HL Deb 05 March 2004 vol 658 cc936-41

2.11 p.m.

Lord Beaumont of Whitley

My Lords, I beg to move that the House do now resolve itself into Committee on this Bill.

Moved, That the House do now resolve itself into Committee.—(Lord Beaumont of Whitley.)

On Question, Motion agreed to.

House in Committee accordingly.

[The DEPUTY CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES (Viscount Simon) in the Chair.]

Clause 1 [Integrated air transport plan]:

Baroness Dean of Thornton-le-Fylde moved Amendment No. 1: Page 1, line 5, leave out from "to" to end of line 12 and insert "bring United Kingdom aviation emissions within the Government's plan to meet overall United Kingdom emissions targets

The noble Baroness said: In speaking to Amendment No. 1, I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 2, 3 and 4. I believe that if this Bill is given a fair passage, my amendments will add to a Bill which currently is seriously flawed and certainly unworkable. That sets against the Government White Paper, financial instruments and government policy. In fact, the Bill is unnecessary.

Nevertheless, I shall speak to the amendments. Regarding Amendment No. 1, as currently worded the Bill singles out aviation and aviation emissions. I do not believe that that can be done. This morning, I was interested to read a press release issued by the Green Party of the noble Lord, Lord Beaumont of Whitley, which refers to the fact that aviation is not included in the overall content of the Government's approach to emissions. I did not think that I would agree with the Green Party but I do. The Bill is flawed by not treating aviation emissions as part of the Government's overall policy on emissions. If we do not take them in the round, it is not possible to have a proper policy dealing with this aspect of environmental issues.

There is no doubt that for certain named airports in this country, the key cause of emissions pollution is not the aeroplanes, but the cars on the roads around the airport. Heathrow is a good example. That is one reason why it makes sense to look at the problems in the round.

Current global carbon dioxide emissions from aviation account for between 2 and 3 per cent of the total. The intergovernmental body, which is regarded as being very independent, estimates that the percentage will increase to around 6 per cent by 2050. If absolutely nothing is done about aviation emissions—the industry feels that something should be done and that work should continue on technology to keep emissions down—a gloomy forecast could be 14 per cent.

One of my criticisms of the Bill is that it deals only with the United Kingdom. In the UK, road transport accounts for around 21 per cent of all emissions, and power stations for 26 per cent. Aviation accounts for 0.5 per cent. That is the nature of the problem and that is why I believe that my Amendment No. 1 would add to the Bill by looking at emissions in the round, within the Government's general environmental approach.

On Amendment No. 2, the Bill as drafted sets quite arbitrary targets, but does not prescribe a mechanism for assessing the effectiveness of any measures needed to meet those targets. That is why that amendment is needed.

The amendment's second paragraph requires the Secretary of State to have regard to the impact of this Bill on "employment and investment". That is crucial. An enormous number of UK jobs depend on aviation, well over 300,000 directly and up to half a million indirectly. However the impact is assessed, it must consider in the round the impact on employment and potential inward UK investment.

The amendment's third paragraph requires the Secretary of State also to have regard to how the measures would impact on "consumers and business". Again, the Bill covers only the UK. We must consider consumer choice. People are using aviation in a way that ensures that they do not use road and other forms of transport such as trains any more than necessary. The more that aviation is restricted, and the fewer places available to fly from, the more we will impact on the environment.

We have to assess the Bill's impact on business. The UK has the highest inward investment record of any country in Europe. Any company that has successfully brought inward investment into the UK will cite access and distribution facilities as one of its top three reasons for coming here, apart from the language. If we did not have such broad aviation access, business would not have invested as it has.

Moreover, this is an island. We are not in a block like the rest of Europe, where a train can travel from France all the way across Europe. An alternative method of distribution is available there. Aviation is very important to us as a country.

The fourth proposed paragraph considers the impact on the "competitiveness and prosperity" of the aviation industry. I make no apologies for putting forward this amendment. We are good at aviation in the UK. We are very successful and we lead the way. Proposals have been put to the Government that the European Union should take on hoard an emissions trading scheme which would help to keep down emissions from aviation. We were delighted to learn that the Government have agreed to take that forward during their presidency of the EU, which is shortly to come to this country.

We cannot have a railway track from one end of Europe to the other. It is no use arguing that we have the Eurotunnel. Should all those in the UK who want to travel to Europe have to travel through that tunnel? That would add to environmental damage in the south-east. It is important to look at the Bill's impact on the UK aviation industry.

If Amendment No. 2 is accepted, the fifth paragraph would require the Secretary of State to have regard to, the competitiveness of the UK economy".

We live in a global trading world and we are a trading nation; we always have been. Well over 35 per cent by value of our exports go overseas by air. That affects the well being of our economy. It also has an effect on our well being socially. We are a multicultural nation. Today, many families made up of UK citizens have relatives living outside these islands. They need aviation facilities to keep up contact with their wider families. So certainly it is terribly important that we should consider how the Bill will affect the whole of the UK and its competitiveness.

Amendment No. 3 seeks to leave out "local authorities". That is not because I wish to exclude local authorities—I do not—but, as it is worded at the moment, the Bill is too restrictive; we need to consider wider communities. If the Bill went through unchanged, it would cut across the arrangements that many airports in the United Kingdom have already. My own city—Manchester—has very good arrangements with local residents groups, as well as with the structured local authority, on issues such as noise and other factors. These groups have a right for their views to be heard and to be taken into account.

So replacing "local authorities" with "communities" is not intended to eliminate local authorities from the consultations but to extend them to people within their areas. Gatwick has similar arrangements. Heathrow, probably the most well known airport, and various companies within BA—including BAA, which runs Heathrow—have ongoing arrangements with resident groups there.

Amendment No. 4 seeks to remove the narrow reference to "air users". I do not see how you can discuss a Bill and require measures which do not include representations from the industry it directly affects. At the moment there is no reference to the industry in the Bill. My amendment seeks to bring in the UK air transport industry. Again, that would not exclude aviation users, but it would mean that the industry would have a right to a place at the table when issues affecting the industry are being discussed. In my view, to exclude the industry would not only be wrong but perverse.

I will be very interested in what the noble Lord, Lord Beaumont, has to say about my four amendments. I beg to move.

Lord Beaumont of Whitley

It may be useful to the Committee if I give my reactions to the amendments brought forward by the noble Baroness. I do not admit that they are all necessary, although one or two are definite improvements.

I understand—I hope that the noble Baroness will confirm this—that if these amendments are accepted it is not her intention to divide the Committee on whether Clause I should stand part of the Bill. That would be a total wrecking amendment and against the traditions of the House. I see that the noble Baroness is nodding.

Baroness Dean of Thornton-le-Fylde

The noble Lord has done me the courtesy of asking me the question directly across the Committee even though I have corresponded with him before this stage today. If the noble Lord is indicating that he will accept these four amendments, then, no, it would not be my intention to press for a Division on Clause I stand part. But that does not mean that I will continue to support the Bill throughout its further stages.

Lord Beaumont of Whitley

I understand what the noble Baroness is saying. I do not propose to oppose the four amendments although I do not entirely go along with them. In particular, I think it is a pity that we are removing some of the goals from the face of the Bill. It is not my intention to oppose the amendments.

Lord Davies of Oldham

It may be useful if I present the Government's view on the amendments and put them in the context of government policy. We are of course committed to taking a lead in tackling the problem of climate change. As I am sure all noble Lords are aware, we have made a commitment under the protocol that during the period 2008 to 2012 UK greenhouse gas emissions will be reduced to 12.5 per cent below 1990 levels. We have also set ourselves a domestic goal of a 20 per cent reduction in UK carbon dioxide emissions below 1990 levels by 2010. As set out in the energy White Paper, we are putting the UK on a path to a 60 per cent reduction in CO2 emissions by 2050, with real progress by 2020.

We believe that the aviation sector needs to take its share of responsibility in tackling this problem. However, the Kyoto protocol target and the energy White Paper goals relate only to emissions from domestic aviation, and domestic flights account for only about 3 per cent of the emissions from UK aviation. International flights from the UK do not currently count in the national inventories of greenhouse gas emissions, and as yet, there is no international agreement on ways of allocating such emissions.

The Kyoto protocol assigned responsibility for action to reduce international aviation emissions to contracting parties working through the international civil aviation organisation. The UK's commitment to reduce emissions is economy-wide. When we were drawing up the energy White Paper, we recognised that our targets would not necessarily apply equally to each individual sector of the economy and that circumstances would differ depending on factors such as the underlying growth of demand, trends in technology and the potential for using alternative fuels.

The White Paper, however, makes it clear that we should ensure that the aviation industry is encouraged to take account of and, where appropriate, reduce its contribution to global warming. We restated and built on this in the air transport White Paper.

The Government are committed to a comprehensive approach to these important issues, using economic instruments to ensure that growing industries such as aviation are catered for within an overall reducing total of greenhouse gas emissions.

I have addressed my remarks primarily to the significance of Amendment No. 1, but grouped with it are Amendments Nos. 2, 3 and 4. I have noted carefully the comments of my noble friend Lady Dean on those amendments and the intent behind them.

We recognise the importance of Amendment No. 2 and the merits of it in considering the impact on business, consumers and competitiveness, in addition to impacts on the environment from the proposals in the Bill. I also think it right to consult representatives of those groups which are likely to be significantly affected by legislative proposals such as those in the Bill.

My noble friend is proposing that representatives of the local authorities and air users are deleted from the Bill's proposed list of consultees. However, local authorities in the vicinity of airports and representatives of air users, such as passengers, could be considered to fall into the description of groups which are likely to be significantly affected by the Bill.

As the Committee will recognise, the Government are adopting a neutral stance on these amendments. We can see the force behind my noble friend's representations. However, I stress again that we need to see emission targets and the improvement of the environment in the round. As I have indicated, issues with regard to domestic aviation are a minor part of the total problem that we need to address. That is why the Government stressed in their White Paper and are stressing in general terms that we need the comprehensive approach embodied in government policy.

Baroness Dean of Thornton-le-Fylde

I am trying to be pragmatic about this and to respond positively to the noble Lord, Lord Beaumont, who has tried to be helpful too. The White Paper that the Government published on 16 December is still being considered by so many, and clearly by the department itself. I thank the Minister for putting some meat on the bones that was not there at Second Reading. In those circumstances, I do not intend to pursue Amendment No. I today, but I shall press the others. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Baroness Dean of Thornton-le-Fylde moved Amendments Nos. 2 and 3: Page 1, line 21, at end insert— ( )the effectiveness of the measures in reducing emissions; ( ) the impact of the measures on employment and investment; ( ) the impact of the measures on consumers and business; ( ) the competitiveness and prosperity of the United Kingdom aviation industry; ( ) the competitiveness of the United Kingdom economy; Page 2, line 2, leave out sub-paragraph (i) and insert— (i) communities:

On Question, amendments agreed to.

Baroness Dean of Thornton-le-Fylde moved Amendment No. 4: Page 2, line 4, leave out "air users" and insert "the United Kingdom air transport industry

The noble Baroness said: I entirely accept the point made by the Minister. I beg to move.

On Question, amendment agreed to.

On Question, Whether Clause 1, as amended, shall stand part of the Bill?

Baroness Dean of Thornton-le-Fylde

In view of the earlier comments of the noble Lord, Lord Beaumont, I shall not pursue the matter today.

Clause 1, as amended, agreed to.

Remaining clauses agreed to.

House resumed: Bill reported with amendments.