Air Navigation (Environmental Standards) Order 2002

HL Deb 14 February 2002 vol 631 cc1212-5

1.14 p.m.

Lord Filkin rose to move, That the draft order laid before the House on 17th January be approved [17th Report from the Joint Committee].

The noble Lord said: My Lords, I am grateful for the opportunity to introduce the Air Navigation (Environmental Standards) Order 2002. I hope that, despite its technical nature, it will not be necessary to take up too much of the House's time in dealing with it.

The order introduces new requirements to limit noise from light helicopters and microlights and emissions of carbon monoxide and oxides of nitrogen from subsonic jets. It also consolidates existing requirements to limit noise from new supersonic aircraft types and emissions of smoke and unburned hydrocarbons from jet aircraft and to prevent intentional fuel venting during normal operations. The order does not affect noise standards from subsonic jet aircraft or from propeller-driven aircraft: those are covered by the Aeroplane Noise Regulations 1999.

The problem of aircraft noise is not confined just to jet aircraft at major airports such as Heathrow. Noise from aircraft such as helicopters and microlights using local airfields can also cause discomfort and misery for local residents, especially in the summer months. It is important that that nuisance be minimised. That can be achieved, at least in part, by ensuring that effective standards are set to limit noise from such aircraft. That is what the order does.

Gaseous emissions from aircraft can affect local air quality and contribute to climate change. Air traffic increases are likely to exacerbate those effects. It therefore makes sense to limit the pollutants from aviation. The UK's Kyoto target of reducing greenhouse gas emissions by 12.5 per cent below 1990 levels by 2008–12 includes emissions from domestic aviation. The standards in the order will help us to meet that target and the EU limit value for oxides of nitrogen that will be mandatory in 2010.

All the new requirements in the order are recommended by the International Civil Aviation Organisation, with the exception of the new noise limitation standards for microlights, an aircraft type for which there are no internationally agreed standards. My department and the Department of Trade and Industry played a full part in helping to ensure that the recommendations were technically feasible and economically reasonable, as well as environmentally beneficial. In the case of microlight noise, there are national standards in the UK and some European countries. The order tightens existing UK standards and brings them closer into line with those in Europe.

The requirements of the order have been the subject of consultation with representatives of industry and users to ensure that they will not impose an unjustifiable or unreasonable burden on those affected and that aircraft produced in the UK will be able fully to meet them if they do not already do so. Aircraft manufactured and operated to ICAO standards can be sold and operated freely in most—if not all—of the 187 member countries of ICAO. I am confident that: the order will be neither burdensome nor, I hope, controversial. I commend the order to the House.

Moved, That the draft order laid before the House on 17th January be approved [17th Report from the Joint Committee].—(Lord Filkin.)

Baroness Anelay of St Johns

My Lords, on these Benches, we support the order and agree with the Minister that it should not be controversial.

I welcome the Minister's remarks about microlights. It is always important to balance the development of the sport and leisure industry, making sure that there is no undue regulation, with the importance of ensuring that local residents are not unduly adversely affected by the development of a leisure facility. The provisions of the order serve the interests of micro light users and local residents well.

Lord Bradshaw

My Lords, we also support the order, although one would need a degree as a senior wrangler to qualify the formula that is set out in the papers. I take the noble Lord's assurance that it is right.

Lord Clinton-Davis

My Lords, as president of the British Airline Pilots Association, I welcome the order. I suppose that it is always incumbent on me to declare my interest whenever aviation matters arise.

It is important that environmental considerations be fully taken into account when we consider the advance of British aviation. The difficulties that have been met so far have been attributed to two factors: there was something of a recession before 11th September, and it has been exacerbated by the events of that day. I do not think, however, that we should take our eye off the ball as far as concerns the order. It is tremendously important that people who live around our major airports know that the Government take environmental issues seriously. I believe that this order demonstrates that fact.

As a former aviation Minister and Transport Commissioner, perhaps I may point out that, in my view, the CAA carries out a superlative job. The more we can pay tribute to that organisation the better. The measure put before us today by the Government is really of tremendous importance. I should like to raise a few queries about Article 15(1), which says: Within a reasonable time after being requested to do so by the CAA or an authorised person", certain events should take place as regards the commander of an aircraft. I do not ask my noble friend the Minister to be wholly specific on the matter. but can he say what he has in mind by the words "a reasonable time"? Further, can he say who such an "authorised person" would be? Presumably, the CAA does not have jurisdiction over all airports and it is possible that that situation is covered by the mention of an "authorised person". I do not know the answer, but I believe my noble friend has that information. I call upon him to substantiate the definition before the House.

Leaving those points aside, I believe that the order before the House today is a measure that deserves wholehearted support.

Lord Filkin

My Lords, I am grateful for the support that this order has received from all sides of the House. The noble Baroness, Lady Anelay of St Johns, is quite right: we have to strike a balance between regulation to protect the public and the interests of the industry. I believe that that has been achieved on the micro] ight standards. We are discussing an important growth industry for Britain.

The noble Lord, Lord Bradshaw, commented that one needed "senior wrangler" status, which. I admit, I do not possess, to understand the formula. Indeed, as is often the case, it is probably true to say that you also need that when reading other parts of the order. Nevertheless, I welcome the noble Lord's backing for the measure.

The House recognises the depth of experience of my noble friend Lord Clinton-Davis, derived from his time as a former aviation Minister and as a transport commissioner in Europe. He affirmed the importance of good environmental standards—a view that is broadly shared—and asked some interesting, but difficult, questions about Article 15. He asked, first, what was the "reasonable time" within which the commander of an aircraft should produce to the CAA a noise certificate to demonstrate that he was in compliance with the terms of the order. I should tell the House that it will vary with the circumstances. If the aircraft were stationed at its home base, it would have to be a shorter period of time. However, if, for example, it were a foreign aircraft originating in another country, one would expect there to be a longer time limit. The aim is simply to clarify the state of the aircraft as quickly as is reasonably practicable, or, put another way, "in a reasonable time"; that is, the time that a reasonable person or organisation would take to supply the document, which, perhaps, takes it slightly circularly.

With regard to my noble friend's second point regarding who an "authorised person" would be, this is defined in Article 3 of the order as, any constable and any person authorised by the CAA". Again, one finds oneself in circles. When I asked a civil servant who might be so authorised by the CAA, he replied "Me". That seemed to me to be a fairly good example of what one would expect; in other words, a relevant official for such purposes.

This order will strengthen environmental protection from aviation. It will help keep the UK abreast of the latest ICAO technical recommendations on aircraft noise and emissions. It will also help UK aircraft and engine manufacturers to sell overseas, as well as rationalising our domestic regulation for limiting the environmental impact of aviation.

Much work has been carried out to minimise, as far as possible, the environmental impact of aviation. As a government, we believe that more needs to be done; and much work to that end is in train, as part of the promised White Paper on developing our civil aviation policy that we intend to publish by the end of this year. The order is a modest but worthwhile contribution to the continuing effort to improve aviation in the meantime. I commend the order to the House.

On Question, Motion agreed to.