss of amenity from outdoors may be severe. This is an admission that it is impossible for communities to live their lives normally near to airports.

Again, I would like to pick out the point about the "polluter pays" principle. My party agrees with the "polluter pays" principle, and agrees that it should apply to the aviation industry. However the Government appear to want to leave it to the industry and international bodies to sort out. This is clearly a government responsibility, and is one that the Government are trying to duck. Our Bill would ensure that the Government address the issue.

The Government state that they want to reduce the environmental impact of air travel—I am sure that the Minister will reinforce that— but they seem to have no mechanism of any kind to achieve that. I hope that the Minister will say if he thinks that I am wrong on this matter and tell me what mechanism they do have. Our Bill provides the mechanism that they need and that they say they want. The Air Traffic Emissions Reduction Bill is just a first step towards getting the aviation industry under control. It would reduce pollution from air traffic and remove the need for new runways.

I now turn to an explanation of the Bill as it stands. Clause 1 specifies that the Secretary of State shall, draw up within two years of the coming into force of this Act an integrated air transport plan … which will show— (a) what measures are in his opinion necessary in order to achieve [reductions in] air traffic emissions". Those figures would represent a reduction in air traffic emissions of an average of I per cent per annum. That reduction is required in order to reduce pollution and climate change effects. Although international air transport is not counted for the purposes of the Kyoto agreement, if the overall reduction in CO2 emissions required by the Kyoto agreement is being met, air transport should be treated in a similar manner to other sources of emissions.

The Bill also imposes a duty on the Secretary of State to state the level of investment in airport facilities that he believes to be desirable. The Government should decide how much runway capacity is required. It should not. be left to the airport operators and airlines to decide that. Similarly, the Secretary of State, through agencies such as the Strategic Rail Authority, should decide what level of enhanced capacity and speed is required on the railways to provide an alternative mode of travel for short and medium distance travellers.

A recently opened high-speed rail line between Frankfurt and Cologne has replaced short-haul flights between those two cities. Many other European countries, including Germany, France, Belgium and Spain have developed high-speed rail services that have wholly or partially replaced short-haul air services. Now that we have started the Eurostar rail service, there is no reason why we should not do the same.

Clause 1(2) provides that in preparing the national plan, the Secretary of State shall have regard to—

  1. (a) the impact of air traffic on communities;
  2. (b) the transport needs of people:
  3. (c) the impact of air traffic on the environment"
and "any representations made" by consultees.

Clause 1(3) specifies that the Secretary of State shall consult organisations representing local authorities, the interests of business, the interests of air users and the protection of the environment. Clause 1(4) states that the Secretary of State shall present the national plan to both Houses of Parliament. Clause 1(5) states that the Secretary of State may take action himself and assist actions by principal councils. Clause 1(6) states that the Secretary of State shall report annually to Parliament. Clause 1(7) states that, once every three years the Secretary of State shall conduct a full review of the [national] plan and present the results of this review to both Houses of Parliament". Clause 1(8) states that the Secretary of State, after considering any debates in the two Houses of Parliament, may amend as he sees fit the national plan.

Clause 2 gives the meaning of terms used in the Bill: 'air traffic' means all civilian flights into, out of and within the United Kingdom". Military air flights are excluded because the Bill is concerned with passenger flights. Clause 2 continues: 'air traffic emissions' is the sum of air traffic emissions of carbon monoxide (CO), nitrogen oxides (NOx.) and greenhouse gases from air traffic—

  1. (a) on flights between UK airports,
  2. (b) on flights within UK airspace, and
  3. (c) at UK airports".
The definition of emissions includes all the emissions from airplanes within the UK airspace and on the ground in the UK. It also includes emissions from other activities associated with the operation of the airport, including car and lorry trips to the airport. A considerable amount of pollution around airports comes from these associated activities.

While it would be possible to measure the pollution from the airplanes and vehicles, there are now standard data books from which it can be calculated. That is how it is done at Zurich Airport where emissions limits have been applied. It should be noted that it gives flexibility to how the emissions reduction targets are met. For instance, if fewer people travelled to the airport by car, and more travelled by public transport, emissions would be reduced. If solar power is used to generate electricity for the airport buildings, again, emissions would be reduced.

Clause 3 is a financial provision, while Clause 4 covers the citation and extent of the Bill.

I hope that noble Lords will agree to give the Bill a Second Reading. I do not pretend that it is perfect as it is—what Bill produced in this House ever is, even those from the Government Front Bench? However, it would be good if we were given the opportunity to amend the Bill and produce it in a form ready for a future government or future Members of Parliament in the House of Commons. I am quite convinced that "predict and provide" will not do and that something like this legislation will have to be introduced in the near future. So I ask noble Lords to give it a start by agreeing to its Second Reading. I commend the Bill to the House.

Moved, That the Bill be now read a second time.—(Lord Beaumont of Whitley.)

3 p.m.

Baroness Dean of Thornton-le-Fylde

My Lords, until recently I was chairman of the Freedom to Fly Coalition, an organisation comprising representatives from the airlines, the tourist industry, the CBI, the TUC and, indeed, all the unions bar one from both the aviation and rail transport sectors. However, the coalition no longer exists following the White Paper.

Like most people in Britain and irrespective of their position as regards aviation, I am concerned about emissions and certainly want to see the level of those emissions kept as low as possible. However, I do not believe that this Bill is the right or practical way to achieve that, and it is full of misleading assumptions. None the less, I congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Beaumont, on his candour in presenting the Bill. He said that it would provide a means of eliminating the need to build extra runway capacity and went on to say that it would be a first step towards bringing the aviation industry under control, as though it is something that is bad for Britain. However, it is not. The industry has been very good for Britain.

We have been good at developing our aviation sector since the first commercial Comet flight just over 50 years ago. The wonderful aeronautical engineer, the late Professor Arthur Lefebvre, developed technologies that have considerably reduced jet engine emissions. We have also seen promising developments at Rolls-Royce.

The Bill would cut passenger numbers, increase prices, reduce choice and affect severely the British economy—to the betterment of our European competitors who are building considerably increased aviation capacity. Germany and France were mentioned in the context of railways, but both of those countries are expanding their aviation capacity at a far faster rate than us. Since World War Two we have built one new runway, in Manchester. So I do not think that this Bill provides the answer.

We have to deal with emissions in a practical way that will assist us in our aim; that is, to be as environmentally friendly as possible while doing no damage to the United Kingdom economy. After all, we are an island nation and we depend on aviation for much of our business. In value, one-third of all our exports are transported by air.

The Government White Paper published last December sets out what the industry believes is the right way forward. On page 40 it states that: The Government is committed to a comprehensive approach. using economic instruments to ensure that growing industries are catered for within a reducing total". Aviation is a growing industry and therefore, as it grows, the issue of emissions will also loom larger.

The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change has stated that as demand grows, aviation's contribution to climate change will do so as well. Currently its contribution is 3.5 per cent of the total and could grow to 6 per cent. If aviation continues to grow at its present rate, and in the absence of any technological or other developments, the contribution could rise to 14 per cent by 2050. It is our responsibility to make sure that we all work together. I repeat, the Bill is not the way to do it.

Aviation currently accounts for 0.5 per cent of total emissions in the UK, as opposed to 21 per cent for road transport and 26 per cent for power stations. Indeed, aviation fuel has increased the efficiency of jet planes by something like 50 per cent over the past 30 years.

It is against that background that the noble Lord, Lord Beaumont, a member of the Green Party, quite straightforwardly referred to a number of issues, including taxation on aviation fuel. He also referred to the "hack end" of the Bill and the emissions of flights over the UK. Is he seriously saying that we can control flight paths? This is about bringing emissions down against an increasing market; does he really want all international planes to go around the United Kingdom? That is not within our control totally.

Taxation on fuel, as the noble Lord, Lord Beaumont, and his party know full well, is subject to the Chicago Convention, which is an international agreement, for obvious reasons. If we tax aviation fuel in the UK, we will have aircraft overflying Britain for fuel in Europe. Yet again, that would affect our economy.

There is no VAT on any ticket on any kind of transport in the United Kingdom. If we were to treat aviation in the same way as other modes of transport that would be different, but the noble Lord is asking for aviation to be treated differently and for VAT to be applied to its tickets.

It is often claimed that the industry is subsidised. This is supported by a great many statistics, but I am not sure where they all come from. Volterra Consulting carried out an independent review of the three industries—aviation, rail and road. By "road" I mean buses; public transport. It concluded that rail receives a subsidy of £1.6 billion a year, equivalent to £1.69 per passenger. I am sure that no one in Britain objects to that in the interests of social cohesion, and rail is a good form of transport. Buses receive £650 million, or £15 per passenger. Aviation was a net contributor of £750 million, or £4.15 per passenger. So I would challenge the claim that aviation is directly subsidised by the taxpayer through the Government.

The White Paper made clear that aviation should pay its external costs. Yes, it should. We believe that it does. I am sorry that the noble Lord did not mention emissions trading, because not only the industry but many non-governmental organisations support emissions trading as a way forward to ensuring that aviation contributes to climate stabilisation. We congratulate the Government on stating in the White Paper that they will use the UK presidency in 2005 to put the issue of emissions trading as a priority on the agenda. That must be one of the ways forward. It will he good to see it introduced for intra-European Union flights from 2008. It will be a big step forward if we can get it. In Britain. the aviation industry supports it.

The air passenger duty that we all pay, which brings in £750 million a year, is a blunt instrument. It needs reviewing. Certainly the Government have said that they will press for other emission reduction actions. We have to accept that. I shall refer to one or two of those in a moment.

The main impact of Clause 1(c) would be to substitute rail transport for aviation in the UK. That would he impractical. That is not only my statement; a Strategic Rail Authority study has shown that the vast majority of journeys in the English regions to London and the southeast are by car or rail. Air travel accounts for less than 3 per cent of journeys. So if we were to say "No more aviation- it would not solve the problem to which the noble Lord, Lord Beaumont, referred. Even with investment in the rail infrastructure, the Strategic Rail Authority study shows that fewer than 1 million passengers might switch.

The Commission for Integrated Transport is inconclusive in its study on whether substituting rail for air would bring net environmental benefits.

The noble Lord, Lord Beaumont, referred to high-speed rail lines. I wait with glee for the time when the submissions for a new high-speed line from the south-east to the north-west are put forward, as has been suggested by the Regional Development Agency in the north-west, to see if the Green Party objects to any planning permission for the land that will have to be taken out, which is far more than would be used for several new airports, when those bids are put in. The noble Lord might like to answer that when he responds.

Clause 2 calls for the Secretary of State to have regard to the impact of air traffic on communities and the environment—the "transport needs of people". What about the economy, which is one of the core factors in the sustainable requirements that the Government have put forward? The economy is mentioned nowhere in the Bill, yet in Britain the jobs of 180,000 people depend on the industry and another 540,000 depend on it indirectly. If you look at development in the future, it is one of the creation areas of good jobs against a background of the decline of our steel, shipbuilding and coalmining industries. This is one of the new industries. Do we want to kill it at birth?

The best way forward is to see what we can do practically to contain the emissions as much as we can. Technology has to be a factor. The Greener by Design group, which is funded by the DTI, offered the possibility of new design and construction giving, over the coming decades, a reduction in fuel burn of between a quarter and a third. Rolls-Royce reduced the NOx emissions from its latest engines to achieve up to 30 per cent lower than the current NOx regulation standard.

There is continuing design development to target further reductions of up to 50 per cent by 2010. The Advisory Council for Aeronautics Research in Europe, which includes the member states as well as technical organisations, targets NOx reductions of 80 per cent and 50 per cent improvement in fuel efficiency by 2020. This has to be the way forward—not putting a cap on industry and cutting back flights.

Improvements in air traffic control efficiency could result in reductions of between 6 and 10 per cent. Australia has done it and has delivered something like a 12 per cent reduction.

UK airlines could take the lead in introducing "clean flying" techniques. Do not ask me, I am not a pilot, but apparently the way they take off and land can have a beneficial or detrimental impact on emissions. We could also incorporate the EU emissions trading scheme, hopefully from 2008.

These are the ways. I suggest, of having an aviation industry that is good for our economy. It is good for Britain—we will need it in the future. With a global industry in a global environment, we must do what we can to ensure that the emissions are contained as much as possible. The way to do that is through technology and other methods, not by the Bill.

3.13 p.m.

Baroness McIntosh of Hudnall

My Lords, being very far from an expert on the issues raised by the Bill, I rise to speak with some humility. I intend to make a very brief contribution, because I have only a couple of very short points to make.

I congratulate my noble friend Lady Dean on her extraordinarily persuasive speech in which she set out of the arguments for the aviation industry. I am sure that most of us would find it difficult to gainsay a lot of what she said. However, does she consider that the short or medium-term economic benefits that the aviation industry undoubtedly produces in this country and elsewhere might not reasonably be seen in the context of the longer-term economic and other kind of disbenefit which we are increasingly aware that the growth in aviation the world over is bringing not only to this country but to every country?

That said, I congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Beaumont of Whitley, on introducing the Bill and giving the House an opportunity to debate a matter of very grave concern both in the here and now and in the future. The Bill seeks to provide for an integrated air transport plan. Lying behind any such plan must be some assumptions about the likely future growth of air traffic. The noble Lord, Lord Beaumont, has ranged very widely over the issues that lie behind his wish to introduce this Bill and he touched on the question of assumptions about the growth in air traffic. The Government have already set out their assumptions on the matter. They are concisely expressed by my honourable friend Kim Howells in the current edition of the House magazine. He says that, there has been a five-fold increase in air travel since the I970s and half the population now flies at least once a year. Given demand could be two and a half times the current level by 2030, we needed a framework for the future of air transport in the UK over the next 30 years". I do not suppose that anybody in this House or elsewhere would deny that we need a framework for air transport. However, we might take note of the careful word "could" in that quotation— demand could be two and a half times the current level by 2030". That projected growth in demand is the major assumption on which the alleged need for airport expansion is based, with its consequent environmental impact including growth in emissions.

The news in recent weeks has been dominated by the issue of airports and airport security. We hear repeatedly that the terrorist organisation that we have learnt to fear the most, Al'Qaeda, is—and I quote from numerous news reports—"obsessed" with the use of passenger aircraft as, in effect, weapons of mass destruction. Travel to and from the USA has been made more difficult by a big increase in security checks and procedures. Already, airlines are deploying all kinds of incentives to encourage passengers to fly in these new and frightening circumstances.

Last week, we learnt that the Church of England is experiencing significant financial difficulties partly because its normally reliable population of North American visitors to our great churches has declined very markedly. These are straws in the wind and, as yet, few in number, but do we imagine that the terrorist threat to air traffic, with its consequent costs—both financial and emotional—will disappear any time soon? If not, we should at least consider the possibility that, over time, demand for non-essential air travel may not grow at anything like the rate predicted and provided for in the Government's latest plans. I see no evidence—perhaps I have not been looking in the right places—of any read-across between increased levels of anxiety about air travel generated by security issues and the buoyant assertion of exponential growth in demand which underpins those plans.

I have one other observation. On Monday, the Guardian ran an article under the headline, "Freak summers will become a regular event", recording the findings of a report in Nature online using models which predict the impact of global warming on the world's climate. That is an issue to which the noble Lord, Lord Beaumont, has already referred extensively. This is a very serious matter of course raising the threat of the extinction of thousands of species and a dramatic redefinition of how life might have to be lived on this remarkable planet in the future. I do not wish to be frivolous on such a weighty subject, but I would like the Government to consider the following: the enormous recent growth in air travel has been largely fuelled by the advent of low-cost airlines. One wonders whether the economics of those businesses are truly sustainable in the long term. Much, although not all, of this traffic is for leisure purposes; people escaping to the sun. How much longer will they need to do so? How much better it would be for the UK tourist industry if they did not.

One way of meeting our emissions target is by not giving in to the assumption that air traffic must grow to the extent that the Government and the air industries would like us to believe is inevitable. Let us not ruin our health and our heritage by passively succumbing to that assumption. I wish the noble Lord well with this Bill and look forward to the debate to which it will give rise.

3.19 p.m.

Lord Faulkner of Worcester

My Lords, this is not the first time that I have had the pleasure of speaking on a Bill introduced by the noble Lord, Lord Beaumont of Whitley. As on those previous occasions, today I am happy to offer my broad support for what he is seeking to achieve. As other noble Lords have said, this is the first occasion that we have had the opportunity to debate some of the issues arising from the Government's recent White Paper, The Future of Air Transport.

The Air Traffic Emissions Reduction Bill has an underlying philosophy, which the noble Lord described well—namely, that current and future growth rates of air transport are unsustainable because of their wide-ranging environmental impacts. and in particular climate change. That is a view I share, and it is a view reinforced by respected bodies such as the Government's own advisory group. the Royal Commission on Environmental Pollution. The Royal Commission's chairman, Sir Tom Blundell, criticised the White Paper, saying on the 16 December 2003: The White Paper fails to take account of the serious impacts that the projected increase in air travel will have on the environment. Earlier this year the government published an Energy White Paper setting out its strategy for tackling global climate change, and set challenging but necessary targets for greenhouse gas emissions. Today's Aviation White Paper undermines those targets and continues to favour commerce over vital carbon dioxide reduction measures". Another expert commenting on the White Paper was the noble Baroness, Lady Young of Old Scone, the Chief Executive of the Environment Agency. She pointed out that the predicted growth in aircraft emissions acknowledged in the White Paper would be inconsistent with the UK's climate change reduction targets. She said: The Government has committed to a 60 per cent reduction in CO2 emissions by 2050. Today's White Paper does not alter that target but its acceptance of growth in air traffic, without a full understanding of the industry's contribution to climate change, jeopardises its achievement. The Government's own forecasts suggest that by 2030 aircraft fuelled at UK airports could have a global warming impact equivalent to at least 30 per cent of current CO2 emissions from all UK domestic sources. This is a massive growth from its 5 per cent share in 2000". It is clear that there are valid, expert concerns that the Government's White Paper has not got it right when it comes to controlling and reducing aviation's huge, important and worrying contribution to climate change. Getting air transport's greenhouse gas emission under control needs, as the Bill before us points out, a complex mix of assessment and policy measures. My own view is that the five recommendations made by the Royal Commission in Sir Tom Blundell's pre-Christmas statement should be integrated into the noble Lord's Bill during Committee stage. Perhaps he will consider that suggestion.

The recommendations are, first, to impose climate protection charges for aircraft taking off and landing within the EU; secondly, to restrict airport development to encourage greater competition for available take-off and landing slots in order to optimise their use; thirdly, to develop major airports into land-air hubs integrated with an enhanced rail network; fourthly, to support technological development to lessen the damage done by air travel; and, fifthly, to include international aviation in the emissions trading scheme under the Kyoto protocol.

Central to the issue of airport provision is the question of managing demand. I know that my noble friend Lady Dean takes a totally different view on these matters from the view that I take. Yes, that will mean higher fares and fewer flights. That is something that the Government will have to face up to, because the alternatives, as described by the noble Lord, Lord Beaumont, and by my noble friend Lady McIntosh, are impossible to contemplate.

I commend to your Lordships the research carried out by the former Treasury economist, Brendon Sewill, and published by the Aviation Environment Federation. He points out that the UK aviation industry receives a tax-free subsidy of £9 billion a year through tax-free fuel and VAT-free transactions. He concludes that if aviation fuel were taxed at the same rate as petrol for cars and the VAT exemption were removed, demand for air travel would be reduced to the point where there would be no need for any new runways in the UK over the next 30 years, because there would be sufficient capacity at existing airports.

As the consultation paper issued in December 2000 by the Government stated: The Government believes that the tax exemption on aviation fuel is an anomaly. Introducing such a tax would help to place environmental costs on the polluter". The Royal Commission has stated that in terms of climate change: Travelling by air is broadly equivalent to one or two people travelling [the same distance] in a passenger car". It therefore follows that there is a justification for imposing duty on aviation fuel at a rate that is at least as high as that for petrol, which is 45.8p per litre. The Treasury has stated that with duty at that rate it would raise £5.7 billion a year.

As regards VAT, virtually all countries except the United Kingdom charge VAT on internal domestic flights. It is perfectly true that we do not charge VAT on public passenger transport, but we do charge it on taxis and car hire. Aviation has to be singled out as a special case because of the need to cope with the problem of climate change and the need to curb the growth of demand. In October 2002, for example, the German Government announced a programme that included the policy that flights from Germany to other EU nations should no longer be exempt from VAT. We should look at doing the same. The benefit from imposing VAT on all flights from UK airports would he around £4 billion a year. It is quite clear that tackling these tax concessions provides a way of controlling and managing demand. There is nothing inevitable about its inexorable rise, if you are prepared to do something about it.

The other complementary approach, to which the noble Lord, Lord Beaumont, referred, is to encourage people to transfer from short-haul flights to rail. Again, the figures suggest that this could substantially reduce demand for air travel. Some 45 per cent of air trips made in Eurocontrol countries are 500 kilometres or less in length. The Germans are looking to replace many of their internal flights with high-speed rail and estimate that a three-hour rail journey is an attractive alternative to a short-haul flight. A modern high-speed train can cover over 800 kilometres in that time, which is a lot further than the distance from London to Glasgow and Edinburgh. France is continuing to expand its TGV network, and trains replaced planes on the Paris to Lyon route many years ago. Other countries across the world, in Europe and elsewhere, are building fast. high-speed rail lines, including Spain, Scandinavia. China and even Taiwan.

In this country, we can see the first signs of what can he achieved by what Eurostar has managed since the first stage of the Channel Tunnel Rail Link opened last year. It has increased its market share of the London to Paris traffic from 58 per cent to 66 per cent, largely at the expense of British Airways, Air France and easyJet. Once the CTRL has been completed to St Pancras, we must press ahead with plans for the new high-speed north-south line of the kind to which my noble friend referred, which is supported by the Strategic Rail Authority.

I welcome the Bill. It offers a truly helpful way forward for ensuring that the Royal Commission's proposals to include the costs of climate change in airline ticket prices are implemented. Perhaps the noble Lord, Lord Beaumont, would allow me, as chairman of the recently formed All-Party Parliamentary Sustainable Aviation Group. to suggest that he consider talking to both the Royal Commission and our group to see whether his excellent package of regulatory and economic measures can be progressed in a way that moderates and manages demand for air travel and helps to achieve the sustainable aviation strategy that he and I both want.

3.29 p.m.

Baroness Scott of Needham Market

My Lords, from these Benches I should like to say that we, too, are grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Beaumont of Whitley, for bringing forward his Bill. It raises a very important set of issues for us. Before I start, I should declare an interest as a member of the Commission for Integrated Transport and as the chair of the Local Government Association Transport Executive.

I fear, however, that I may disappoint the noble Lord slightly because although I support the sentiments behind his Bill—and certainly have no problem with it proceeding to Committee—for reasons that I shall set out I am unable to support the detail of it today.

In view of the fact that we are now well and truly into the "graveyard shift" and that wild mammals are waiting outside the door, I shall be brief. The centenary of powered flight in December was marked in this country by the Government's plans for the aviation sector for the next 30 years which proposed a massive increase in the aviation capacity for the country. In doing that the Government are faced with many of the issues that faced those of us involved in road building over the past two decades; namely, the issue of how you balance the potentially liberating effects of easily accessible travel with the environmental damage that it can do.

I understand that more people flew abroad at Christmas last year than went to church on Christmas Day. Having spent a very pleasant new year in Cyprus myself I can understand why that happened. A winter suntan used to be the preserve of the rich. It will be very difficult for this Government or any political party to explain to people why a pleasure they so enjoyed may be denied them. That will be a very difficult job for anyone. It is important for the noble Lord, Lord Beaumont, to bear that in mind. I was fascinated by his comment on the insatiability of the aviation industry, but any of us who fly are complicit in that and need to take some responsibility for it.

I do not intend to indulge in a critique of aviation policy generally, or, indeed, to make any points about whether it is a good or a bad thing for the economy. The respective points of view expressed by the noble Lord and the noble Baroness, Lady Dean, demonstrate that we are a very long way from understanding exactly what the economic benefits, disbenefits and so on, are, particularly as regards short, medium and long-term considerations.

At the heart of the matter is the whole question of prediction. However, it is a complicated matter and I shall not discuss it other than to say that, clearly, it is very difficult for the Government to get their predictions right. We have to accept that it is not an exact science. Short-term considerations such as the current security situation, or medium-term considerations such as the viability of low-cost airlines and, indeed, long-term considerations such as we have heard from the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh. about global warming and the effects it might have on the way we travel all make prediction very difficult. However, we have to accept that government need to play a role, at least to a certain extent, in determining what that growth might be. They are not passive observers in all this.

Environmental impacts exist that we ought not to ignore. Today I shall set aside the very important issues of noise, ground pollution and loss of landscape. However, the Government's own acknowledgment that CO2 emissions from the aviation sector could grow to 25 per cent of the total British contribution ought to lead them to a more committed and immediate set of policies for dealing with the question of emissions. Indeed, many leading transport analysts have argued that there is much that the Government can do in this field working with the industry—as they have been doing—and with the European Union. The Government and BAA have said that they are committed to bringing the aviation sector within the scope of the EU trading scheme. That is much to be welcomed although it will be at least 2008 before that can begin to come into operation.

As we have heard, other examples of good practice are developing across the world. Tokyo and Sydney airports, for example, charge very high noise premiums on flights. Zurich and Stockholm have schemes under which airlines that reduce their emissions are allowed more flights. Swedish airports place a surcharge on the most polluting aircraft.

Noble Lords will have realised that, although I have much sympathy with the sentiment behind the noble Lord's Bill. I am unable to support it as it proposes unilateral action in a global industry. Ideally we should have global action on emissions but experience with Kyoto demonstrates how very difficult it is to get international progress on these kinds of issues. However, I consider that action at European Union level is practical, attainable, is a valuable step in its own right and in terms of moving towards future global agreement.

Having said that, I do not think that the Government can be let off the hook entirely. Something has to be done. With the aviation sector set to double its 2000 emissions by 2030, and the fact that high-altitude emissions are much more damaging than at ground level, there can be no excuse for kicking the issue entirely into the long grass. The noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh, made the most important point of all today; namely. that the short-term economic benefits that the sector brings must be balanced against the long-term environmental difficulties. Both the Royal Commission on Environmental Pollution and the Environment Agency have publicly expressed that point. I hope that the Government will take their concerns, and those expressed by noble Lords today, with the greatest seriousness.

3.35 p.m.

Baroness Byford

My Lords. I, too, thank the noble Lord, Lord Beaumont of Whitley, for introducing the Bill. I am sure—indeed, we have heard—that we all wish to see a reduction in pollution, and he raises a very important issue. With ever-increasing growth in air flights, more pollution is likely to be created. The challenge is how industry itself tackles that, and what we as individuals can do within the lifestyle choices that we make, whether we travel by air, train or car. We can all make a difference. Those of us who have talked about other issues recently such as water and electricity—some of us dealt with the Energy Bill yesterday—will always maintain that there are things that we can do, and that we can aid the reduction of pollution.

I am sure that we also wish to encourage manufacturers to continue to move towards reductions in emissions, although I understand that the level is small. Indeed, the noble Baroness, Lady Dean of Thornton-le-Fylde, gave the emissions figure of 0.5 per cent. I am sure that the general public believe that the figure is much higher, so I was glad that she stated it today. I had thought that the figure was 1 per cent, but I take her smaller figure.

I also understand that measures are being taken by airport operators and airlines to reduce ground emissions. Rolls-Royce, which has been referred to, is committed to technological improvements that will deliver significant reductions by 2010. However, passenger numbers are set to rise—the figures have already been given—from about 130 million to 400 million by 2020. I do not think that anyone in the House says that people should not be able to fly; the challenge is how we balance the extra needs with pollution that may be caused.

I believe that the Bill has good intentions, and I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Beaumont of Whitley, understands that I support him in that way. I, for one, support initiatives that will lower pollution, but I have reservations about the Bill as it stands. It calls for an integrated air transport plan, and defines in Clause 1(3) the organisations that shall be consulted. Once completed, the plan is to be laid before Parliament. with an annual report given thereafter. I do not think that any of us would agree with that at all.

Clause 2 on interpretation defines a whole range of items, some of which are the responsibility of the airport and some the responsibility of the airlines. It also includes, all car trips to and from the airport", and, all lorry trips to and from the airport". That may have been when I began to get into great difficulty with the practicalities that the noble Lord wants to tackle.

Although following the noble Lord's desire to reduce air traffic emissions, I find the Bill imprecise and somewhat confusing. In seeking to deal with the three elements of aircraft in the sky, pollution from the airport itself, and the traffic heading to and from the airport, implications arising from the Bill could lead to creating a logistical nightmare and threatening the future of Britain's aviation base.

In practical terms, for example, what is meant by car and lorry trips to and from the airport? Should the emissions from those vehicles heading towards an airport be calculated from the moment that the vehicle begins its journey, wherever that may be, or just within a certain parameter of the airport? It could be, for example, that a lorry coming all the way from Scotland might have travelled 300 miles before it arrived at a London airport. Another lorry might only have travelled 20 or 30 miles. That is something that we must clarify in Committee. It is a small detail, but raises the difficulties and enormity of the noble Lord's aims.

In his desire to cut emissions from air traffic, the noble Lord would have to accept that any restrictions imposed on UK-based airlines should be applied to all airlines. Failure to achieve world-wide agreement would act commercially against UK operators. If that approach were taken the level of pollution might rise because other aircraft gaining access to our airports might not have the same standard of emission controls. I do not know whether that would be the case, as I am not in the aircraft business. Perhaps the Minister will clarify that.

The noble Lord, Lord Faulkner of Worcester, referred to the possible introduction of take-off and landing charges. Indeed, they are being considered. Can the Minister say whether there are measures in place to achieve improvements to the European targets on aircraft/airport emissions? I know that Statutory Instrument 2002, No. 3118, the National Emission Ceilings Regulations 2002, on environmental protection, came into force on 10 January 2003. It clearly defines regulations on the landing and take-off cycle. I understand that it is part of an EU obligation, but does it affect world-wide regulation or is it restricted to EU airports?

Several Members have touched on emissions trading, to which I shall return. On 5 December 2002, when we dealt with the Air Quality (England)(Amendment) Regulations 2002, I asked the noble Baroness, Lady Farrington of Ribbleton, who is not in her place: Is air pollution from air travel included in the pollution equation? Is the Minister not concerned about the rapidly expanding use of air travel? Indeed, research is being carried out into new build in respect of airports, which takes into account the forecast of a rapid rise in air travel over the next 20 years".—[Official Report, 5/12/02; col. 1307.] I tell the Minister who will respond today that I did not receive a good answer to any of my questions. Could he touch on them?

I turn now to an article that appeared in Green Futures in November/December 2000. That goes back some time, but the issues are still relevant. It states: Whereas most forms of transport routinely pay some kind of tax or charge to account for some of their polluting consequences, planes are exempt from fuel tax under international law". So, I have to ask whether the wish of the noble Lord, Lord Beaumont, and other noble Lords for a new tax is possible under international law. However, international aviation also slipped through the net when the Kyoto Protocol was agreed, so there are currently no policy instruments for reducing the impact of climate change. The article continues: At the London seminar, the IPPR's proposals were welcomed both by industry representatives such as British Airways (BA) and by environmental pressure groups such as Friends of the Earth (FoE). Emissions trading proved to be an attractive option to these uncommon bedfellows because it offers a means of securing certain emissions reductions at the least cost to the economy. BA explicitly stated that it favoured emissions trading over a fuel tax". Can the Minister comment on the figures for air pollution emissions released on 10 December 2001, which were shown to be continuing on a downward spiral? Can he say whether that downward spiral has continued over the past two years?

I thank the noble Lord, Lord Beaumont of Whitley, for bringing forward his Bill today. As I said earlier, as it stands, the Bill is limited to the United Kingdom, but the noble Lord may feel that, however good his intentions, he will have difficulty due to the fact that this country is subject to EU regulations. However, he and I share a genuine common goal to reduce pollution wherever possible. I look forward to working with him in Committee, but I fear that he may have to introduce changes if the Bill is to proceed and obtain the approval of Parliament.

3.45 p.m.

Lord Davies of Oldham

My Lords, I, too, am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Beaumont, for the opportunity to discuss the issues set out in the Bill. As I believe was predicted. the debate has ranged very widely over all aviation policy issues as well as over environmental policy and pollution issues.

I fully appreciate the noble Lord's concerns about the harmful impact of air traffic emissions on the environment. I share his view that we should do everything reasonably possible to reduce and limit the environmental costs of air travel—in particular, the growing contribution of aircraft emissions to climate change. There are also significant local environmental impacts, such as local air pollution and noise pollution. The latter has perhaps not received quite the emphasis in this debate that one might have expected.

Reference was made to aspects of government policy and, in particular, to issues arising from the White Paper. It is not for me to spend an enormous amount of time today articulating government policy and defending the White Paper, although there have been some fairly substantial challenges to the concepts behind it, not least from my noble friend. I hope to refer to those in due course. However, this is a debate about the Bill and I want to concentrate on that.

I recognise clearly what my noble friend Lady McIntosh said. A whole range of factors can affect potential demand for air travel. We should not underestimate the fact that air disasters of various kinds can severely affect such travel for a period of time. The American experience will always be with us, and we all remember the effect that Lockerbie had on travel by UK citizens. However, I believe that my noble friend recognises that we are talking about current airport policy and the whole aviation industry against the background of the figures that my noble friend Lady Dean outlined. She did so so effectively that I need only make the most passing reference to them.

By 2030, we expect demand to increase by two-and-a-half times. Even if a certain amount of that were pared off, there would still be the factors which my noble friend set out so eloquently when expressing her concerns about air travel. I believe it would clearly be remiss of the Government if they did not respond to what we all recognise as a growing demand.

However, I reassure the noble Lord, Lord Beaumont, that that is not to say that the Government are predicting and providing—far from it. Predict and provide would certainly have meant an immediate decision on an additional runway at Heathrow. But the Government have made it clear that they are not prepared to see that runway implemented until assurances are received that a clear strategy is in place to ensure that air quality around Heathrow meets the European standards to which we are committed and which we are obliged to fulfil. This is a clear illustration that we are concerned to meet the predicted demands of our fellow citizens while, at the same time, having proper regard to the factors which the noble Lord articulated in introducing the Bill.

I appreciate what the noble Baroness, Lady Scott, said in her contribution about demand; namely, that it ill behoves us to seek to choke oft' the opportunities that the rather more privileged sectors of society have enjoyed for a very considerable time in terms of air travel and the opportunities that that opens up. My noble friend Lord Faulkner mentioned a significant figure in that respect who enjoys a high reputation and whom we all respect for the work that he does, Sir Tom Blundell, the chairman of the Royal Commission on Environmental Pollution. If my noble friend looks in Who's Who he will see that Sir Tom Blundell lists, as one of his interests, international travel.

Lord Faulkner of Worcester

My noble friend has roused me. It is possible to engage in international travel without flying everywhere.

Lord Davies of Oldham

My Lords, I had anticipated that my noble friend might come back on that. If he is able to establish that every one of Sir Tom Blundell's trips has been made via the Channel Tunnel or that he has gone by sea, I shall stand entirely corrected. I am not a wagering Minister, but I would say that "international travel" probably suggests an occasional use of aircraft at the very least.

I emphasise that we recognise that a balance has to be struck between the necessary attempts to meet projected demand with regard to air travel and the necessity to safeguard the environment. The Government have set stringent environmental conditions which we expect operators to meet. I emphasise that point to the noble Lord, Lord Beaumont, and to others who spoke in the debate, who may have cast themselves in a somewhat pessimistic mode with regard to what can be achieved. The noble Baroness, Lady Dean, referred to the improvements in aircraft technology which in recent years have led to a reduction in the polluting effects of aircraft engines. We expect that the new regime of aircraft engines will lead to a 50 per cent reduction in the polluting effects, although that does not by any means solve the overall problem.

Baroness McIntosh of Hudnall

My Lords, I hope my noble friend will forgive me intervening. I know that time is short. Can he tell the House whether the Government have any plans to tie together the airport expansion plans that are now being examined with the introduction of the new generation of aircraft, so that such expansion comes after the introduction of aircraft that can help with emission issues?

Lord Davies of Oldham

My Lords, I cannot do that in such a direct way. As I intimated earlier to my noble friend, unless we are able to guarantee the air quality levels at Heathrow, the building of the runway will not take place. There is an interdependence in that absolutely crucial feature, which is a central part of government policy. We are not shying away from our obligations under European and international requirements with regard to protection of the environment in terms of air quality. However, I would not be able and I do not believe that I should be expected to tie every aspect of enhancing air travel specifically to the environment in such a direct way. Such issues are a matter of balance. They have to be taken in the round.

It will be recognised that the Government, far from predicting and providing, have set out to recognise and identify the contours of demand and to develop airports against that projected demand, accepting the uncertainties of the figures over a period of time. We should recognise that air travel generation is still at a low level in certain parts of the world. One cannot view the rate at which the Indian economy—and even more the Chinese—is expanding without recognising that that will be reflected in increased demand for air travel.

Some of my noble friends say that with regard to the internal situation we could do much more by rail. The Government are concerned to emphasise how greatly they view the benefits of long-range rail —that is why investment in rail is proceeding apace with the modernisation of the West Coast Main Line—and the importance of rail to our overall economy.

Noble Lords should not be too sanguine about the easy substitution of air travel for rail. Although Europe has developed some greatly to be envied rail links—we think of the TGV in France for obvious reasons, but it is true also in Germany—it is not clear that that has led to a substitution of rail for air. It may be that rail has taken up some demand that otherwise would have been concentrated on air travel, but there is scarcely an air service which has disappeared because of competition by rail travel. Paris to Brussels is an instance of that. It is also the case that certain air routes have not expanded as rapidly as they might have done through rail travel.

However, we should not exaggerate the easy substitution of one for the other; not least because a great deal of internal air travel in the United Kingdom relates to getting to Heathrow as a hub airport for travel elsewhere. That is not easily substituted by rail because of the particular convenience that rail presents for city centre to city centre travel, which obviously does not obtain when all one wants to do is to get to the main hub airport.

So I respect the points made in these areas. That is why we are concerned to see investment in rail and—a point particularly emphasised by my noble friend Lord Faulkner—that expansion and a considerable investment in rail services. That does not mean that it is a ready alternative to the question of air travel.

I have been enjoining noble Lords all through this long day that speeches should be kept to a reasonable length. Ordinarily, I would have availed myself of perhaps a 15- minute speech. I am fairly close to that now. I think that I should follow my own instructions and seek to limit what I have to say. Therefore, I shall conclude on this point. The policies set out in the aviation White Paper will support economic prosperity throughout the United Kingdom; will enable people to make flights at reasonable costs; and will control and mitigate the environmental impacts of aviation.

As a matter of principle, any additional action to tackle the environmental impacts of aviation will take full account of the effects on the competitiveness of UK aviation and the impact on consumers. We have to strike a balance. The beauty of this debate is that I think that balance has been struck, both as to the very strong environmental considerations that have been articulated and the very precise enumeration by my noble friend Lady Dean of the importance of the industry to the British economy.

The Bill of the noble Lord, Lord Beaumont, does not appear to give due regard to the important considerations of the economic significance of the airline industry. It is for those reasons that the Government will have difficulty in supporting the Bill.

Baroness Byford

Before the noble Lord sits down and before the noble Lord, Lord Beaumont of Whitley, responds, perhaps I may say two things to the Minister: first, obviously, the noble Lord has not had the opportunity to answer any of our questions. I hope that he will write to us as issues have been raised which should be addressed.

Secondly, and much more importantly—and the noble Lord referred to it just now—I should like to record our dismay at the time of day at which we are taking important business through the House. The House rose at 3.30 p.m. yesterday. The business managers have got this wrong. We still have two important issues to discuss. At the end of each debate, I will say the same thing. That is unfair and has put huge pressure on noble Lords to speak at shorter length—although that did not occur during the previous debate. Speakers in this debate have tried to respond and keep their contributions fairly short. I should be grateful if the Minister would reflect on the concerns of these Benches, and, I suspect, other Members in the Chamber, that we are taking through important business at this time of day.

Lord Davies of Oldham

My Lords, I share the concerns expressed by the noble Baroness and will of course reconsider the matter. Private Members' Bills are never easy to predict—even the number of speakers is not known until quite late—but 1 recognise that our attempts to hit today's target of four o'clock have not been realised. We will re-examine the situation.

On the noble Baroness's specific questions—she raised some very specific questions about our airports policy—I will of course write to her. I am concerned that she did not receive the answers that she wanted and will ensure that they are delivered. I just do not think that I have time within the framework of today's debate to respond in detail.

Baroness Byford

My Lords, further to that, it is not just that we are late today; it is that the House rose yesterday at 3.30 p.m. Surely some of this business could have been anticipated and taken yesterday.

4.2 p.m.

Lord Beaumont of Whitley

My Lords, earlier, the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Alloway, said that in his experience during 20 years in this House, the Peer responding to a Second Reading debate on a private Member's Bill should just thank noble Lords who took part and sit down. I take what he said seriously; with the benefit of my 30 years' experience, I back it up.

First, I thank all noble Lords who have taken part—although it must be clear that I thank some of them more than others. I shall just mention one point that was made: the question of one country going it alone. I agree that countries need to act together, but there is enormous value in one country showing the way forward. That pinpoints the problem and helps with trying to solve it in other countries. I therefore do not regard that objection, which was mentioned by at least four speakers, as overwhelming.

It is the tradition of your Lordships' House that the House does Members the courtesy of allowing a Second Reading. No one has suggested otherwise in the debate.

On Question, Bill read a second time., and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.