Twelfth Standing Committee on Delegated Legislation
Thursday 15 July 1999
[Mr. Edward O'Hara in the Chair]
Draft Aeroplane Noise (Amendment) Regulations 1999
4.30 pm
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions (Ms Glenda Jackson): I beg to move,
That the Committee has considered the draft Aeroplane Noise (Amendment) Regulations 1999.
It is a pleasure to serve yet again under your chairmanship, Mr. O'Hara.
The regulations are made under the provisions of the European Communities Act 1972 and implement Commission directive 1999/28/EC. In accordance with the procedures introduced by Council directive 98/20/EC of 30 March 1998, this is the first action to amend the schedule of exempted aeroplanes from developing nations which is attached to the directive.
The Commission has removed 11 aeroplanes from the schedule because they no longer qualify for exemption. Some have been damaged beyond economic repair, while others have moved from the register on which the exemption was granted. The effect of these regulations is to align exemptions in the United Kingdom with directive 98/20/EC by removing those 11 aeroplanes from the schedule that is attached to the Aeroplane Noise Regulations 1999.
From the point of view of noise at UK airports, this measure will be beneficial because it will reduce the number of older, noisier aeroplanes that are allowed to fly into the UK. There are no other effects. I commend the regulations to the Committee.
4.32 pm
Mr. Shaun Woodward (Witney): I, too, would like to say that it is a great pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr. O'Hara.
I want to talk about the regulations in a little more detail. Several crucial questions arise from them, which I am sure the Minister will be able to answer. The questions go beyond the statutory instrument itself, although I shall take care to remain in order.
The Minister made the case for the adoption of this draft statutory instrument. She was right to speak of it as a purely technical measure. Nevertheless, I am somewhat surprised that, in a parliamentary answer which I received today, the Minister confessed to having had no meetings with her officials or anyone else in connection with these regulations. She is, of course, a supremely confident Minister--except in matters relating to her brief on Oxford, but I shall not go into that, as we have already discussed it today on the Floor of the House.
We do not oppose the regulations, but they raise some important questions. As the Minister said, they bring United Kingdom law into line with European law by implementing the provisions of Commission directive 1999/28/EC of 21 April 1999. As the Minister did not give the background to the measure, it is incumbent on at least one member of the Committee to do so. It is an important issue and, if I may, I shall spend one or two moments outlining what the Minister did not cover.
The regulations fit into a framework of law dating back to the agreement of the assembly of the International Civil Aviation Organisation to phase out so-called chapter 2 aircraft by 31 March 2002. The United Nations advised that, according to a definition of its own, developing countries would suffer economic hardship if they were not granted a period in which the continued use of chapter 2 aircraft would be permitted. Thus it was that when the European Community introduced Council directive 92/14/EEC on the phasing out of chapter 2 aircraft, it published a list of aircraft on the registers of developing countries which would continue to be permitted to fly into member states of the European Economic Area until 31 March 2002.
The Minister will know that that measure was amended by Council directive 98/20/EC, which I have looked at, and transposed into British law by SI 1999, No. 1452. That directive also changed the procedure by which further changes to the list of exempted aircraft would be made in the institutions of the European Union. It is important to recognise these documents, as I have questions about them which I am sure that the Minister will be able to answer.
That is why we are considering a statutory instrument that is the product of a Commission directive rather than, as previously, a Council directive. As such, it lists aircraft that have been sold to operators in another country, which have crashed and which have otherwise been removed from the register of the developing nation concerned.
The Opposition accept that the exemption should not be moveable from register to register, as that would boost the market in noisy and largely pre-1917 chapter 2 aircraft. We also accept that a working list needs to be up to date. It is a real time list, and aircraft should be removed when they no longer exist or qualify for the exemption. As such, the list eliminates the risk that a crashed or abandoned aeroplane could be recovered only to appear again on its national register with the same serial number unique to each airframe.
We, therefore, do not oppose the measure. However, I should like to probe the Minister on some background points, and, in my research into this sector of regulation of the aviation industry, I have developed several questions. First, can the Minister tell us what happens to the planes covered by the regulations? I shall make clear my reasons for asking that question. It is important to know whether the 11 planes listed have crashed or been abandoned, and which have been sold to where. If all of them have crashed, there could be a legitimate safety concern at stake, not only about the aeroplanes in question, but about similar models made in similar places. If that information is not available, why does the 5 6 Minister feel so supremely confident as to pass the directive without any consultation and without asking questions about other aircraft?
The second area of interest is how the directive was passed. As I mentioned, the directive is the first product of the new comitology procedure on aviation laws. Will the Minister tell us who represents Britain on the Committee that approved the directive by qualified majority voting? Was it a committee of experts or of civil servants, and what is that chain of approval? Is this procedure more effective than the pre-existing Council of Ministers procedure? What is the Minister's personal view, as well as that of her Department, on the change?
I turn now to implementation. Will the Minister tell us about the progress of other member states in transposing the legislation into their national law? Has it been implemented, and, crucially, in which other European Union countries? The issue of safety is relevant here; we need to know what other countries the planes may still be able to fly into, as they may end up carrying British passengers.
The Chairman: Order. I have listened carefully to the hon. Gentleman's remarks, and I raised my eyebrows when he referred to safety. The regulations deal with aircraft noise. As I understand them, they apply to aircraft that no longer exist. I cannot therefore see the relevance of his question.
Mr. Woodward: I am grateful for your observation Mr. O'Hara.
Ms Jenny Jones (Wolverhampton, South-West): Yes, they do not exist.
Mr. Woodward: Will the Minister confirm that the aircraft no longer exist? Having spoken to officials in various bodies, I understand that they do exist but are not currently used as directed on the list. The list does not relate only to aircraft noise. As I outlined at the beginning of my remarks, the regulations and agreement underlying them date back to a framework of law set up by the International Civil Aviation Organisation, and, therefore, go beyond noise. It is relevant for us to consider those issues.
The Chairman: Order. We are considering a draft statutory instrument that refers specifically to aeroplane noise.
Mr. Woodward: The statutory instrument may deal with noise, but it also covers matters that go beyond noise.
The Chairman: Order. There may be a framework of law within which this statutory instrument exists. However, the statutory instrument, which is all that is before the Committee, addresses aeroplane noise only.
Mr. Woodward: In which case, Mr. O'Hara, I ask the Minister to confirm that the order is only about noise, and that the regulations will in no way touch on matters of safety.
The Chairman: That certainly is in order.
Mr. Woodward: Speaking about noise may involve touching on issues on safety, but I shall confine my remarks to noise to ensure that I remain within order, Mr. O'Hara. Can we discover whether the issues of noise have been transposed into legislation in other countries? With regard to noise, which other European Union nations have implemented these regulations? A number of issues may well arise.
Can the Minister tell the Committee the legal position if the United Kingdom has implemented the directive, but not other European Union countries? There could be a question of competition interest. In other words, once again the United Kingdom complies with a directive but other European Union countries do not. It is, therefore, important for us to know which other countries have complied and when. If they have not complied, when will they?
4.42 pm
Mr. Tom Brake (Carshalton and Wallington): It is a pleasure to serve for the first time under your chairmanship, Mr. O'Hara.
I should appreciate the Minister's answers to some of the questions raised by the hon. Member for Witney (Mr. Woodward). I should like to know, in particular, which of the aircraft have been destroyed and which have been removed from the register. For my own elucidation, could the Minister confirm whether it is possible for aeroplanes to be removed from the register, be transferred to another nation and then at some point be transferred back to a developing nation such that they might then reappear on the register.
| 
