Local Government and Transport Committee, 27 Sep 2005

Meeting date: Tuesday, September 27, 2005

Official Report 301KB pdf

---

Civil Aviation Bill

Agenda item 2 is the Civil Aviation Bill, which is United Kingdom legislation. We will take evidence from the Minister for Transport and Telecommunications on a motion in Margaret Curran's name, which says:

"That the Parliament agrees that the provisions in the Civil Aviation Bill, so far as they confer functions on the Scottish Ministers, should be considered by the UK Parliament."

I intend to proceed as we have before with Sewel motions. I will first give the minister an opportunity to outline why the Executive recommends that approach. I will then allow questions and answers—I ask members to steer clear of debate at that point. After that, we will debate the motion formally. Any questions that we want to ask the officials who are here to support the minister must be asked during the question-and-answer session, as only the minister can speak during debate on the motion. I invite Tavish Scott to give an introduction to explain the background to the bill.

On the principle that the committee is busy—I know that it will deal later with the Licensing (Scotland) Bill, in which I had a passing interest in a former life—I will not delay the committee unduly. By the standards of Sewel motions that we and the committee consider, I hope that today's motion is relatively straightforward and therefore painless. Ministers currently have a limited role with regard to aviation in Scotland, the most visible aspect being the planning and development of airports.

The United Kingdom Civil Aviation Bill is predominantly concerned with matters outwith our legislative competence. The bill will, among other things, implement a number of commitments to sustainable aviation that were included in the 2003 air transport white paper, "The Future of Air Transport". I recall the committee having an interest in the white paper at the time that it was published. However, the bill proposes adjustments to the range of functions that were previously conferred on Scottish ministers, including those to do with noise at airports.

Through the bill, the Sewel provisions will clarify and strengthen the measures that are available to airports for dealing with aircraft noise and provide, for the first time, explicit powers for airports to set charges that reflect local emissions from aircraft where there are local air quality problems. Scottish ministers will have powers to direct specified airports to levy such charges, as is currently the case with regard to noise.

The provisions are narrow and technical in nature. Aircraft noise can cause annoyance and emissions can adversely affect the quality of life of those who live around airports. It is, therefore, important that the legislation that is designed to tackle those issues is fit for purpose. We believe that the new and amended powers will ensure that. The provisions make a series of improvements that will allow progress to be made in the delivery of a more sustainable aviation sector, which is consistent with the partnership agreement's commitment to safe and sustainable transport systems. I would be happy to try to answer colleagues' questions.

Thank you very much, minister. Fergus Ewing has a question or two.

Good afternoon, minister. At the risk of destroying my apparent new reputation as something of a dour figure, I begin by stating that the SNP is inclined to support the measures, which would mean a modest transfer of powers to the Scottish Parliament.

Is it the Executive's view that the noise levels at Scottish airports are such that any action would be required? That is the key question to which many people would like an answer.

I thank Mr Ewing for his question and I thank the SNP for its support. Those of us who have flown over the years would probably notice the contrast between the BAC 111 of yesteryear and the modern Boeing 737, which has the kind of engineering capability that now goes into modern aircraft. I do not think that there is any question but that aircraft design has moved on, especially in relation to noise and emissions.

Ken Crawford will keep me right on this, but I think that the standards that are now kept across Europe—there are international conventions on these matters as well—are more exacting than they have ever been in the past. Therefore, I do not envisage a different regime—I hope that that answers Mr Ewing's question. We need high and appropriate standards right across the UK. What we must not do is set up regimes that are too lax; rather, we should have regimes that are appropriate and which deal with any issues concerning air quality and noise levels that emerge at the local level around our main airports. It is fair to recognise that aircraft design has moved on hugely in the past 10 to 15 years.

Does the minister think that it would be beneficial if the Executive had more powers over aviation? In particular, does he believe that the Executive should have more power—indeed, primary power—over public service obligations and their application to specific routes, not least in the Highlands and Islands?

The issue goes wider than the new powers and concerns a more general point. I would always be happy to engage in a mature debate about such matters. I will answer Mr Ewing's specific question on public service obligations. The Executive already levies public service obligations in relation to some routes out of Glasgow to west coast destinations, and several local authorities use public service obligations for air transport, especially in the islands. The mechanism is in place and is available to us to use if that is the route that we decide to go down with regard to the Highlands and Islands. I am sure that Mr Ewing and I share the same policy objective—very much a partnership agreement objective—which is to reduce the cost of flying in those parts of Scotland.

Perhaps another policy objective could be to increase the frequency of routes to and from the islands in particular.

In paragraph 1.39 of "The Future Development of Air Transport in the United Kingdom: A National Consultation—A Report on Responses to the Government's Consultation: Scotland", Highlands and Islands Enterprise expresses the view that the Department for Transport's estimates of passenger numbers in relation to the Highlands and Islands seem to be entirely at odds with local estimates by Highlands and Islands Airports Ltd and HIE. HIAL forecast 1.8 million passengers a year in 2030 but the DFT forecast only 800,000. I know that it is difficult to forecast over such a long period, but could the minister advise us as to whether the DFT is receptive to the idea that that disparity shows that we have much greater ambition than it is prepared to recognise? Is the minister concerned that the DFT's approach might be a problem for us, in that it does not seem to recognise the potential in the Highlands and Islands for more routes, including direct routes that do not go to and from London?

I accept the concern and can assure Mr Ewing that the DFT is receptive to the points that he raises and that there have been discussions at official level about the figures. I hope that I can assure the committee that the more, shall we say, optimistic approach that we in Scotland are taking will be reflected by the DFT in future.

It is important to recognise that, as Fergus Ewing well knows, Highlands and Islands Airports Ltd is the delivery arm—if I can use that expression—of airports and airport expansion in the Highlands and Islands. It is wholly owned by the Scottish ministers, who are accountable to Parliament. I have no concerns about our ability to keep a positive agenda moving in relation to the role that air will play as part of the overall transport mix that we use to enable people to move safely and affordably around the Highlands and Islands. I feel particularly strongly about that agenda.

Earlier, noise was mentioned. Those of us in north-east Scotland are delighted that Aberdeen airport is, as they say, open all hours. That is possible because of advances in flight technology.

Can the minister assure us that the Executive will not seek to levy charges that are different from those elsewhere in Europe and that would render Scottish airports at a competitive disadvantage in relation to attracting new custom?

Could the minister give us clarity in relation to the use of helicopters? In Aberdeen, an important oil and gas supply system is based on helicopters, which are noisier on take-off than standard, fixed-wing aircraft. Will he also give us some clarity on the role of the charging? Is the position to be one of tolerance combined with charge levying or is the charge destined to do something else? Will it be applied to any particular spending line in Scotland?

I will ask Ken Crawford to respond to the last point, as it relates to a matter of detail. I can give Mr Davidson the assurance that he and the committee would want in relation to the competitiveness of our airports. The measures that we are discussing have to be appropriate and consistent. I take the point that Mr Davidson makes; it is entirely fair and is exactly the one that I made about this measure. I do not believe that it is impossible to take sensible measures in relation to environmental requirements at the same time as retaining competitiveness.

On helicopters, their flight patterns will be relevant and the fact that by definition they are vertical landing, vertical take-off aircraft and fly straight out. I am familiar with Aberdeen airport, not least because I have flown out of Aberdeen on a helicopter to the Britannia oilfield. I understand the issues. My understanding, from talking to the pilot and having had informal discussions with air traffic control, is that there are not the same concerns about helicopters because of the flight patterns that they follow.

One of the measures that has been taken in relation to fixed-wing aircraft is about noise minimisation during landing and take-off procedures. The example that most of us will be familiar with is when an aircraft lands at Edinburgh when it has flown from east to west. The plane comes in over the Firth of Forth and lands on the runway from that direction rather than flying over most of the city of Edinburgh. I accept that that does not help people who live in Barnton, but such measures are in place. I think that we have got the balance right. I am happy to come back to Mr Davidson and the committee on helicopters, in particular, if I have missed something out. I undertake to examine the issue.

On charging, if airlines did not meet noise control standards at the airports a surcharge could be imposed by the airport authority. At a designated airport the minister could direct the airport authority to levy the surcharge on airlines that are penalised for failure to meet noise control standards.

Mr Davidson's other question was how any such income would be used.

It would go back to the airport authority.

If the money goes back to the airport authority and it has a miscreant aeroplane that comes in regularly, if the aeroplane cannot be modified will there be a requirement for it no longer to be used on a particular service?

That would be a logical extension of the argument. I could compare the situation to that which pertains at some of our oil ports, notably Sullom Voe. If a tanker has a persistent record of infringements of marine safety and there is any question of pollution or anything like that, the port authority, whether it is at Milford Haven or Sullom Voe, can take action against the vessel. It is logical that the same principle would apply in the example that Mr Davidson has given.

The minister might care to write to confirm that point to the committee before the motion goes to the chamber.

I note that there is no intention to specify the maximum number of aircraft movements. Those who live near large commercial airports might know the flight patterns, the flight numbers and so on, but there has been a growth in the use of privately owned aircraft, and on smaller airfields there is more intermittent use and there is more use at the weekends and in the evenings. Is there not a case for putting controls on the number of aircraft movements?

Aircraft movements would on the whole be an issue for the airport authority or the airport owner—whether it be a local authority in Dundee's case, the British Airport Authority in the case of the three main Scottish airports or the Prestwick management organisation in the case of Prestwick airport. That is an operational matter for them.

The appropriate way to answer Mr Arbuckle's question is to say that we have not considered it necessary to take any further action in that area, but I am sure that if members have particular issues we can examine them.

The committee was provided with a useful memorandum from the civil servants. I have given some thought to whether at some future date—given that the European Union is already examining airports, emissions, noise and so on—there might well be European directives on issues to do with noise, vibration, emissions, take-offs and landings and so on. Once this power is in the hands of Scottish ministers, would it be your responsibility to transpose any European directive into Scottish law or would the responsibility still lie with the UK Government? Although the Government might not have any immediate need or requirement to impose particular regulations or charges, it might be asked to do so by another authority. Would Scottish ministers or the UK Government do that?

My understanding is that the position that Mr Crawford has outlined is the position that would arise. We—that is, the transport minister of the day—would have the responsibility were the European Union to agree a particular set of regulations in this area.

I have another quick question that is related to the memorandum but perhaps not specifically to the Sewel motion. The memorandum says that the proposed legislation would lead to various relaxations of

"constraints on local authority airport companies".

Some airports run by Highlands and Islands Airports—at small places such as Wick, or places in the minister's own constituency—have to comply with regulations that are probably more relevant to larger city airports. Are our small airports covered by local authority airport companies, or are they still required to comply with the same level of regulations as the city airports? If the latter is true, what are we going to do about that?

I asked my team pretty much the same question. As far as I can judge, there are no great implications for the Wick airports of this world. They do not have the same level of traffic nor do they regularly have the same size of aircraft as the main airports. Inverness has 737s landing every day, and it is demonstrably a good thing that Inverness has such connections to London.

We do not envisage any circumstances in which Mr Crawford's worry would become an issue. However, Highlands and Islands Airports is responsible for all the operational airports in the Highlands and Islands that I can think of. There are very few other airports across Scotland at which the measures will be a particular worry to operators.

Yes, but some of the relaxing of constraints on local authority airport companies—which are usually small—might have been usefully applied to some of the smaller airports run by Highlands and Islands Airports. If that is not going to happen, is there a good reason? Or could we make the case that it should happen?

I do not think of this in negative terms. The standards that will be applied will not cause difficulties for our smaller airports. Highlands and Islands Airports has been asked about it and, as far as I know, it has no concerns. The only other local authority airport that I can think of in this context is the airport at Dundee, but again I do not think that any concerns have been expressed. Unless I am missing the point, Mr Crawford, I do not really see the problem.

Perhaps I am not making the point very well. There are other regulations outwith the powers that are being transferred to you, which have relaxed some of the constraints—within the confines of the UK bill—which apply to local authority companies. I was hoping that the same relaxations could apply to smaller airports in Scotland, to make life a bit easier for them.

But they would make it easier only if they were going to apply a duty on them, and it is not going to be a—

No. It is not application of the duties that are being transferred to you; it is relaxation of other issues in the bill that are applying to local authority companies.

Ken. I have lost it.

Well—

I am not sure—

It is not related to the Sewel motion.

Absolutely. All of us who have concerns about these issues might want to pursue them with colleagues at Westminster.

Ken has an answer; he has been dying to chip in.

Do not worry, Bruce. I will allow him to come in. But I think that the answer lies at Westminster.

The public airport company provisions in the Civil Aviation Bill relate to local authority airports. The provisions give the airports additional freedoms to enter into trading activities, rather than any regulatory activities. For example, the provisions apply to the Manchester Airport Group plc, which could take over another airport and enter into commercial negotiations. Those provisions in the Civil Aviation Bill do not apply to Scotland because the Scottish Parliament can legislate on those issues.

That answers the question.

I apologise for not getting it first time.

That is okay.

I hope that my questions are a bit simpler. Ken Crawford mentioned a surcharge. Is that the same thing as the penalties scheme that is mentioned in the memorandum?

That is right, yes.

My other question is on the regulatory impact assessment. Who was consulted? Was that done on a UK basis or has some consultation also been done in Scotland?

There was wide consultation on both elements of the Sewel provisions—on noise and on emissions. A separate consultation document on noise was issued in 2001 and a commitment from that was included in the UK Government's air transport white paper; that paper proposed legislative provisions to bring forward the recommendations of that consultation. The same is true of emissions. There was also a commitment on that in the air transport white paper. There was extensive UK-wide consultation.

So that included some consultation in Scotland.

Yes. There was extensive consultation in Scotland.

Who was consulted?

Everybody had an opportunity to respond, including individuals, local authorities, airport companies and airlines. It was one of the most extensive consultations on record, I think.

Okay. Thank you.

That brings us to the end of questions. The committee's discussion on a Sewel motion does not have any formal status in the Parliament's procedures, but the committee can decide whether it wishes to recommend to the Parliament that it should agree to the motion. We now move into that debate.

I think that members are broadly content with the motion. If that is the case, do members wish to expedite proceedings by dispensing with the debate and recording that we intend to recommend that the Parliament supports the motion?

I hate to disagree, but we should not recommend that the Parliament supports the motion until we have seen the responses that the minister agreed to provide. There are technical issues; I understand from my colleagues at Westminster that some areas of the bill are a bit of a dog's breakfast. That might have an effect on us. We seek some clarity on the questions that we have asked. In principle I am not against what is being done, but I would like to see the fine print.

If the committee is to make a recommendation, we need to make it today. As you have indicated that there is no consensus, we will need to have the formal debate about whether we wish to recommend the motion. On that basis, I invite the minister formally to propose that we proceed in the direction of recommending the motion. I will then open up the debate for general discussion and we will move to a vote at the end.

Thank you, convener. It would obviously have been helpful if I was able to answer the quite specific and technical questions that Mr Davidson fairly posed. He is entitled—as is any member of the Parliament, of course—to scrutinise a proposed piece of legislation, but I hope that we will be able to answer his questions as quickly as possible. They are specific and technical in nature and I hope that he will accept that they do not alter the couple of basic points in the Sewel motion that we are putting to the committee today. We have discussed those points in questions and answers this afternoon and, on that basis, I hope that the committee will agree to recommend to the Parliament that the Sewel motion should be agreed to.

Can I see an indication of those members who wish to contribute to the open debate?

I indicated earlier that the SNP is inclined to support the Sewel motion in this case because there is a transfer of powers, albeit a modest transfer of powers that are largely technical in nature. As you know, convener, we are always anxious to be constructive and we will naturally apply that approach on this occasion. It would be useful if the Executive would initiate a plenary debate on the role of aviation in growing the economy and in the opportunities that exist in Scotland. Of course, the SNP believes that it would be better if there was a far wider transfer of powers in other areas, but those are matters for another day, another debate and possibly another—and a different—Executive, so I will not dwell on them for the time being.

The question is, that the committee agrees to recommend to the Parliament that the Sewel motion, in the name of Margaret Curran, on the Civil Aviation Bill, be approved. Are we agreed?

No.

There will be a division.

For

Arbuckle, Mr Andrew (Mid Scotland and Fife) (LD)
Crawford, Bruce (Mid Scotland and Fife) (SNP)
Ewing, Fergus (Inverness East, Nairn and Lochaber) (SNP)
Jackson, Dr Sylvia (Stirling) (Lab)
Martin, Paul (Glasgow Springburn) (Lab)
McMahon, Michael (Hamilton North and Bellshill) (Lab)
Muldoon, Bristow (Livingston) (Lab)
Sheridan, Tommy (Glasgow) (SSP)

Abstentions

Davidson, Mr David (North East Scotland) (Con)

The result of the division is: For 8, Against 0, Abstentions 1.

The committee therefore agrees to report to the Parliament recommending that the motion be agreed to. A copy of the committee's questions and answers will be available for members when we debate the Sewel motion in due course. I thank the minister for his attendance and Caroline Lyon and Ken Crawford for supporting him.