| Draft Aeroplane Noise (Amendment) Regulations 1999
|
|
Mr. Richard Page (South-West Hertfordshire): When the hon. Gentleman asks about whether aeroplanes have been destroyed or removed from the register, is he including aeroplanes being broken up and used for spare parts? Noise on an engine is one thing, noise on an air frame another. The offending part of an aircraft could be transferred to another aircraft which then moves back into service. Is that the point that the hon. Gentleman is trying to develop? Mr. Brake: I thank the hon. Gentleman for his apposite intervention, and I hope that the Minister will respond on that point. If parts are being transferred and engine parts reused, the initial noise problems could simply be transferred to another aircraft. Finally, although I accept that the debate is principally about noise, I hope that the Minister will write to me on whether the environmental impact of these aeroplanes is taken into account. The noisiest are likely to pollute the most as well, and I should appreciate any information that is available.
4.44 pmMr. Michael Fabricant (Lichfield): It is my great pleasure to take part in this interesting debate, Mr. O'Hara. As I was saying before 4.30, I spent a great deal of time, when I did a real job, travelling in developing and developed nations, setting up radio stations. That involved flying with carriers such as Ethiopian Airlines from places like Kampala, where I built a radio station for Radio Uganda, down to Harare, with Radio Zimbabwe. However, that is not, of course, the main point of the debate. I should like to ask the Minister a question that follows on from the comments that were made by my hon. Friend the Member for Witney and the hon. Member for Carshalton and Wallington (Mr. Brake). The Minister said that some of the aircraft would have been damaged and others would have been moved from the register as they moved from a developing country to a non-developing country. Can she tell us what percentage of aircraft have been damaged, and how they were damaged? Were they damaged through crashes or accidents on the ground, or were they destroyed because they had outlived their useful lives? What verification is there that they were damaged? When aircraft--in the shape of bombers--were destroyed in the United States, following the strategic arms limitation talks agreements, there were witnesses. How does the Minister know that the aircraft have been damaged? The Minister will know about companies such as Israel Aircraft Industries, which are experienced and practised in refurbishing old aircraft to high standards. Boeing 707 aircraft that have been refurbished by IAI are in use not only in developing countries, but in developed nations, and meet noise criteria. What would happen if any of those aircraft, which have not been damaged, are repaired by IAI, or a similar company, and brought up to standard? Would they be re-entered on the list? My hon. Friend the Member for South-West Hertfordshire (Mr. Page) raised the issue of cannibalisation. Is there a possibility of engines that have been removed from aircraft on the list being put into aircraft that are not on the list? How would that affect the situation in respect of the EU directive? Can the Minister confirm that the current dBA limit for noise at Heathrow, Gatwick and Stansted is still 97 by day and 89 by night? Does she intend to lower that by 3 dB or more, as was attempted by the previous Administration? The Chairman: Order. The hon. Gentleman is straying a little beyond the strict terms of the statutory instrument. Mr. Fabricant: Thank you for your guidance, Mr. O'Hara. If the dBA were to be altered, would that affect the aircraft that would have to be removed from the list, or, if it were raised, would that enable aircraft to go back on to the list? Can the Minister confirm that it is still her intention to reduce the 97 dBA limit at Heathrow, Stansted and Gatwick?
4.48 pmMs Glenda Jackson: There appears to be a great deal of confusion in the minds of Opposition Members. I shall touch on some of the points that were raised by the hon. Member for Witney, who was concerned about whether there had been any consultation between me and my officials before the tabling of the statutory instrument. I am somewhat bemused by that, because it is not clear to me how it would be possible to consult on what is essentially a matter of whether we should furnish the House with information. That is what the statutory instrument does. It lists 11 aeroplanes which are currently, until the publication of the Commission directive, exempted from the existing regulations, which ban the flight into or out of EU airports of aeroplanes whose engines do not meet the necessary noise requirements. Mr. Fabricant: Will the Minister give way? Ms Jackson: I shall just finish this point. The exemption list for emerging countries has been amended. I understand that 56 aeroplanes are still on that list, of which the statutory instrument refers to 11. Mr. Fabricant: Will the Minister give way? Ms Jackson: If I may just finish this point-- Mr. Fabricant: I thought that the Minister had. Ms Jackson: The hon. Gentleman is a little premature, because I have not. I regret that the Committee has not been furnished with the list of the 11 aircraft in question. I will, of course, furnish all members of the Committee with it. However, given that the hon. Members for Witney, for Carshalton and Wallington and, I think, for Lichfield (Mr. Fabricant) all asked the same question, it would perhaps be in order for me to mention just some of the aircraft and the reasons for their deletion from the exemptions list. I reiterate that the exemptions permit aircraft from developing nations to fly into or out of European Union airports even though their engines do not meet the noise requirements that are placed on all other aircraft that fly into or out of those airports. From March 2002, no aircraft will be allowed to contravene the noise regulations. Mr. Fabricant: Will the Minister give way? Ms Jackson: I will because the hon. Gentleman is so desperately anxious to intervene. Mr. Fabricant: I am always desperately anxious to intervene on the hon. Lady, who is always so willing, keen and generous when it comes to giving way to Back Benchers. Will she confirm that the serial number of aircraft does not change even if an engine is exchanged and the replacement breaches the noise regulations? Ms Jackson: The hon. Gentleman is entirely right. Every aeroplane has a unique serial number. An aeroplane on the exempt list for developing nations cannot maintain that exemption if it is sold from its present register on to the register of another country and another airline. The right to exemption rests only with the country and operator with which the aeroplane is registered. I will furnish the Committee with some of the details of the 11 aircraft that have been taken off the exemption register. The aeroplane from Egypt was destroyed in a crash at Mombasa. Of the two aeroplanes from Lebanon, one has been re-registered in Egypt and the other in the Democratic Republic of Congo. The aircraft from Liberia was re-registered in Venezuela. That from Nigeria was damaged and it was economically invalid to enter into repairs. Of the two aircraft from Zimbabwe, one was re-registered in Swaziland and the other in Liberia. Mr. Woodward: A point of clarification immediately arises because the hon. Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Ms Jones) led the Committee to believe that those planes no longer existed. From what the Minister says, however, they still very much exist. Will she correct the misapprehension under which her hon. Friend is labouring and accept that many of these aeroplanes are simply being re-registered elsewhere? Ms Jackson: It was not my understanding of what my hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton, South-West said that the aircraft were removed from the exempt list because they had been destroyed. I have furnished the reasons for the 11 aircraft being taken off the register. As I said, they have been re-registered in other countries, and with other airlines in many instances. What was possibly behind the question from the hon. Member for Witney--and that of the hon. Member for Lichfield, if I understood him correctly--was whether the relevant aircraft will be able to fly into and out of European Union airports after re-registration. The answer is no, they will not. Once they are removed from the register on which they are afforded the privilege of exemption, it will not be possible to apply for or afford such exemption in the future. The hon. Member for Witney asked whether I had details of other European Union countries' compliance with the directive and whether it had been implemented, but I am in no position to afford him those details. For the purposes of information only, however, the Commission's decision came out on 21 April, and the list was published in the Official Journal in May. It is likely that the relevant information will have been furnished to the appropriate authorities in all European Union countries. Mr. Woodward: It is extraordinary that the Minister is able to put the directive before us this afternoon but not to be able to tell us what other member states of the European Union are doing about it. Will the hon. Lady tell the Committee at what point Spain, for instance, would be in breach of European law if it did not implement the measure? The Chairman: Order. That question is not the business of the Committee; our business is the statutory instrument. Ms Jackson: I trust that it will be in order for me to say to the hon. Member for Witney that I find it more than extraordinary that a member of a party so opposed to closer political union of this country with other member states of the European Union believes that I, or the Government, have responsibility for ensuring that other member states abide by legal agreements. I have no knowledge that they have ever failed so to do. It is becoming depressing that Conservative Members believe it to be their bounden duty to adopt a Europhobic approach at some point during every debate in which the House engages. The hon. Member for Carshalton and Wallington also raised the issue of transfers to other registers, I trust that the reply that I have already given has assured him on that point. He and the hon. Member for South-West Hertfordshire referred to the cannibalisation of parts from aeroplanes. In the main, an exempt plane is taken off the list because it has been destroyed and so is no longer flying, or because it has been transferred to another register and is still flying. Should an aircraft be cannibalised--with an engine being put into another aeroplane, for example--that engine could still contravene the noise requirement for access to and egress from European Union airports. Such movement would, therefore, not be permitted to those aircraft. As I have said, the list of OECD countries accorded the privilege of exemption is closed.
|
| |
| ©Parliamentary copyright 1999 | Prepared 15 July 1999 |
