Eleventh Standing Committee-
on Delegated Legislation
Thursday 29 April 1999
[Mr. Jimmy Hood in the Chair]
Draft Aeroplane Noise Regulations 1999
4.30 pm
The Minister for Transport in London (Ms Glenda Jackson): I beg to move,
That the Committee has considered the draft Aeroplane Noise Regulations 1999.
May I say what a privilege it is, Mr. Hood, to serve for, I believe, the first time under your chairmanship?
The regulations are made under the provisions of the European Communities Act 1972 and bring together, in a single measure, the noise certification requirements of four European Council directives currently implemented in three separate statutory instruments. They will also implement, for the first time, the requirements of a fifth directive and will replace a large part of the Air Navigation (Noise Certification) Order 1990, the whole of the Aeroplane Noise (Limitation on the Operation of Aeroplanes) Regulations 1993 and the Aeroplane Noise (Limitation on the Operation of Aeroplanes) (Amendment) Regulations 1994.
Noise standards are agreed within the International Civil Aviation Organisation, promulgated in volume 1 of annexe 16 to the Convention on International Civil Aviation 1944—the Chicago convention—and implemented by the individual contracting states in their own territory. Legislation to apply ICAO noise standards in this country has existed since 1970. The international nature of aviation is such that measures to control noise are most effective when they are co-ordinated across national boundaries and we have supported European legislation to apply the standards agreed in ICAO.
In the early 1980s, the European Union adopted a Council directive that required each member state to ensure that by 31 December 1986 subsonic jets using its airports met at least the chapter 2 standards. This directive was amended, its key dates being 1 January 1987, when a member state's subsonic jets were required to meet at least chapter 2 when using airports in other member states, and 1 January 1988, when jets, wherever registered but using EU airports, were also required to meet the chapter 2 standards. In 1989, a directive required member states to ensure that its carriers did not add to their national registers heavy, subsonic jet aeroplanes which met only the lowest, chapter 2 noise standard. Following agreement reached at the ICAO assembly in 1990 a fourth directive required member states to prohibit the use of older subsonic jets that did not meet the higher chapter 3 standard. Under this directive chapter 2 aeroplanes may be used after 1 April 1995 only if they are under 25 years old or are exempted. After 31 March 2002, only chapter 3 aeroplanes will be able to be used other than in the most exceptional circumstances. The fifth directive, adopted last year, amended directive 92/14. The principal effect was to provide a mechanism for updating the list of specified aeroplanes from the developing nations exempted from the ban.
The regulations unify the requirements of all those directives. There is little in the regulations that is new and nothing that places additional burdens on either the aviation community or the regulatory authorities.
The regulations do not apply to helicopters, supersonic civil aeroplanes and microlight aeroplanes. The ICAO noise standards for helicopters, noise limits on new types of supersonic aeroplanes and the UK's own national noise standards for microlights all remain in place in the Air Navigation (Noise Certification) Order 1990. However, we shall retain the requirement that future supersonic aeroplanes will meet the appropriate ICAO noise limit.
There are no easy solutions to the problems of noise from aeroplanes but our noise certification policies have made a real contribution to alleviating the problem over the years. While these regulations involve no direct increases in noise stringency they do consolidate and unify in a single measure the standards covering the vast majority of aeroplanes currently flying in the UK.
I commend the regulations to the Committee.
4.34 pm
Mr. Bernard Jenkin (North Essex): I join the Minister in welcoming you, Mr. Hood, to the Chair and thank her for her exposition of the regulations.
The Minister referred to ``our noise regulations'', by which I think she means the British noise regulations. The regulations before us reflect the accumulated wisdom of previous Governments, including that of the previous Conservative Government, who spent 18 years in office.
We should not fall into the trap of agreeing every European regulation or directive on the basis of transnational considerations. There are certainly transnational considerations in these regulations that are provided under international treaties, but it is not necessary to include every international obligation that affects member states in European Community law.
We have no argument in principle with the regulations, which we regard as a consolidating measure, but will the Minister confirm that they propose no new measure and that there is no inadvertent extension of competence? I am sure that she is aware that the European Commission looks lustfully at national discretions for the negotiation of international air transport arrangements. We know that the Commission's long-term aim is to gain control over the negotiation of airport slots—especially across the Atlantic—and we must be vigilant to ensure that it does not create circumstances that make it more difficult for us to resist the encroachment of its competence. I draw her attention to a recent court case on the air carriers' liability regulations, which the Government lost. A United Kingdom court ruled that the Commission's regulations on air carrier liability in relation to passengers were beyond the competence of the treaty. The Commission has therefore promulgated, and the Council has agreed, a regulation that is ultra vires the treaties. It will be interesting to see whether the Government respond to that or simply deny that the regulation is null and void.
I have received complaints from the airline industry about insufficient consultation. The original consultation document was issued in 1997, but the industry has been taken by surprise by the emergence of the regulations in the past week or two. British Airways, whose chief executive is, I believe, a good friend of the Government, did not know until today that the Committee was to debate the regulations. It is not satisfied that it has been able to complete the research that it would usually conduct. What representations has the Minister received from BA or from other interested parties? If she has received none, it would confirm that people did not know that the Committee would debate the regulations. Has the British Air Transport Association been formally consulted, or do the Government rely on earlier consultation documents and the supplement that was released on 26 March, hardly more than a month ago?
Only last week the Prime Minister delivered forceful assurances on the way in which regulations would be dealt with. In the foreword to what the Better Regulations Unit's website describes as an ``Important Announcement''—I am sure that it is if it is issued by the Prime Minister—he says:
``I have therefore decided that no regulatory proposal which has an impact on business, charities and voluntary bodies should be considered by the Government without a thorough assessment of the risks, costs and benefits, a clear analysis of who will be affected and an explanation of why non-regulatory action would be insufficient. This requirement applies whenever Ministers or their officials are seeking to clear a new proposal for primary or secondary legislation or a negotiating line that will result in such legislation.''
He goes on to say that the impact assessment
``should include a clear statement of the objectives of the regulatory proposal and its likely effects. It should demonstrate that the proposal is the most effective means of meeting the state objectives, set out the costs and benefits of the proposal, and identify who will be affected.''
Most important, he says:
``It should usually be published for consultation at an early stage so that it is open to comments, improvements and corrections by an interested party.''
The regulations have not been available to the industry for enough time. If they are only a consultation measure, the Committee need not detain the Minister on that point, but I hope that the letter of the Prime Minister's intentions rather than the spirit will be followed. People will have confidence in the Government's determination not to over-regulate only if the letter is observed. The Government have enacted no fewer than 2,700 new measures in under two years but have scrapped only 20, so business is rightly wary of the regulatory burden that the Government are piling on it.
The schedule on page 15 of the regulations lists aeroplanes from developing nations that are excluded from the noise controls. Among them is Iraq, with which our relations are not terribly good at the moment, and Libya. I am told on pretty good authority that if we saw an Iraqi aircraft coming in this direction we would shoot it down rather than wait to hear how noisy it was. I am at a loss to know why Saudi Arabia should be treated as a developing nation. It is one of the richest countries in the world, so why are we providing exemptions for it?
4.42 pm
Mr. Desmond Swayne (New Forest, West): My understanding of regulations 8 and 9 is that non-noise certificated jets may no longer be used? Is such a provision in place? If not, how much notice has the industry had of the regulations, and what estimate has the Minister made of their cost to the industry?
4.43 pm
Mr. Tom Brake (Carshalton and Wallington): I welcome the Minister's comments and we support the regulations in principle, but I have a number of questions to which I hope she will respond.
I echo the points that have been made about consultation. Three airlines have told me that they were not consulted about the regulations, so I would welcome confirmation of who has been involved.
Will the Minister explain the reasoning behind the exemptions for the aeronautical industry and the transportation of large items. It would be argued that power station turbines that had to be carried by air should be exempt.
Will the Minister assure me that there is no possibility of humanitarian flights being misused by a commercial flight carrying a small amount of humanitarian aid and thus qualifying as a humanitarian flight?
How many aircraft qualify under the historical interest category? I understand that there has been no abuse, but unless we are aware of the number we have no means of checking.
There are exemptions for carriers' operations that are adversely affected to an unreasonable extent. How many carriers have qualified for that exemption? It would also be helpful to know how many carriers have qualified for technical exemptions.
I should like assurance that there is no scope for other parties to use the aircraft listed in regulation 13 as a flag of convenience. At least one of the airlines to which I spoke thought that the regulation might be a back-door means that operators other than those from developing countries could use.
Will the Minister explain the relevance of the regulations, because I understand that many airports, certainly across Europe, are unilaterally adopting noise standards that are more stringent than those proposed in the regulations?
| 
