Civil Aviation

HC Deb 22 February 1984 vol 54 cc939-48 11.35 pm

The Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Mr. David Mitchell)

I beg to move, That the draft Air Navigation (Noise Certification) Order 1984, which was laid before this House on 1st February, be approved. The order, the third of its type, will replace the Air Navigation (Noise Certification) Order 1979. It carries forward the provisions of the previous order, and, inter alia, includes requirements for the first time for supersonic aeroplanes, and sets standards for microlight aeroplanes. As in 1979, it is considerably preferable to have a new comprehensive order than an amending order.

The House will wish to know that the draft order, which is to be made under the provisions of the Civil Aviation Act 1982, will bring into effect new and revised standards agreed following the sixth meeting of the Committee on Aircraft Noise. The draft order also gives effect to EC directives 80–51 and 83–206 on the limitation of noise emissions from subsonic aircraft, which are in line with the International Civil Aviation Organisation recommendations.

In broad terms the order will require new production of older types of heavy propeller-driven aeroplanes to meet the earliest standards for subsonic jets. It will allow aeroplanes up to a maximum weight of 6,500 kg. to be noise certificated to the light propeller-driven aeroplane standards, where the prototype was certified for those standards. It will require derived versions of low bypass ratio engined subsonic jets, mainly the old types, to meet the more stringent standards for derived versions of high bypass ratio engined jets, and it will require further production of derived versions of existing types of supersonic aeroplanes to be no noisier than the parent aeroplane.

The proposed introduction of standards for microlight aeroplanes, which arouses considerable interest, fulfills an undertaking given by my predecessor to the House last March, to be found in Hansard of 29 March, c. 117. While certainly not a major problem, there is no doubt that that relatively new activity is a source of annoyance to communities overflown by those small machines. Some of my constituents have expressed that view. The British Microlight Aircraft Association, the sports controlling body, is conscious of the need to minimise such disturbance, and has co-operated fully with my Department. The proposed standard will, I believe, give worthwhile environmental protection without crippling the sport or impairing the ability of our manufacturers to compete with foreign manufacturers. The remainder of the order carries though the provisions of the 1979 order.

I admit that the order is complex, but that is necessary when dealing with so many categories and related standards. Aircraft noise is, as the House will know, a formidable problem, and the Government have every sympathy with those whose quality of life is affected because they live in the vicinity of an airport. It must also be acknowledged that aeroplane noise is likely to be a nuisance for a long time. Regrettably, some people will have to live with that fact. However, improvements in the overall noise climate have been and will continue to be made, for example, by ensuring, wherever possible" that the ICAO standards that we adopt take full account of advances in noise technology.

The introduction of the order is a further, admittedly modest, step along that path, but it recognises the interests of users, operators and manufacturers. It is important to bear in mind that a balance has always to be struck between the environmental acceptability of any new noise standard and the technical feasibility and economic cost of its introduction.

On that basis, I commend the order to the House.

11.36 pm

Mr. John Prescott (Kingston upon Hull, East)

The Opposition welcome the order, because it continues to reduce the aircraft noise that causes great concern to those who live around major airports. Even at the smaller airports, the microlight aircraft lead to many complaints. We congratulate the Government on resisting the pressures from airlines to delay the introduction of the new noise standards. It is a welcome fact that the standards are before us and will be implemented this year. We all recognise that the environmental issues have to be balanced against the commercial and economic judgments of the flight operators. The order is a modest step forward. It is an improvement, and it is to be welcomed.

As well as asking one or two questions about the order, I want to ask the Minister about other matters of environmental concern which arise directly from the movement of aircraft, as well as the noise that they make.

As the Minister says, the standards are very complex. I remember, in my seaman days, trying to read a safety report about noise in engine rooms. Noise was causing loss of hearing, so there had to be a limitation on the decibel level. I found that report somewhat complicated, but I cannot say that I have any comprehension at all of the meaning of these standards. However, I am advised that they are an improvement.

This is another welcome step forward in properly regulating the operation of microlights. The order is concerned largely with the noise that they make, but other steps have been taken in the past year or so in connection with the standard of the machines, pilotage, licensing and so on. Considerable enthusiasm is going into the development of these new machines, and the conditions for their operation are now being put into a proper regulated form.

This order, unlike the 1979 order, makes no mention of the extension of these improvements to cover helicopters. There is an increasing amount of helicopter activity around our major airports—in particular, on the service between Gatwick and Heathrow. Concern is expressed about levels of noise, and flight movements, in connection with that service. Why have the improved standards not been extended to helicopters?

Secondly, the fine, at £400, is very low. An aircraft operator would not regard that sum as a deterrent or a penalty.

Thirdly, the noise regulations are largely concerned with supersonic aircraft of current design. After the cost of the first supersonic aircraft, one might wonder whether we shall hurry into the growth of supersonic aircraft, but I presume that, with the march of time, we will see such growth. Should not any new generation of supersonic aircraft be designed from the beginning to conform to the noise regulations? That should be one of the factors taken into account in the design. However, the Minister makes it clear that the regulations apply only to present supersonic aircraft, which we identify with Concorde.

When quieter aircraft use our airports, there will be new pressures on the Minister. Many people in the United Kingdom, representing different interests such as the airline operators and the airports, are already beginning to demand that there should be more movement into Heathrow. Heathrow is a major international airport, the major airport in the United Kingdom. It has been closely involved in the problems of noise and the movement of aircraft.

The Government have in a variety of ways put aviation policy into the melting pot. They have privatised the airlines and possibly, with the British Airports Authority, the airports as well. There is their policy on routes and fares, which is now being reviewed by the Civil Aviation Authority. There is the inquiry into Stansted, and the possibility of a fifth terminal at Heathrow. Many airline operators and regional airports are beginning to demand —for example—a liberalisation of routes. That will lead many of them to demand greater access to Heathrow.

Heathrow is a special problem. Several domestic airlines have already demanded more access to it. The Civil Aviation Authority ruled against such extra access in one case but the Secretary of State overruled it. Airline and airport operators are getting the signal to increase pressure to get access to the hub of our airport network —Heathrow. The great bulk of passenger and freight movement goes through it. If pressure for more domestic flights out of Heathrow builds up, will the Government be forced to do something about movement?

Noise is an environmental consideration, but aircraft movement is another. As recommended by the inspector in 1979, the Government imposed a ceiling of 270,000 flights on the movement out of Heathrow until the fourth terminal was in use. The Minister will be aware that we are now within about 10,000 of that limit and the terminal has not been opened. Although flight movements were fewer in 1981–82 than in the mid-1970s, mostly because of larger aircraft, there will not be a trend to even larger ones, as most economic considerations press in the other direction.

As we are approaching the limit that the Government set for flight movements and as the fourth terminal is not yet open, how do the Government intend to deal with the pressures from the airlines and the airports? I should have thought that they had been encouraged by the Government overruling the CAA.

Dr. Alan Glyn (Windsor and Maidenhead)

I am following the hon. Gentleman's argument closely. Does he agree that Heathrow has reached the peak of endurance for the people who live under the flight paths?

Mr. Prescott

I am aware that that is what people around Heathrow feel. I have much sympathy for them. I should have thought that current reviews about alternative airport capacity prove that. We are not sure how capacity will be used. Heathrow can handle more flight movements than the ceiling of 270,000. Those movements are determined by the number of runways and other considerations. A source of anxiety, especially to people in the Heathrow area, is that it is possible to increase the number of flights out of Heathrow. The environmental limit is much lower than the limit imposed by capacity. As we are close to the ceiling, are the people in Heathrow to expect that, in this era of competition and deregulation, the Minister will yield to the competitive forces that the Government want to release and increase that ceiling or break into restricted periods and allow night flights, for example? There have been many rumours and this debate gives the Minister an opportunity to say whether the ceiling will be increased.

11.49 pm

Mr. Keith Speed (Ashford)

I thank the Minister for introducing the order. As the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, East (Mr. Prescott) has said, it is an important step forward and has considerable environmental implications.

On microlights, I agree with the hon. Gentleman that we are edging towards proper control of this form of activity in which noise is clearly a consideration. It may be outside the terms of the order, but it might not be altogether irrelevant if my hon. Friend the Minister would say a little about how he envisages the microlight sport developing. The order will control the noise aspect, which certainly causes problems in my constituency, but is he satisfied that the safety record and construction regulations are now on all fours with the noise safeguards? Even within the past few days, alas, there have been microlight crashes in various parts of the world and there is still great concern about that aspect.

I also share the hon. Gentleman's reservations about helicopters. They cause noise not only from their engines but from the rotor blades, which in some circumstances produce a sharp crack almost comparable with the noise of a supersonic aircraft. That lacuna needs to be covered in some way and it would be helpful if my hon. Friend the Minister would say something about it.

Another environmental problem has been with us for a long time. When I represented the constituency of Meriden, which included Birmingham airport, I regularly had complaints from people living under the flight path that their gardens were not best served by being sprayed with unburnt paraffin. I do not believe that the order covers that, but even efficient modern engines produce a great deal of black smoke on take-off which I understand is unburnt aviation paraffin. It is thoroughly unpleasant and unlikely to do the plants much good—I am not aware that it is an especially effective fertiliser—so perhaps my hon. Friend will also deal with that.

Finally, perhaps my hon. Friend will give some "for instances." I will give an example of what I have in mind. A very popular British aeroplane flying with British Caledonian, our No. 2 airline — I say that purely in terms of size, by comparison with British Airways—and with many other airlines is the BAC 1–11. Presumably if the Spey engines are hush-kitted, that aircraft will meet all future noise regulations, but how viable is that proposition?

The Spey engine also powers the Trident airliner. which is being phased out of British Airways but forms equipment in certain second-line airlines and w ill not necessarily be scrapped. Is it viable to fit hush kits on the Spey engines of the British Airways Trident 3 which in terms of airframe and avionics could have a reasonable life ahead after being phased out of British Airways? If it will cost a small fortune to meet the noise regulations, that may put a different complexion on its prospects. I am sure that my hon. Friend the Minister accepts that there is now a good and constructive growth not only in second-line but in third-line airlines in this country and elsewhere. Those airlines are likely to be interested in just this type of secondhand aircraft if the price is reasonable and its performance and economy and the viability of fitting the appropriate hush kits make sense.

Perhaps my hon. Friend will give us some hard information about how the order will operate in those respects.

11.53 pm

Mr. John Wilkinson (Ruislip-Northwood)

I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Ashford (Mr. Speed) that it would help to have more specific instances of the actual impact of the noise regulations.

Article 4(a) covers the whole gamut of ordinary general aviation piston-engine aeroplanes such as the Cessna 421 Golden Eagle, the 404, the 414, Beech Baron, Piper Navajo and so on. Am I right in thinking that that provision will not impose limitations on the operations of those aircraft in international standard atmosphere conditions? This is important as those aircraft are used not only for corporate and business aviation, executive flying and general aviation purposes, but, as their all-up weight is less than 12,500 lb, or 5,700 kg, private pilots may also fly them. I should like my hon. Friend to give us a reassurance that nothing in the order will impinge adversely on British general aviation as far as piston-engine powered aircraft are concerned.

Article 4(b) is a cleverly drafted provision. Article 6(8) has the limitation of a sub-paragraph, which seems to imply clearly to me that it refers to a notional supersonic commercial airplane. I cannot see any commercial airplane for which the authorities of the State of manufacture received an application for a certificate of airworthiness before 1st January 1975 and did not reject that application and in respect of which a certificate of airworthiness was first issued on or after 26th November 1981". Concorde received its certificate of airworthiness well before that date and came into operation with British Airways and Air France in 1977 and the TU144 was also certificated in its country of manufacture, the Soviet Union, well before the specified date. In the state of the art, I suggest that this is a notional sub-paragraph.

As to article 4(c), I doubt that people will be worried about the few microlights that occasionally buzz over their houses. It is interesting and important that we mention this category of aircraft, because it is relatively novel and there have to be airworthiness provisions. With respect to my hon. Friend the Member for Ashford it does not come under the terms of the order. This is a noise certification order.

Article 4(d) is an interesting provision, and I require my hon. Friend the Minister to give more information. On the face of it, it would cover most civil jets and large piston-powered airplanes, because most of them have a take-off distance in still air of more than 610m. As the primary noise regulation is not to come into effect until 1 January 1985, the regulations under article 4(d) will not in practice have any effect on the BAC 1–11 whether or not they are hush-kitted, or Tridents Two or Three which are still in operation. The Boeing 727 and the F28s constitute the major problem in the airliner sector.

A fundamental and important point implicit in the regulations on noise, to which the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, East (Mr. Prescott) referred, is that the noise certification being imposed by Governments is becoming increasingly strict, so that in realistic terms we can no longer regard noise as the primary determinant of airport location. There was a time when we could, and we had the hare-brained scheme of putting concrete on mud in the Maplin sands, and recently the idea of placing a major international airport at Stansted, far away from the centre of population that that airport for the London area is designed to serve.

Noise certification is so strict, and the technical advances are such that with the increasing number of turboprop aircraft and quiet, high bypass ratio turbo fan engines coming into service, noise is no longer a primary determinant of airport location. That seems to show that the Government should look seriously at raising the upper limit of 275,000 movements a year to Heathrow airport, particularly as some of the aircraft coming into Heathrow are ones to which the order would apply — general aviation aircraft and commuter airplanes. Such aircraft are increasing the number of movements without disturbing the surrounding population very much. When we later debate airports, bearing in mind this order, we shall disregard noise to a greater extent than we would have done in the past. I hope that we would look more favourably upon a fifth terminal at Heathrow than we did in days gone by.

12 midnight

Mr. Stephen Ross (Isle of Wight)

I am tempted to rise to my feet by the speech of the hon. Member for Ruislip-Northwood (Mr. Wilkinson), who has a certain amount of courage. I remember some years ago Sir John Nott announcing the Stanstead inquiry, and I asked whether, with Stanstead airport taking over 16 million passengers, possibly increasing to 30 million, it would not be better to have a fifth terminal at Heathrow airport. Thereupon all the Minister's colleagues from Richmond, Kingston upon Thames and elsewhere rose to their feet, and ever since the proposition has been used against every Liberal candidate in general elections in Richmond and all points nearby. I assure the hon. Member for Ruislip-Northwood that I shall quote his speech to some of my colleagues. However, I acknowledge that he spoke honestly.

I wish to speak mainly because, dressed as I am, I have been to the Aerodrome Owners Association dinner tonight. Other hon. Members left early to vote here, but I stayed to listen to the speech of the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry. He quoted some interesting figures on aircraft noise, and showed that during the past five or 10 years there have been great achievements in reducing aircraft noise. I have to answer many questions on microlights. Therefore, I welcome what has been said about microlights tonight, because the Isle of Wight was one of the places where microlights were developed, and I believe that the Department took advice from one of my constituents in drafting the regulations. It would be helpful if the Minister would put on record tonight what has been achieved in the reduction of aircraft noise. This relates to the speech of the hon. Member for Ruislip-Northwood, because there has been such a reduction at Heathrow, which allows for an increase in movements and the possibility of a fifth terminal.

12.2 am

Mr. Rob Hayward (Kingswood)

I do not wish to extend the debate for longer than is necessary, despite the fact that I would have wished to make some comments about microlights, since I have had discussions with a British microlight manufacturer today.

I wish to ask my hon. Friend the Minister a specific question that has not yet been posed, relating to paragraph 7 (1) and (2). There is a requirement that the registration certificate should be carried in the plane at all times. I do not understand why, as long as the plane has a registration certificate in the United Kingdom, it should not be readily available at the aerodrome or the base rather than be carried in the plane at all times. I hope that my hon. Friend can clarify that matter.

12.3 am

Dr. Alan Glyn (Windsor and Maidenhead)

Although I accept that the order is of benefit to all of us, I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister will not use it as an excuse —as I said to the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, East (Mr. Prescott) —for an increase in movements at Heathrow. Most hon. Members whose constituencies are under the flight path regard the movements of aircraft in and out of Heathrow as being the maximum that can be endured by those who live there.

12.4 am

Mr. David Mitchell

The House has had an interesting, short debate on this matter, which has demonstrated not only the breadth of matters covered by the order, but the breadth of associated interests in the problem of aircraft noise, which affects many hon. Members' constituencies.

The hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, East (Mr. Prescott) generally welcomed the order, especially the reference to microlights, and he asked why we had not covered helicopters. This is a matter for urgent consideration when the CAN 7 standards have been finally adopted by ICAO, which is expected in about 12 months' time. There will have to be further arrangements in that connection. The level of fines was reviewed two years ago. If the hon. Member feels that they are not sufficient, I am prepared to examine them further.

The hon. Gentleman raised the problem of the order being related to existing designs, and asked whether there might be new supersonic designs in future. We do not know of any plans by anyone as yet to make a new supersonic transport of that sort. If one were planned, ICAO would step in and formulate a new standard. While the hon. Gentleman has legitimately raised the point, he may feel that it need not concern the House further.

The hon. Gentleman mentioned a series of matters, such as the Civil Aviation Authority's review of British Airways and other operators' share of the market, the problems of privatisation, the introduction of private sector capital into the airports and the limit of 275,000 at Heathrow. The hon. Gentleman has demonstrated as the Secretary of State so clearly perceived, that the problems inter-relate. It is therefore necessary to stand back and look at them in the round before coming to specific decisions, because one might well find that one was taking decisions which in isolation appeared to be right, but which, when seen in the broader context, had unfortunate side effects.

The hon. Gentleman asked about the 275,000 limit, a point that was raised by other hon. Members. There is no present limit on the number of movements at Heathrow. The Government have stated that a limit of 275,000 air transport movements per annum will be imposed when the fourth terminal is opened at the airport in late 1985. We are currently considering how this limit should be implemented.

Mr. Wilkinson

May I ask the Minister to amplify the statement that he has made, because it seems extraordinary? Is the Minister saying that, until the fourth terminal becomes operational, there is no upper limit? Is he saying that, so long as the passenger handling facilities remain relatively limited, the airlines can pour in any number of movements beyond the airport's capacity to handle them, but that, once the fourth terminal is operational, an arbitrary upper limit of 275,000 will be imposed? If that is the case, it seems distinctly odd.

Mr. Mitchell

My hon. Friend has put his finger on a somewhat ironic situation. He is correct in at least part of what he says. He is not correct in saying that the capacity at Heathrow will be exceeded. He is correct in saying that there is no legal limitation. There is a capacity limitation only, which is considerably higher than 275,000 movements and, when the fourth terminal comes into operation, there will be a reduction, if 275,000 movements have been exceeded, to 275,000 movements.

Mr. Jeremy Hanley (Richmond and Barnes)

Does the Minister not agree that the inspector appointed to hold the fourth terminal inquiry stated that 260,000 should be the upper limit for aircraft movements?

Mr. Mitchell

I did not occupy my present position at the time of that inquiry. I am not aware of the figure given by my hon. Friend, but I shall write to him to set out the precise circumstances relating to it. It is my understanding that 275,000 is the figure that followed after, and became part of the decision related to the consent for the fourth terminal.

Mr. Prescott

Is the Minister saying that when T4 comes on stream in 1985, if the flight movements have exceeded 275,000, it will be Government policy to reduce those movements back to 275,000?

Mr. Mitchell

Broadly speaking, the hon. Gentleman is setting out the position.

In giving approval to the Belfast service, the Government said that the problem of the 275,000 movements limitation would have to lead to a review of the position overall. But we would not single out a particular service to be subject to a restriction.

Mr. Prescott

The Minister is being misleading. I put the point as clearly as I could. Is he now saying that the 275,000 movement limitation is likely to be part of the CAA review?

Mr. Mitchell

The hon. Gentleman misunderstood me. I said that because of the potential for exceeding the 275,000 limit, when the Belfast approval appeal was turned down we said that any—not specifically Belfast —of the existing movements might have to be reviewd if they exceeded 275,000 at the time that the T4 began operation. We do not know whether that figure will be exceeded, but there is clearly a potential for doing so.

Mr. Wilkinson

This is at extremely important point. Can my hon. Friend explain to the House how, if the number of movements increase beyond 275,000 a year before T4 becomes operational, it will be decided which operators will take their services out of Heathrow once T4 is operational so that the number will come below the 275,000 ceiling? On the face of it, it is an arbitrary and difficult operation that could lead to all sorts of problems.

Mr. Mitchell

That is precisely why I said earlier that my right hon. Friend was reviewing the matter and considering how the limit would be implemented. I cannot go any further tonight.

The hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, East asked whether there was capacity in excess of the environmental limit and whether the Government plan to alter that limit. Yes, there is capacity in excess of the limit, but we have given our undertaking that that limit will be observed at the time that T4 comes into use. Until then, there is no such limitation.

My hon. Friend the Member for Ashford (Mr. Speed) referred to microlights, and the safety aspects as well as the noise aspects. The Civil Aviation Authority is keeping safety standards under review. I am especially pleased that it is one area where the sport itself is regulating the standards. That is the right way to move because, by its nature, the people in the sport know more about it than can a major organisation covering the whole of aviation safety. Of course, the cost factor is important for those concerned with that and other sports. I am pleased to see that it is not only in this, but in other areas of sporting activity, that the Civil Aviation Authority is delegating work to those with a specialised knowledge of the sport concerned.

I have not before had my attention drawn to the question of unburnt paraffin, so I shall have to answer my hon. Friend the Member for Ashford in writing.

As for the viability of hush-kitting, I understand that it costs about £200,000 for the type of aircraft to which my hon. Friend the Member for Ashford referred. It brings them within the limitation of chapter 2—the noisier of the two chapters in relation to accepted noise—though it makes them slightly less fuel-efficient. It is, of course, for the users to decide on commercial grounds the relative merits of that as against a new aircraft, and a number of operators have taken the view that a new aircraft is a more viable proposition. Clearly, there will be trading down, a cascading down, to other operators who will be looking for a lower-cost operation and who will pick up these aircraft relatively cheaply.

My hon. Friend the Member for Ruislip-Northwood (Mr. Wilkinson) asked a number of technical questions, about which I will write to him. I understand that these provisions will not damage the operation of business aircraft, and I hope that that gives him some reassurance. He raised a fundamental point when he said that noise should no longer be the deciding factor on the location of a new airport, and he instanced the degree of technical advance in noise control, went on to discuss the potential for raising the 275,000 limit and on to the verge of a question about which I am sure he knows I cannot comment, in connection with a potential third London airport.

The hon. Member for Isle of Wight (Mr. Ross), after paying tribute to the courage of my hon. Friends, asked me to note the extent of advance in the reduction of noise in recent years. I confirm that, and I pay tribute to those who have been involved in the technological advance that has made that possible. While they have been dealing with engineering and technical questions, they have been helping to make life much more acceptable in environmental terms for those who live in the immediate vicinity of airports.

My hon. Friend the Member for Kingswood (Mr. Hayward) asked whether the noise certificate had to be carried in the plane. It need not be so carried when the flight begins and ends at the same airport. When it does not, we think it right that it should be able to be produced.

My hon. Friend the Member for Windsor and Maidenhead (Dr. Glyn) begged me not to use these regulations as an excuse for tampering with the 275,000 limitation. I am well aware that he is a forthright spokesman on behalf of his constituents who live in the vicinity of Heathrow and who are affected by the local noise. I assure him that the commitment to the 275,000 limit remains to be brought into effect at the time of the introduction of the fourth terminal.

I hope that I have covered all the points that were raised by hon. Members and that the House will now agree to pass the order.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved, That the draft Air Navigation (Noise Certification) Order 1984, which was laid down before this House on 1st February, be approved.

c948
1. TRADE MARKS ACT 1938 (AMENDMENT) BILL [MONEY] 62 words
c948
2. AGRICULTURE (AMENDMENT) BILL [MONEY] 78 words
c948
3. ANATOMY BILL [MONEY] 69 words