The
Committee consisted of the following
Members:
†
Betts,
Mr. Clive
(Sheffield, Attercliffe)
(Lab)
†
Brazier,
Mr. Julian
(Canterbury)
(Con)
†
Cunningham,
Tony
(Lord Commissioner of Her Majesty's
Treasury)
†
Dobbin,
Jim
(Heywood and Middleton)
(Lab/Co-op)
†
Fitzpatrick,
Jim
(Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for
Transport)
†
Flello,
Mr. Robert
(Stoke-on-Trent, South)
(Lab)
†
Hill,
Keith
(Streatham)
(Lab)
†
Hollobone,
Mr. Philip
(Kettering)
(Con)
†
Hunter,
Mark
(Cheadle)
(LD)
Leech,
Mr. John
(Manchester, Withington)
(LD)
Steen,
Mr. Anthony
(Totnes)
(Con)
†
Stringer,
Graham
(Manchester, Blackley)
(Lab)
†
Wright,
Jeremy
(Rugby and Kenilworth)
(Con)
Hannah Weston, Committee
Clerk
† attended the
Committee
European
Committee A
Tuesday 7
October
2008
[Mr.
Joe Benton
in the
Chair]
Single European Sky II and Aviation Safety
4.30
pm
The
Chairman:
I call a member of the European Scrutiny
Committee to make a brief explanatory
statement.
Keith
Hill (Streatham) (Lab): It is, as ever, a pleasure to
serve under your chairmanship, Mr. Benton. It
might help the Committee if I explain briefly the background to these
documents and the reasons why the European Scrutiny Committee
recommended them for debate in the European Committee.
The single
European sky was established in 2004 to facilitate a single market in
air transport. The single European sky air traffic management research
programme—SESAR—which is
the
“new
generation European air traffic management
system”,
is
seen as the industry-led implementation programme for the single
European sky, and is designed to complement the existing regulatory
framework and to facilitate the implementation of new technology in the
field of air traffic management. The European Aviation Safety Agency
was established in 2002. EASA is an independent Community body with a
legal personality and autonomy in legal, administrative and financial
matters. The Commission sees it as a necessary complement to
establishing the single European sky.
The four
documents that we recommended for debate mark an important stage in the
development of the Community’s common aviation area. The
Commission communication sets out briefly its proposals, in the shape
of four pillars, for developing the single European sky. The first
pillar is concerned with “regulating performance”, and
its main component is the draft regulation to amend the single European
sky regulations. The second pillar is concerned with “a single
safety framework”. Its main components are a call for
overlapping safety regulatory structures to be united under a single
Community safety regulatory framework, and the draft regulation to
extend the EASA remit.
The third
pillar is concerned with
“opening the
door to new
technologies”—
that
is, progress on SESAR. The Commission staff working document that
accompanies the communication is the SESAR master plan. It marks the
end of the definition phase and triggers the development phase. The
fourth pillar is concerned with
“managing
capacity on the
ground”—
that
is, airport capacity, efficiency and safety.
The documents
and the single European sky concept itself cover a variety of matters,
many of which the European Scrutiny Committee believes that hon.
Members will wish to discuss with the Minister. They may wish to
explore progress on implanting the single European sky generally, but
we have drawn particular attention to the
Government’s comments on aspects of the draft regulation amending
the single European sky legislative framework, and to the next
developments on SESAR—that is, the development
phase.
4.33
pm
The
Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Jim
Fitzpatrick):
I agree with my right hon. Friend the Member
for Streatham that it is a pleasure to see you in the Chair,
Mr. Benton.
The primary
purpose of the second European sky package is to promote the efficient
use of European airspace and to strengthen aviation safety, building on
the progress made under the European Community’s first single
European sky initiative. The package includes proposals to revise the
existing single European sky regulations, establish a performance
framework for European air traffic management and extend the
responsibilities of the European Aviation Safety Agency. The package
aims to create an altogether more efficient European air traffic
network. It will make better use of ground capacity and create more
direct routing by aligning the design of the network across Europe.
That will reduce fuel burn and emissions, and cut holding times and
associated noise and visual intrusion. The initiative is strongly
supported by the industry.
Before
discussing the contents of the package in more detail, I shall briefly
outline the background to the European single sky initiative. The first
single European sky package was established to address burgeoning
flight delays in the late 1990s across Europe. The UK Government have
been firm supporters of the initiative since its inception and have
been at the forefront of negotiations in all developments so
far.
The first
package aimed to improve and strengthen aviation safety, restructure
European airspace, to accommodate air traffic flow more efficiently and
cost-effectively without the constraints imposed by national borders,
and create a uniform and interoperable air traffic management system.
The single sky committee, comprising civil and military representatives
from member states, was established to support the process and it has
been working with the Commission to develop a range of implementing
measures on issues such as the requirements for air traffic service
providers, charging and airspace design.
The
Commission was obliged under the first single European sky package to
review progress after three years, a task that it completed in 2007.
Eurocontrol’s performance review commission also evaluated
progress made under single European sky I and published its conclusions
in 2006. The reports were considered alongside those of the high-level
group, a body established by Commissioner Barrot to make
recommendations on how to improve the regulatory framework for European
air traffic
management.
The
results of the three reports, together with opinions gained during a
series of high-level conferences, led the Commission to produce the SES
II package. It consists of four pillars, as mentioned by my right hon.
Friend. The first is concerned
with
“improving
the performance of the European ATM
network”,
which
is the air traffic management network. It consists of the draft
regulation to amend the four founding single European sky regulations
and establish a performance
framework. The main focus is the introduction of a performance scheme
for the air traffic management system, the objective being to establish
high-level EU-wide targets in a number of key performance areas:
safety, cost-effectiveness, delays, and flight efficiency/environmental
impact. They are in line with principles established by the
International Civil Aviation Organisation and are likely to expand over
time as more data becomes available and the performance scheme becomes
more
mature.
Local
or regional functional airspace block plans will be developed by the
appropriate regulatory authorities to meet these targets and the
Commission will ensure consistency of the plans through a rigorous
process of negotiation with the member states and the proposed
performance review body. An additional objective is the establishment
of a network management function, to ensure that individual local
alterations to the route structure are co-ordinated across Europe,
thereby producing the most efficient and cost-effective structure for
our airlines. It would be sensible to utilise the undoubted expertise
that exists in Eurocontrol, which currently performs part of this role.
However, that would be conditional on reform within the agency to meet
fully the needs of the SES. A number of other areas are covered in
these proposals, and the UK has adopted an approach of consultation
with stakeholders to ensure that the most appropriate negotiating
strategy is taken
forward.
The
second pillar is concerned with establishing a clear framework for
aviation safety. The package includes a regulatory proposal to extend
the remit of the European Aviation Safety Agency to the safety of
aerodromes, air traffic management and air navigation services. This
will help to simplify the current regulatory structure, whereby
responsibility for the safety regulation of ATM is shared between
national aviation authorities, Eurocontrol and the European Commission.
It will also establish EASA—I hope that my right hon. Friend
does not mind my pronouncing it differently to him, and in any case it
will appear the same in Hansard, so we here are the only ones
who will know the difference—as the Community’s single
safety regulator, able to take a “total system approach”
to safety, ensuring no gaps or overlaps in the regulatory
regime.
The
Government have consistently supported the EASA system as part of our
commitment to a high, uniform level of aviation safety in Europe. A
genuine European single market in air transport services calls for
common safety rules and consistent implementation across member states.
We are committed to the principle of extending the remit of the agency
on a measured basis into new areas of aviation safety.
In 2003, EASA
was given responsibility for airworthiness issues, and in April its
role was extended to include setting the rules relating to air
operations. We support its extension in due course to aerodrome and air
traffic movement safety, provided it has the necessary resources for
the task. The Government will continue to work with the Civil Aviation
Authority and EU institutions to ensure that EASA, operating in
partnership with national aviation authorities, delivers a highly
effective regulatory system.
The third
pillar is concerned with
“opening the
door to new
technologies”,
principally
the SESAR project. SESAR was launched in 2006 to produce a
“Master Plan for
European Air Traffic
Management”
and
is a joint undertaking between the EU, Eurocontrol and industry.
Financial contributions from the EU and Eurocontrol amount to
€700 million each, with industry bodies more than matching that
effort. That plan was delivered in March and the resolution will be put
to the Transport Council for approval on 9 October 2008. Over its two
remaining phases, SESAR will deliver technology and processes to fulfil
the plan for European air traffic management in 2020. The development
of new technologies will begin in approximately five years.
The second
pillar of the SES II package reasserts that modernisation of the
European air traffic management system through the SESAR project needs
to be supported to allow future traffic growth to be absorbed and that
successful implementation of the SESAR master plan is a collective
responsibility that demands the commitment of the whole aviation
community.
The fourth
pillar is concerned with
“managing
capacity on the ground”.
In that section, the
Commission notes that the European Parliament and the Council have
endorsed its communication, “An action plan for airport
capacity, efficiency and safety in Europe” and states that the
new technologies derived from SESAR will increase the efficiency of
airport operations. The Commission states that it will propose measures
to ensure consistency between airport slots and flight plans and
proposes to set up an
observatory
“composed
of Member States, relevant authorities and stakeholders, to exchange
and monitor data and information on airport capacity as a
whole.”
The observatory will
also offer advise on network management
tasks.
With
regard to timing, the French presidency has indicated that it intends
to pursue the first of those pillars—amending the founding SES
regulations to improve the performance of the air traffic management
system—as its greatest priority and will aim for a Council
common position by the end of the year. The presidency has afforded a
lower priority to the second pillar of aviation safety matters, with
Council discussions not scheduled until later in the autumn.
In
conclusion, we are satisfied that the Commission’s proposal,
with some detailed amendments, will deliver a proportionate regulatory
structure and improve the performance of the European ATM system. The
air transport industry in the UK supports the shift of focus towards
performance and has responded positively to
consultation.
The
Chairman:
We now have until 5.30 pm for questions to the
Minister, which should be brief. It is open to any Member, subject to
my discretion, to ask a series of related
questions.
Mr.
Julian Brazier (Canterbury) (Con): It is a pleasure to
serve under your chairmanship, Mr. Benton, as we
discuss this extremely complicated package. My first three questions
are linked. Document 3 states, on page 34, that the European
Parliament and Council have endorsed
“an action plan
for airport capacity, efficiency and safety in
Europe.”
It states that the
necessary investment in airport capacity needs to be made to
accommodate growing demand for air traffic and that airport capacity
needs to be aligned with ATM capacity. Will the Minister assure us that
acceptance of these latest proposals will not force this country into
any particular programme of airport
expansion?
Jim
Fitzpatrick:
The proposals are designed to deal with the
anticipated growth of aviation capacity worldwide, and certainly
Europe-wide, in the immediate future. Figures have been clearly laid
out on the expected expansion across Europe.
In our 2003
aviation White Paper, we outlined the anticipated expansion in the UK.
Furthermore, as the hon. Gentleman knows, on 27 February a consultation
on additional capacity at Heathrow, which received some 70,000
responses, reached its conclusion. The Government support additional
air capacity at Heathrow, Stansted and other UK
airports—measures that are neither in conflict, nor centrally
involved with the proposals before us. However, their general thrust is
to make aviation more efficient and ensure that its traverse across
European skies is as fuel efficient as possible. So there is linkage,
but endorsement of the proposals will not signal that the Conservative
party has changed its mind since 29 September and is now supporting
additional capacity at Heathrow, although on 30 September the leader of
the party did not quite put it that
way.
Mr.
Brazier:
I am sure that you would reprove me,
Mr. Benton, if I allowed the Minister to seduce
me down the path of debating Heathrow. He knows where we are coming
from and we know where he is coming from. However, I bring him back to
the extent to which the documents could fetter future decisions. The
Commission communication
“suggests
measures to improve the planning process of new airport infrastructure
and calls for improvements to surface access and says it is considering
a strengthening of Community noise rules at
airports”.
The
Minister knows that we support the overall idea behind the
proposals—I shall come on to that when I make my
speech—and measures to give us greater control over noise.
However, the quote that I gave in my first question and this one
suggest that the document could significantly constrain the Government
in the planning process. Will he be more specific about his earlier
answer?
Jim
Fitzpatrick:
I apologise for teasing the hon. Gentleman;
he knows that no offence was intended. The EU has no locus or role in
local and national planning decisions. Those are decisions for the UK
Government, not for this
paper.
Mr.
Brazier:
With that firm assurance, I do not need to put my
third
question.
Graham
Stringer (Manchester, Blackley) (Lab): On the second
pillar, will my hon. Friend tell us what improvements in aircraft
safety have been made since the programme
started?
Jim
Fitzpatrick:
I am not in a position to offer my hon.
Friend specific details, but as he knows, given that the programme has
been in gestation for some years, aviation safety is a moveable feast.
New aircraft have
been designed and brought into service—the A380 is one of the
largest, but the Bombardier CSeries is another. Safety is always high
on the agenda of aviation engineers, so improvements will have been
made over the years since it started being discussed. However, if he
wants specific details, I shall have to get back to
him.
Graham
Stringer:
As far as I am aware—perhaps my hon.
Friend can correct me—although planes might be safer because of
technological improvements, there have been no regulatory improvements.
Is it not the case that, while discussions about setting up the
European regulatory system have been going on, we have actually been
moving towards a lowest common denominator for European air
safety?
Jim
Fitzpatrick:
I do not accept that; my hon. Friend knows
that all Governments, and certainly the UK Government, treat safety as
one of their top priorities. This is not about reducing safety to the
lowest common denominator. If anything, I suggest that the reverse is
true. We are trying to ensure consistency across Europe on safety
procedures and standards. I am sure that he realises that harmonising
existing safety rules and continuing to try to ensure common standards,
training methods and so on ought to ensure greater familiarity in the
industry and lead to greater safety overall. EASA delivered the
certification for the Airbus 380, so it clearly played a role. More
efficient processes for industry and harmonisation across the EU, where
previously there were multifarious national standards, training methods
and procedure will lead to a better understanding. Understanding and
informed processes are part of safety’s success
story.
Graham
Stringer:
This is my last question on this issue. My hon.
Friend is making a good fist of a difficult point. I am happy to be
corrected, but as far as I am aware, the investigation after the 1985
air disaster at Manchester airport resulted in a number of
recommendations on space, bulkheads and where seats on the aeroplane
should face, and none has been implemented. I believe that one of the
reasons is that discussions have been taking place at the European
level to try to bring southern air standards up to the general level.
That has not helped the British aviation industry at all. I should be
grateful for his
comments.
Jim
Fitzpatrick:
I am not sure that I accept my hon.
Friend’s contention that the recommendations after the
Manchester disaster were not taken on board. When I visited our
research establishment for aviation safety some five or six months ago,
the people there were very proud of the research that they had
undertaken into that and several similar disasters around the world.
They could not work out why, although training exercises for the
evacuation of aircraft had proceeded smoothly, multiple lives were lost
in Manchester and other disasters.
It took them
some time to devise a method for injecting greater realism into
evacuation procedures. When they filled the plane, just before the
evacuation procedure, they told the guinea pigs inside that the first
10 people off the aircraft would get £10. That automatically
recreated the congestion found at the bulkheads and the wing exits, and
they determined that one way to improve evacuation was to increase the
size of the wing exits, as
well as accepting some of the other recommendations that my hon. Friend
mentioned. Although some aspects might not have been taken fully on
board—I will take advice on that—some recommendations
certainly were. In terms of creating a European safety regime, the
Government are committed to ensuring that the safest possible
arrangements are in place for those who have to or choose to travel by
air.
Mark
Hunter (Cheadle) (LD): It is a pleasure to serve under
your chairmanship for this important discussion,
Mr. Benton. I shall probe the Minister on one
matter only; the rest of my comments I shall leave till
later.
As we have
heard, the single European sky agreement has many laudable objectives,
including introducing performance standards, modernising and improving
the interoperability of air navigation services and—the nub of
the question—setting a time limit of 2012, by which all member
states need to complete the functional airspace blocks. The functional
airspace blocks were originally agreed in 2004. What progress has been
achieved on creating them? What hitches and obstacles have resulted
in—I guess, expected—delays? Does he consider that the
2012 deadline is still realistic and viable? What action will the
Government take to expedite progress toward that
objective?
Jim
Fitzpatrick:
We have successfully introduced the
functional airspace block between ourselves and the Republic of
Ireland. We have entered into an agreement as a starting point, because
it will develop as communications improve and as arrangements develop
and mature in the years ahead. So that for which we were responsible
for has been completed. Although the other FABs do not directly concern
us, they will have an impact on UK flights because they will be
travelling through prospective airspace.
In direct
terms, the UK Government’s role is somewhat limited, but the new
FAB article acknowledges that FABs will be justified by their overall
value. The hon. Gentleman is right to say that the 2012 deadline is
challenging, but it may be that some ongoing initiatives will be
re-evaluated to see whether they can be brought forward by the
deadline. The 2012 deadline produces a pressure point and focuses the
minds of those who have been trying to negotiate the other FABs across
Europe. Once they are in being, those people will have to work harder
to ensure that progress is made, because the onus will be on them to
demonstrate best efforts, and we will expect
progress.
Mark
Hunter:
With the best will in the world, I guess that any
deadline helps to focus the minds of those who are charged with
ensuring that it is achieved. However, as the Minister has
acknowledged, our own functional airspace block—the one that
England and the Republic of Ireland are involved in—is pretty
pointless unless we have the rest of the building blocks in place
across Europe. In view of the limited progress within the wider EU in
which we play a full role—I appreciate that we have made
reasonable progress in this country—is the Minister still
satisfied that 2012 is realistic? That was the key part of the
question.
Jim
Fitzpatrick:
The date that has been suggested is
appropriate because it is expected that progress can be made and FABs
can be arrived at by then, but, as I said
in my initial comments, it is challenging. With regard to the area for
which we have responsibility with Ireland, we have demonstrated that it
is doable. Other FABs are in different positions and have made
additional progress. Some arrangements that are similar to FABs but are
not quite FABS may be converted. The fact that a deadline has been set
indicates, as the hon. Gentleman has mentioned, that we are not happy
with the slowness of progress, so we are imposing a deadline. Others
will have to demonstrate to us, to our satisfaction and the
Commission’s satisfaction, that progress has been made;
otherwise the matter will have to be
revisited.
Mr.
Philip Hollobone (Kettering) (Con): May I ask the Minister
the extent of the single European sky? What are the borders of the
area? Does it include non-EU countries? How far does it go out into the
Atlantic and into Africa, and to what extent is Russia
involved?
Jim
Fitzpatrick:
I will take advice on Russia, but the number
of states that it represents is 35, I believe, so it covers the 27 plus
surrounding states. It goes out as far as Iceland and takes in
Scandinavia and some of the eastern European countries. It is pretty
much the whole of the centre of Europe, but I will get back to the hon.
Gentleman in a moment on the question of
Russia.
Mr.
Hollobone:
May I press the point on Africa and out into
the Atlantic? Furthermore, in relation to Russia, what is the status of
Kaliningrad? I am not sure what the modern name of the place is, but I
am referring to the little Russian enclave next to the Baltic
states.
Jim
Fitzpatrick:
I am sorry that I do not have a specific
response to the hon. Gentleman in respect of the territory that he has
mentioned. If he will forgive me, I will come back to him later on in
the
debate.
Mr.
Hollobone:
I am sure that our constituents will be
concerned to know the extent to which this arrangement overlaps with,
or interferes with, military flights and military control of airspace.
Can the Minister reassure me that there will be no interference in RAF
air traffic movement control, especially with regard to the defence of
British
airspace?
Jim
Fitzpatrick:
I can give the hon. Gentleman that assurance.
The UK is in a more fortunate position than our European neighbours in
that UK military airspace is smaller in comparison. We have good
arrangements with the military. We think that the proposal may lead to
a revisiting of the amount of military airspace in other European
countries because, when considering the best, easiest and most
efficient way in which to get from point A to B, some military airspace
has been there for a considerable time and the proposal may provide the
opportunity to examine such matters to see whether it might require
movement in other countries.
Mr.
Hollobone:
Can the Minister confirm that there will be no
interference with civil or military aviation in respect of Gibraltar?
In the past, the Spanish authorities have been difficult on occasions
with regard to that airspace.
Jim
Fitzpatrick:
We are sensitive to the fact that Gibraltar
is operating as a military airport as well as a civil airport. We are
certain that the question whether military-run aerodromes such as
Gibraltar should be licensed to European standards will be negotiated.
We are not in any way, shape or form anxious about the impact of the
arrangements on Gibraltar, and that is exactly where we want to
go.
I
wish to correct my previous reference to 35 states being covered. The
number of states that the proposal will affect is 40, comprising 27
European Union states and 13 non-EU states. Russia is not included and
Kaliningrad is not in either category. That is the accurate position
about which I was not able to inform the hon. Gentleman
earlier.
Mr.
Hollobone:
Will the Minister confirm that under the
proposals no part of UK airspace will come under air traffic movement
control from non-UK nationals based in another EU country? In other
words, will Britain retain civil control over its civil
airspace?
Jim
Fitzpatrick:
I assure the hon. Gentleman categorically
that, under the Chicago convention, states retain the sovereign
responsibility for matters of their airspace management and
design.
Mr.
Hollobone:
What part of the proposals do the Government
regard as the
weakest?
Lord
Commissioner of Her Majesty's Treasury (Tony Cunningham):
Don’t tell
him.
Jim
Fitzpatrick:
My hon. Friend tells me from a sedentary
position not to tell the hon. Gentleman, but that would be wholly
inappropriate. “Can’t tell him” might be a much
more accurate answer. I am not sure that I recognise a point that is
the weakest. We were discussing the 2012 deadline and whether it is
realistic with the hon. Member for Cheadle. We are certainly committed
to the whole SES process. We support EASA, and we believe that the
proposal is in the interests of aviation, both for the operating
companies and for those who have to fly. It will help to challenge
climate change because it will lead to the more efficient operation of
aircraft with less fuel burn. In addition, there are attempts to make
sure that there is less annoyance factor. There is a number of reasons
why the proposals will be advantageous to
airlines.
I
am advised that the weakest proposal in the documents is the
observatory proposal, which I mentioned at the end of my speech.
However, we do not regard it as necessarily disadvantageous to the
United Kingdom. We are content to be moving along those
lines.
Mr.
Brazier:
What I have to say follows on from the question
that my hon. Friend asked about military airspace. Page 22 of document
2 covers the extension of EASA’s remit and the validation of
operational concepts governing a specified volume of airspace. How
would that impact on terminal control north, for example—a
deeply controversial set of proposals that I will return to in my
speech? Under the proposals, would EASA have the last word, or would it
be the architect of any such reorganisation in the
future?
Jim
Fitzpatrick:
As the hon. Gentleman knows, terminal control
north is under consideration at the moment. It is an important matter
for many parliamentary colleagues who have participated in the
consultation, as well as thousands of constituents and organisations. I
reiterate the response that I gave to the hon. Member for Kettering a
moment ago: UK airspace remains our sovereign responsibility under the
Chicago convention and the proposals will not conflict with that.
Sadly, at this stage I am not in a position to offer any further light
regarding terminal control
north.
Mr.
Brazier:
Besides the line that I cited, document 2 page 12
puts enormous emphasis on matters that we would all approve of, such as
planning to reduce fuel burn, noise and so on. Does the Minister say
that Britain, and Britain alone, would make the final assessment about
a terminal control north type of decision in the future once the
measure is
implemented?
Jim
Fitzpatrick:
The answer is
yes.
Mr.
Brazier:
In document 2, the fourth amendment proposed for
framework regulation states that, like the
CAA,
“NSAs
are to prepare national or regional performance plans with binding
targets, consistent with Community-wide performance
targets”.
It
goes on to say
that
“if
targets are not met, Member States are to apply ‘corrective
measures’”.
Would
any UK performance plan be laid before the
House?
Jim
Fitzpatrick:
I would be surprised if that were not the
case. The European Scrutiny Committee does an effective job of keeping
tabs on what the UK Government do vis-Ã -vis the Commission and
European partners. Should such an arrangement be felt appropriate, or
should the Government feel that the matter required debate on the Floor
of the House, or should the Opposition require dialogue, I would be
surprised if anything of significance were to slip past the Opposition
parties and not come before the House.
Mr.
Brazier:
It would be nice if the Minister could just say
yes. In the same answer, could he also specify what he thinks the
Commission has in mind when it refers to “corrective
measures”?
Jim
Fitzpatrick:
It is not as straightforward as the hon.
Gentleman suggests. Corrective measures will vary from one state to
another, depending on what needs to be corrected and what that will
require. In the UK, the Civil Aviation Authority regulates the air
traffic management system and ensures that NATS respects its
obligations. Because the CAA is the regulatory body and NATS is the
body that delivers the service, any question marks over the performance
of one or the other would, I imagine, be open for discussion. The
approval of such matters will be negotiated in due
course.
Mr.
Brazier:
We are to have a performance plan that we hope
will come before the House, but what happens if it goes wrong? Who will
decide on whether it has gone wrong, and who will decide on the
corrective measures?
Jim
Fitzpatrick:
The CAA will be responsible for overseeing
NATS, and the CAA will prepare plans in consultation with stakeholders.
Corrective measures must be agreed in the same fashion, and that is the
appropriate level of national responsibility with the
regulator.
Mr.
Brazier:
This might be an appropriate moment to return to
the good series of questions from the hon. Member for Manchester,
Blackley. I do not want to go down the route of discussing the
disaster, although I know that he has a particular interest from a
constituency and a professional
angle.
Earlier,
the Minister made a confident remark about EASA. That is a body of
growing competence, which I enjoyed visiting a year ago. Does he accept
that EASA is still undermanned and that it faces a recruitment problem
because of its unpopular location for British and French engineers?
Britain and France are the two main countries with expertise in this
field. Before we hand another raft of skills from the CAA and its
French counterparts to EASA, will the Minister set out what progress he
would like to see EASA make in its staffing, its competences and so
on?
Jim
Fitzpatrick:
In my opening statement, I said that
resources are an issue. To carry out the functions that will be
expected of it, EASA will need to be staffed up and must have the
appropriate resources to do the job. That is a matter for consideration
that will unfold in the months ahead. The hon. Gentleman has rightly
raised that concern, which we share. We will be watching that progress
because there is no point in empowering an organisation if it does not
have the wherewithal to do the
job.
The
Chairman:
Order. I want to move on and give other hon.
Members a chance. There will be an opportunity for the hon. Gentleman
to ask questions later
on.
Graham
Stringer:
May I follow up on the last question, Mr Benton?
The Transport Committee produced a report two or three years ago on
EASA, which was highly critical of its resources, its competence and
its structure. Will the Minister tell the Committee what progress has
been made since the Transport Committee made its
recommendations?
Jim
Fitzpatrick:
I have been advised that the agency has made
considerable progress since the Transport Committee report of 2006. In
particular, there have been improvements in its business planning, its
governance and its financial situation. The adoption of a new fees and
charges regulation in 2007 has stabilised the agency’s financial
situation, enabling it to produce a comprehensive business plan
covering the next five years. The agency’s governance has also
improved; it has developed a more effective partnership approach with
national aviation authorities and has set up sub-committees of the
management board to oversee its budget and certification activities. It
has 400 staff, which is a long way forward from 2006. However, as the
hon. Member for Canterbury rightly said, it is still a challenge to
attract specific experts—for example, test pilots. In that
regard, there is
more progress to be made. However, as I said, progress has been made
since the 2006 Select Committee report, and the Department for
Transport, working closely with the CAA and European institutions, will
continue to take steps to strengthen EASA’s capacity and
performance.
Graham
Stringer:
To follow up on the questions from the hon.
Member for Kettering, a weak point in the reports was the
Government’s disagreement with the European Commission about
whether there should be a national supervisory authority. The
Government have commendably said that there should be. Will my hon.
Friend say what the consequences will be if the Government do not
achieve their objective of having a national supervisory
authority?
Jim
Fitzpatrick:
I do not wish to hazard a guess that we will
fail, or comment on what will happen in that event that we do fail. We
believe that we will succeed. Our national supervisory authority is the
CAA and it will play the co-ordinating role that is required. SESAR
governance is a work in progress. As my hon. Friend suggests, the UK
places a high value on having a clear idea of how the money for SESAR
has been spent to ensure that there is efficiency within the
organisation. However, the CAA is already performing the function of
the national supervisory authority, and in that regard we are not
likely to
fail.
Graham
Stringer:
Hon. Members have mentioned the impact on the
regions of an open skies policy for Europe. Can my hon. Friend the
Minister refer me to, provide the Committee with, or place in the
Library any information he has on the regional impact of having an open
skies policy for
Europe?
Jim
Fitzpatrick:
I will have to research what we have in the
Department and supply it to my hon. Friend and other Committee
members.
Mr.
Brazier:
In page 3 of document 1, in the section covering
the Commission’s first report on delivery of the original single
European sky, the conclusion is that
the
“Single
European Sky had not delivered the expected results in important areas,
in particular improved cost-efficiency, system design, efficiency and
the introduction of
cross-border”
functionality.
Do the Government agree with that assessment? In particular, what are
the main areas of delay relating to the
UK?
Jim
Fitzpatrick:
We agree with the assessment, which says that
results in the important areas that the hon. Gentleman
mentioned—cost-efficiency, system design, efficiency and
functional airspace blocks—have not been delivered so far.
Clearly, the UK has made progress in a number of those areas—for
example, the establishment of a FAB with Ireland. The 2012 deadline
will put other member states under pressure to fulfil their
responsibilities within SES II, which is a response and a reaction to
SES I. It says that SES I was the right policy and that the
framework and the objectives were right, but that those were not
delivered. SES I has gone so far and SES II is being
introduced to try to ensure that there is
greater clarity and specification, and that we can get on and do the
job. The UK has acquitted itself well in the period so far. We want to
do more to make
progress.
Mr.
Brazier:
A couple of pages on in the same document there
is talk of reforming Eurocontrol and its governance structures and of
the Commission’s intention to enhance its co-operation with
Eurocontrol by means of a framework agreement. The Minister touched on
that, but will he just set out again, given the significance of
Eurocontrol, what input the UK Government get on this framework
agreement? What reforms do they believe are taking place and should
take
place?
Jim
Fitzpatrick:
Many of these items will be under discussion
and there will be opportunities ahead, following the Transport Council
this week, for the UK to play its full part in negotiating the best
possible arrangements for all the governance aspects of SES II, SESAR,
EASA or Eurocontrol. The UK will do all it can to ensure that we
participate fully and achieve our objectives, and, more generally, that
we are able to move aviation forward in the direction that these papers
are trying to push it
in.
Mr.
Brazier:
The next question follows on from that and from
the Minister’s earlier remarks. Do the Government feel that they
have the assurances that they are looking for—namely, that the
proposals will not affect UK competition and that they will, if
possible, help to create a genuine European-wide
market?
Jim
Fitzpatrick:
The essence of what we have been discussing
over the past 49 minutes is that we are looking to have a European
regime that is efficient, tackles climate change and is to the benefit
of the air passenger and the aviation companies, and that, for people
on the ground, there is less of a problem from pollution, noise and
visual disturbance. The proposals are generally regarded as moving us
forward considerably in all those protective and progressive directions
in tackling climate change. We have made considerable progress, but
there is a lot more to be done.
On the 2012
deadline, the Transport Council this week outlined matters through to
2020, and the additional arrangements and improvements for the
governance of various agencies is very much part of
that.
Mr.
Brazier:
Again, in document 1, the Government state on
page 6 that they are consulting on the increase of powers for EASA. We
have had some discussion about EASA, including exchanges with the hon.
Member for Manchester, Blackley. Who exactly is being consulted? I hope
that it is not just the big players. Is general aviation, for example,
being
consulted?
Jim
Fitzpatrick:
The consultation is with stakeholders who
will be
affected.
Mr.
Brazier:
If there were considerable opposition from some
of those stakeholders, would that influence the Government’s
view?
Jim
Fitzpatrick:
The hon. Gentleman knows that in any
consultation the Government weigh up the views of stakeholders and
judge them on their merits. No one has a guaranteed right to a veto one
way or the other. The consultation will be valid and genuine, and we
will weigh up the opinions. Depending on what issues come forward, we
will base our judgement on the
evidence.
Mr.
Brazier:
The document says that the Commission will be
given
“powers to
enable it to ensure design of the European route network, coordination
and allocation of scarce resources, in particular radio frequencies and
radar transponder codes and additional functions of the ATM
network”.
Various controversies
have arisen on that. Does the Minister agree that that is a pretty
broad increase in authority? How will it affect, for example, current
plans to sell various bandwidths, some of which, as he knows, are
controversial?
Jim
Fitzpatrick:
I hope that the hon. Gentleman accepts that I
shall have to respond later on the impact on bandwidth
sales.
Mr.
Brazier:
Of course. How do the Government envisage the
revenue from the supply of air traffic services being
allocated?
Jim
Fitzpatrick:
I am not sure that I understand the question.
Air traffic services in the UK are provided by National Air Traffic
Services. The revenue that it collects provides the company with its
balance sheet, and it will obviously function on a commercial basis, as
it has done for many
years.
Mr.
Brazier:
So air traffic services will remain in the UK,
and not go to a European
body.
The
simplification of air traffic management throughout Europe will
inevitably mean that some countries will lose their independent air
traffic management sectors, and we have already discussed Ireland,
which is a good example of that. Will those countries that retain their
air traffic management sectors be allowed to make available sufficient
revenue for technology investment without recourse to taxpayers, or
will there be an additional burden on the taxpayers of those countries
that continue to operate full ATM services, which will obviously
include
Britain?
Jim
Fitzpatrick:
All I can say about that is that there will
be a common charging scheme for air navigation services. When it is
introduced, transparency will be deployed and will clearly lead to the
aviation industry having a real opportunity to examine the costs of
services in various countries. I suspect that if one country’s
service is greatly more expensive than another’s, those who pay
the bill will start to ask questions, as they would in any
organisation. The common policy means that at least there will be
greater transparency, and greater openness should lead to greater value
for money while ensuring, as we have done in the UK, that safety is not
compromised in any way, shape or
form.
The
Chairman:
Order. Only six minutes remain for Question
Time, and I want to try to get everyone in.
Graham
Stringer:
This is my last question. The advent of a
European open skies policy enabled the European authorities to
negotiate an open skies policy with the United States of America,
albeit one—in my opinion—that was biased towards the USA.
UPS has written to me and other hon. Members, saying that the aviation
duty proposal will breach both the Chicago convention and the European
open skies policy. Does my hon. Friend have any legal advice to counter
that? If he does, will he place it in the
Library?
Jim
Fitzpatrick:
There are certainly issues of conflict
between what is proposed and the Chicago convention, because the
convention requires every individual country to have its own
arrangements. If we go to a collective arrangement within Europe, the
27 countries will have to renegotiate those elements of the Chicago
convention. Adjustments will have to be made. In respect of further
conflicts that lawyers may have identified, I shall certainly examine
the situation and advise my hon. Friend.
Mr.
Brazier:
My last two questions relate to cost. Page 21 of
document 2 covers the extension of EASA’s remit to the licensing
of small aerodromes. I know that the Government have expressed concern
about that. What chances do they have of securing an alternative
definition? What other countries, if any, support us on that
issue?
Jim
Fitzpatrick:
Sorry, the definition of
what?
Mr.
Brazier:
The extension of EASA’s remit effectively
to lower the licensing threshold for aerodromes, so that small
aerodromes become caught up in the expensive EASA
picture.
Jim
Fitzpatrick:
We recognise that problem, and it will have
to be examined. We certainly believe that we will have some support,
but I am not in a position to state the exact level. We will take the
issue on board in due course.
Mr.
Brazier:
I am grateful for that answer, but my final
question is whether the Minister, in all the various answers he has
given about EASA, and following the Select Committee’s good
report on EASA, which had an unsatisfactory outcome, will recognise
that by gradually overcoming the difficulties, the Government do so at
very considerable cost? It is a significant burden on some parts of the
aviation sector, and this Committee’s interest is, on the one
hand, in keeping down the cost to our taxpayer, while, on the other, in
ensuring that the situation does not become ruinously expensive for
parts of the aviation sector.
Jim
Fitzpatrick:
The Government do not intend to penalise,
punish or unnecessarily cause expense to general aviation in
particular. Clearly, the Commission intends to keep out the smallest
airfields, but there are those, to
which I am sure the hon. Gentleman refers, that want a tighter aerodrome
licensing threshold—namely Holland, France and Italy.
Discussions will have to take place in the meetings ahead, and we will
look at the issue and try to do our best, because when we are in
receipt, as we are, of submissions via our consultation, they will
inform our negotiating strategy and ensure that we do the best for the
UK, as we always
do.
Motion
made, and Question proposed,
That the
Committee takes note of European Union Documents Nos. 11325/08,
Commission Communication on Single European Sky II, towards more
sustainable and better performing aviation, 11347/08 and Addendum 1,
Commission Staff Working Document accompanying the Communication on
Single European Sky II, the SESAR Master Plan for the development and
implementation of the new generation European air traffic management
system (SESAR -Single European Sky ATM Research), 11323/08 and Addenda
1 and 2, Draft Regulation amending Regulations (EC) No. 549/2004, No.
550/2004, No. 551/2004 and No. 552/2004 in order to improve the
performance and sustainability of the European aviation system,
11285/08 and Addenda 1 and 2, Draft Regulation amending Regulation (EC)
No. 216/2008 in the field of aerodromes, air traffic management and air
navigation services and repealing Council Directive 06/23/EEC; and
endorses the Government’s approach to discussions on these
documents.—[Jim
Fitzpatrick.]
5.29
pm
Mr.
Brazier:
As the Minister has rightly said, we have a
valuable objective before us, but the route to it is immensely
complicated. I cannot remember a Committee of the House dealing with
such a complicated subject for a long time; indeed, the matter seems to
have become significantly more complex than when we last
discussed it.
As is often
the case with any European issue, the devil is in the detail. On
matters European, when unexpected consequences follow, we often look
back and say, “If only we’d read the small print.”
The plain fact is that today in Europe there are 60 or more control
centres. The American air traffic control system manages double the
number of flights from just 20 control centres on a similar budget. The
fragmentation in Europe leads not only to a reduction in capacity, but
to increased costs in the form of piecemeal procurement, which then
leads to high maintenance and contingency costs for equipment and
increased costs for research, training and administration. The
Commission has estimated that such fragmentation costs €1
billion every year and suggests that air traffic control currently
accounts for between 8 and 12 per cent. of a typical ticket
price.
Fuel
burn is chief among the problems of fragmentation. Shorter routes could
save nearly 5 million tonnes of CO2 a year. That figure
would increase to 16 million tonnes a year if both air traffic control
and airport operations were improved, saving some 7 to 12 per cent. of
emissions for the average flight. Against that background, these
proposals must be taken seriously and, in principle, we are with the
Government on this, particularly given that other initiatives on which
many have pinned their hopes for reducing aviation emissions, such as
the European emissions trading scheme, appear likely to be relatively
ineffectual. Indeed, the Commission itself admitted that by 2020, the
ETS would reduce growth in emissions by less than one year’s
worth—from 142 to 135 per cent. Recent developments might
improve on that a little, but it is still
disappointing.
This is an
important project for several reasons, but at each stage of this
enormously complicated business we have to ask whether the considerable
potential gains will be worth the possible prices of loss of
independence, interference in a variety of ways and extra hidden costs,
some of which have emerged during questioning. The Government are right
to proceed, but we need to be extremely
wary.
The
Minister gave me a clear and direct answer on capacity, so I shall not
labour that point. However, if one considers some of the measures in
the document—for example, there are references to an
“action plan for
airport capacity, efficiency and safety in
Europe”—
the
suspicion arises that the Commission is gradually trying to get its oar
in somewhere new. The document states that
“The
necessary investments in airport capacity need to be made. To
accommodate growing demand for air traffic, airport capacity needs to
remain aligned with ATM capacity to preserve the overall efficiency of
the
network.”
That
does not appear to have been written by a civil servant with much
interest in climate change. Again, as we so often we find with Europe,
passages that appear to be peripheral to the main aim of a document
suddenly become central to the powers being exercised by the
Commission.
The
Minister pointed out earlier that my party has made it clear that we
would block a third runway at Heathrow, and we have been opposed to one
at Stansted for a long time, so we have a particular interest in this
subject. More planes in the air must lead to a requirement for more
landing slots. The fear is that the pressure to utilise available
capacity fully will force us by default to build more runways. On page
32, the document bundle
states:
“SESAR
is to increase safety levels by a factor of ten, capable of handling a
threefold increase in
traffic”.
Again,
one wonders how that fits in with the Government’s climate
change targets. The decision by a UK Government, of whatever colour, to
increase or lower capacity and how they do that should be a UK matter
for voters to react to accordingly. Once we have a European single sky,
political control is one step removed from Whitehall and technical
control of airspace has partly moved away from bodies directly
answerable to the Secretary of State, so the question of how to
determine such issues will
arise.
Graham
Stringer:
I understand the Conservatives’ position
of not wanting a third runway at Heathrow—it is legitimate to
take that position, although I do not agree with it—but does the
hon. Gentleman really believe that if Heathrow is constricted, less
carbon dioxide will be produced by
aviation?
Mr.
Brazier:
The hon. Gentleman represents a seat very close
to the one new runway that is on the way. I know that he supports it,
as do I, and it was locally agreed. When we opposed the third runway at
Heathrow, we made it clear that climate change was only one of the
considerations. The huge concern about putting extra traffic equivalent
to an entire Gatwick airport on to that site was the impact that it
would have on the lives of
a large number of people through noise and through oxides of nitrogen.
Those were the largest factors. We do not even know whether the current
operation at Heathrow will be legal under the 2010 legal operations
regulations. I believe that restraining overall runway growth is part
of the solution to climate change, but I will not make a simplistic
argument that any one runway decision alone will make a huge
difference.
To
take another example, page 35 of our document bundle
states:
“The
Commission will set up an Observatory... It will be in a position
to arrive at balanced and consolidated opinions to advise the
Commission on the development and implementation of Community airport
capacity.”
The
Minister rightly said that that was the weakest part of the proposals.
He is right to be concerned, but he should perhaps be a little more
concerned about it than he sounded. Again, it seems a sweeping and
non-specific increase in Commission competency of the kind that we have
seen so often in other documents and
contexts.
Another
worrying aspect of the proposal is the organisation of airspace, with
which Members may be familiar because of the recent NATS proposals for
terminal control north, which we discussed a little during questions.
It is proposed to stack planes over Newmarket, threatening noise blight
to areas of outstanding natural beauty and the city of Cambridge and
potentially ruining the British horse racing industry—one area
in which we are still a world-beating country. Oddly enough, that is
the single aviation issue on which I have had more letters from angry
constituents passed on to me by colleagues than on any other in my
brief.
In all, it
seems that those living in rural areas will suffer a substantial
increase in noise intrusion, and the Government’s own
“Attitudes to Noise from Aviation Sources in England”
study has shown that those in quiet areas suffer much more from
aircraft noise than those in more noisy ones. Given the need to make
routes more efficient—the essence of the SES project—we
must question whether that will be the shape of things to come. The
Minister was confident that the project will not give the Commission a
wedge to interfere, but given the wording of the documents, I
wonder.
Page
28 of the document bundle contains a graph showing that the largest
single contributory component of the expected potential 12 per cent.
fuel efficiency saving from the scheme could come from better approach
procedures. That has been confirmed by talking to people in the
industry. The proposal seeks the removal of the upper and lower
division of airspace. The Government believe that the latter issue is
related to both the Commission’s intention to extend the
application of the single European sky to airport
level—essentially, take-off and landing paths, continuous
descent and so on—and to the matters in the proposal for the
terminal control north reorganisation. We must ask how far the deeply
unpopular NATS proposals for terminal control north reflect the
anticipated future needs of the SES. If they have nothing to do with
them, can we expect another reorganisation? In answers to questions,
the Minister was confident that it would make no difference, but I ask
him to reflect on that. Can we perhaps expect worse
outcomes?
I
ask the Minister a specific question, the answer to which might shed
some extra light on the matter. He may wish to reply in writing. Has
the Department done
any specific modelling based on the most efficient approach and take-off
routes in and out of our major airports? The TCN reorganisation is the
first big reorganisation for a long time, which suggests that modelling
has been quite limited, but it would be interesting to know how much
has been
done.
On
a general but related matter, with the single European sky and
oversight from the European Aviation Safety Agency, how would any
future consultation on airspace reorganisation over the UK be carried
out? By that, I am led to ask about the amount of consideration given
to the general aviation sector, which is a vibrant industry in Britain
that provides valuable jobs, training for both the military and civil
sectors, and enjoyment to many. General aviation has suffered in recent
years from both European and domestic legislation, which has tended
either to treat it as civil aviation on a small scale, or simply to set
rules for the civil sector and expect it to fall in line without
further thought. I do not want operation in lower airspace made yet
more difficult for general aviation by the blurring of the upper and
lower sectors, or a big increase in bureaucracy for small
aerodromes.
The
proposals will also increase EASA’s powers, extending its remit
to cover certification of aerodromes, ground services and air traffic
control. I note the Government’s reservations, although they
were fairly modest. Aside from a possible needless extension of
regulation and bureaucracy into organisations that are not currently
supervised, I question whether EASA is fit for that new role. I
expressed that view for the first time when we debated European
legislation on air traffic management on 13 March 2006. I shall not
bore the Committee by going back over the same ground, but in the light
of the questions asked by the hon. Member for Manchester, Blackley and
myself, I ask the Government to be extremely wary of extending
EASA’s remit. It is capacity-constrained at the moment, and
expensive compared with its national
counterparts.
In
the same Committee, I questioned how technological aspects of the
project would be delivered, in particular on the role of Eurocontrol.
It possessed 30 per cent. of the voting rights, but the industry
collectively had just 10 per cent, which seems to be an odd
arrangement. There were also questions about the funding for the
project. There were concerns that, far from agreeing the mechanisms for
technical co-operation, we were in danger of sliding into a
Galileo-style project, with the hidden subtext of creating a new
electronics industry to rival the Americans’. At nearly 600
pages, the document is weighty, but I have read nothing that suggests
that those problems have been overcome. There is a reference to
internal reform of Eurocontrol, but little mention of what that would
entail.
We
must avoid the measure becoming another Galileo or, worse still, taken
in the run—that is a technical issue—becoming an aviation
common agricultural policy. Even the proposal to ensure that member
states do not object to air navigation services from, or located in,
other member states, could be viewed with suspicion. Potentially, that
is a new, creeping power for the Commission. Although it could help our
providers, it could also mean that on some unspecified future date, we
could be told that air traffic control services will be provided by a
French supplier. No doubt the Minister will tell me that that is
impossible, but he may find that it happens in 10 or 15
years.
The Minister
and his Department have reservations about some aspects of the
proposals, and he has been frank about one of those. Indeed, to their
credit, they expressed similar reservations the last time we debated
such European legislation in March 2006. On balance, the idea of a
single European sky and integrated air traffic management is, on the
face of it, thoroughly sensible, given the considerable cost savings
and environmental pay-offs. However, the document before us is so large
because it requires an extraordinary amount of centralised control and
policy work. We cannot have countries that use the single currency
setting different interest rates or spending and borrowing beyond
certain levels, because the system would fall apart. That is analogous
to the proposals. After all, the Commission’s first report on
the delivery of the single European sky objectives
concluded:
“Single
European sky had not delivered the expected results in important areas,
in particular improved cost efficiency, system design, efficiency and
the introduction of cross border
functionality”
and
mentions several times the problem of overcoming national
considerations.
Members of
the Committee may feel that I am scaremongering or being unnecessarily
pessimistic. In one or two areas, such as strengthening EU rules at
airports, I think that more centralisation may well make sense; but
what concerns me is that we may later find ourselves signing off
measures on a far larger scale than the harmonious integration of air
traffic control management. We may eventually conclude that the interim
measure of moving to functional airspace blocks—as has been
mentioned, we now have one for the British Isles that is controlled by
Britain—will provide most of the benefits that we hope to gain
from the single European sky without many of the pitfalls.
We are being
asked to hand over considerable control over airspace, airport
capacity, aviation policy and, by extension, environmental policy. For
reasons that I made clear at the outset, I shall not ask my colleagues
to oppose the measure at this stage; we still support the principle
behind it. However, I ask the Committee, and particularly the
Government, to think long and hard about the implications of much of
the detail. My colleagues and I will be watching carefully to see how
the project
develops.
5.46
pm
Mark
Hunter:
When the single Europe sky was introduced in 2002,
it was supported by my colleagues. We made only a few caveats, the main
one being a guarantee that the programme would not allow the loss of
any military sovereignty. Again, we broadly welcome the proposals
before the Committee. We believe that they will allow us to continue
and improve on what the single European sky agreement originally set
out to achieve—the harmonisation of European aviation safety and
air traffic management systems.
European
airspace is currently divided into some 650 sectors that
manage 28,000 flights a day to and from about 130 airports. There can
be a large number of planes in the air at the same time, and they need
to be controlled and managed across the different blocks as efficiently
as possible to minimise delays and ensure safety. According to European
Union figures, delays in 2007 totalled more than 1.5 million minutes,
with 22 per cent. of all delays exceeding 15 minutes. We clearly need
to do more to ensure that delays are minimised and that efficiency is
increased, so that passengers taking flights for business or pleasure
can do so in the knowledge that they will arrive safely and on
time.
However, we
need to be clear about why we want to improve efficiency of air travel.
Is it to reduce delays, increase capacity or improve safety? Globally,
the number of flights is increasing year on year. In the EU, it
increased by 5 per cent. in 2007. I think that we would all acknowledge
that some short-haul flights could be made by less environmentally
costly alternatives such as high-speed rail, but it is not for us to
determine what other European countries should do. However, we believe
that the UK should focus on improving the efficiency of flights within
our current capacity, and we therefore have not supported further
expansion at Heathrow or elsewhere.
We should do
all that we can to ensure that flights have the smallest possible
impact and effect on the wider environment. Increasing efficiency would
reduce carbon emissions. According to the EU, aircraft are on average
flying nearly 50 km further than necessary due to airspace
fragmentation. Such delays often lead to planes having to stack, thus
causing further unnecessary pollution.
I am pleased
that environmental considerations are mentioned in the performance
regulations. I would be interested to know whether the Minister can say
more about targets, particularly annual binding targets, and whether
noise pollution will be considered as well as other
emissions.
I am pleased
that the single European sky agreement plans to expand and improve the
harmonisation of safety standards across Europe. Safety regulations
work only if it is clear who is responsible for ensuring the safety of
the different aspects of aviation. As the hon. Member for Manchester,
Blackley—who also represents a seat in close proximity to
Manchester airport—said, the disaster there is still all too
clear in the memories of many local residents and others who lost loved
ones in that
tragedy.
However,
I join the Government in their concern that including smaller
recreational aerodromes in EASA’s remit might adversely affect
the commercial viability of such aerodromes. I invite the Minister to
tell us what progress has been made in the negotiations mentioned in
the explanatory memorandum attached to the briefing about the changes
in definition, so that such aerodromes would not necessarily be
included and be subject to the adverse effects that we suspect could
occur.
Liberal
Democrat Members support the single European sky initiative, albeit
with the caveats mentioned. We are pleased that it is looking for ways
to improve and deliver the best possible aviation service. It is now
vital that all member states, not just the UK, act with enough
political will to ensure that the proposals are followed up, not only
for the customer, but for the
environment.
5.51
pm
Jim
Fitzpatrick:
I am grateful for the questions and
contributions from all hon. Members. Clearly, the European Scrutiny
Committee was correct to send this volume for further attention. I
apologise to the hon. Member for
Canterbury if I have made matters more complex—obviously, that
was not my intention. However, the size of the tome that has been
placed before hon. Members, which he correctly described, gives the lie
to the media presentation of the recess as a holiday for the whole
three months. I am sure that hon. Members have been struggling to deal
with the volume of it, as I have. Clearly, colleagues have spent a lot
of time scrutinising it. I am also grateful for
that.
I
will resist the temptation to debate Heathrow, but my hon. Friend the
Member for Manchester, Blackley is absolutely right about the fact that
aircraft will still fly if we close Heathrow to them by not ensuring
that it can accept the additional capacity that it clearly needs, given
that it operates at 98.5 per cent. capacity. I have a high regard for
the hon. Member for Canterbury as an individual Member and an
Opposition Front-Bench spokesman, so I say with the greatest respect
that, if he honestly believes that restricting Heathrow’s
ability to function will not have an impact on Heathrow and, therefore,
on the UK economy, he is much
mistaken.
Mr.
Brazier:
The Minister and the hon. Member for Manchester,
Blackley must surely recognise the point about substituting rail
journeys for internal flights. We have notoriously bad public transport
connections to Heathrow. If, as Conservative Members propose, we had a
high-speed rail link so that people could get off a plane, perhaps with
a unified ticket as people can do in France and Germany, and straight
on to a train from the terminal to, for example, the hon.
Gentleman’s home city of Manchester, rather than flying there,
that would be good for tackling climate change and good for
Heathrow.
Jim
Fitzpatrick:
We have seen a reversal in the past
10 years of the numbers of people flying to Heathrow and
catching the train to Heathrow because of the lobbying by hon. Members
from Manchester and the investment that has been put into the west
coast main line. It used to be two thirds flying and one third going by
rail; it is now the complete reverse. We have been trying to give
individuals the opportunity to make the right choice for them. If all
UK domestic flights were absorbed into rail capacity, that would have
no impact on Heathrow. The pressure for additional slots at Heathrow
would mean that they were taken up straight away. If you will allow me
to say so, Mr. Benton, a false calculation has
been put forward that we can eliminate domestic flights—that
somehow a high-speed rail link will solve the
problem.
Mr.
Brazier:
Will the Minister give
way?
Jim
Fitzpatrick:
In a minute. Heathrow is our hub airport. Two
thirds to three quarters of the domestic flyers to Heathrow are
catching international connections.
[Interruption.]
The
Chairman:
Order. Before the hon. Gentleman intervenes, may
I add a cautionary note? We are not here to discuss the merits of
Heathrow airport or the additional runway. I will allow the
intervention and then can we get back to the meat of the
business?
Mr.
Brazier:
Thank you, Mr. Benton. I
should just like to make the point briefly: the two thirds and one
third are within a rapidly increasing total number of
movements. The key point is that one cannot get on a train from
Manchester or Lille and travel directly to Heathrow. One has to go to
King’s Cross or St. Pancras and then change on to the
underground to get to Paddington and then change again. High-speed rail
would link Heathrow directly to both the British rail and the
continental rail
system.
Jim
Fitzpatrick:
My final comment on that subject is that the
hon. Gentleman knows that we are investing £88 million a week in
rail and that Network Rail is exploring other options to improve the
rail network even beyond the achievements of the past 10 years.
Heathrow is our hub airport. If it is not functioning, the UK economy
takes a hit. However, Mr. Benton, you have
cautioned us against going any further. There is a clear blue sky
between us on Heathrow capacity and who supports the business community
and the UK
economy.
The
hon. Member for Canterbury asked about parliamentary scrutiny of
national performance plans and corrective measures. It is too early to
pre-empt the process because these plans are not yet finalised or even
established. However, if they require legislation, there must be
parliamentary scrutiny. If they can reasonably be achieved through
existing processes and regulation, obviously that would be our
preferred option.
The hon.
Gentleman raised the environment and activity in three different areas.
On the emissions trading scheme, we need an economic measure in the
absence of fuel tax. That will be complemented by single sky, which
will improve performance, and by technology through SESAR, and better
engines and aircraft design. He also asked how the projected threefold
increase in aircraft sits with reducing emissions. Clearly, the
measures outlined will help. Increased traffic will be subject to
tighter environmental constraints on engine technology. SESAR will
allow aircraft to fly more direct routes and planned flights using
time-critical arrivals to reduce or eliminate holding. SESAR will
enable better approach procedures. All that will contribute to shorter
routes, less fuel burn, fewer emissions, less noise and less visual
intrusion.
The
hon. Gentleman asked about TC north, which is an entirely valid
question, given how topical and controversial it is. This package has
no impact on TC north, as I said earlier. However, in future we would
obviously co-ordinate big changes such as TC north with neighbouring
countries, just as, for example, we would expect the French to consult
us if they were changing routes over north-west France and the Calais
region.
Mr.
Brazier:
The Minister said so implicitly, but could he
confirm that that means that the local consultation and accountability
in the current process would continue
unchanged?
Jim
Fitzpatrick:
The accountability is with NATS and the CAA.
They will make a decision on TC north. I can assure the hon. Gentleman
that the decision will come through in due course. Sadly, I am not in a
position to offer him any certainty about the length of time that that
will take, given how controversial it has been and the volume of
respondents to the consultative exercise.
The hon.
Gentleman also asked whether the Department had done any modelling of
the approach and take-off routes at major airports. Trial work has been
done by many agencies, including NATS and Eurocontrol. The SESAR
research and development project calls for this work to be undertaken.
NATS has a strong input into the development of terminal airspace in
the SESAR project. NATS is a very strong player and is heavily involved
in SESAR, using its extensive expertise, as I am sure he would
appreciate.
The
hon. Members for Cheadle and for Canterbury asked about the impact on
general aviation. We will try to ensure that appropriate and
proportionate regulations are put in place to protect all air transport
users, including in general aviation. This emphasis on proportionality
is reflected in the Commission’s proposal, which seeks to
exclude from the aerodrome licensing requirements smaller airfields
serving recreational aircraft. We have been consulting representatives
of general aviation, including the General Aviation Awareness Council,
the British Business and General Aviation Association, the British
Gliding Association and the Light Aircraft Association. The
negotiations have not started yet on the EASA regulations—they
are due to start in late October.
The hon.
Member for Cheadle asked whether EASA will cover noise. Noise has an
environmental impact and it will be considered as part of the single
sky, but we are not sure at what level it will be tackled or in what
detail. There is another EU regulation on noise of a general nature,
which is being reviewed to see whether it can be tightened up. The hon.
Gentleman also asked about annual binding targets. Targets will begin
with a limited number of areas where data and information exist or can
be gathered. Environment is one of those areas and we will look at
emissions, noise and visual intrusion. The exact detail of the targets
has not been finalised yet, which I am sure does not surprise
him.
It is clear
from the comments made by the Opposition spokesmen that there is
support for the motion and I am grateful for that, but it is equally
clear from the comments and questions of my hon. Friend the Member for
Manchester, Blackley and others that there is a lot of work to be done.
This is a complex area; we will all examine it as closely as possible
and I shall certainly do what I can to keep the Opposition informed of
developments, to ensure appropriate attention to their interest in this
matter. As I said, I am grateful for the general support for the
motion, and we will get on with the work that is required of
us.
Question
put and agreed
to.
Resolved,
That the
Committee takes note of European Union Documents Nos. 11325/08,
Commission Communication on Single European Sky II, towards more
sustainable and better performing aviation, 11347/08 and Addendum 1,
Commission Staff Working Document accompanying the Communication on
Single European Sky II, the SESAR Master Plan for the development and
implementation of the new generation European air traffic management
system (SESAR -Single European Sky ATM Research), 11323/08 and Addenda
1 and 2, Draft Regulation amending Regulations (EC) No. 549/2004, No.
550/2004, No. 551/2004 and No. 552/2004 in order to improve the
performance and sustainability of the European aviation system,
11285/08 and Addenda 1 and 2, Draft Regulation amending Regulation (EC)
No. 216/2008 in the field of aerodromes, air traffic management and air
navigation services and repealing Council Directive 06/23/EEC; and
endorses the Government’s approach to discussions on these
documents.
Committee
rose at two minutes past Six
o’clock.
