§ 40. Sir C. Mott-Radclyffeasked the President of the Board of Trade by what date he estimates that an effective automatic noise-monitoring system will be installed at Heathrow Airport.
§ Mr. Goronwy RobertsThe present system, which is partly manual and partly automatic, is effective, but for reasons of economy we expect to move to a largely automatic system at fixed points in 1971. Two mobile stations will, however, be retained in order to maintain flexibility of control.
§ Sir C. Mott-RadclyffeCan the Minister say whether this rather astonishing delay is due to the fact that the Post Office cannot supply four telephone lines of the required technical qualification and reliability?
§ Mr. RobertsI cannot confirm that. Any delay is to be deplored, but I do not think that it is unduly long in this case.
§ Mr. Hugh JenkinsIs my right hon. Friend aware that it is generally accepted that automatic monitoring is superior to the present system? Will he consider the possibility of extending monitoring not merely from the vicinity of the airport but to the area beneath the flight path into the airport?
§ Mr. RobertsI take note of the second part of my hon. Friend's question. On the first part, the prime, motive here is economy. Whether monitoring will be more effective remains to be seen. This has been done for reasons of economy.
§ 41. Sir C. Mott-Radclyffeasked the President of the Board of Trade on now many occasions in the last two years an airline has admitted that its pilot was at fault in violating the noise regulations at Heathrow; and how many violations of the noise regulations were recorded by the authorities at Heathrow in this period.
§ Mr. Goronwy RobertsExplanations were sought in 816 cases and airlines admitted pilot error in 51 of them. 1,080 infringements were recorded in the same two-year period. In the balance of 264 cases, the noise levels were only marginally over the limit and the airlines concerned were notified, but no explanation was sought.
§ Sir C. Mott-RadclyffeCan the right hon. Gentleman give any explanation of the discrepancy between the two figures? Could it be due to the fact that, very often, the monitoring of an aircraft takes place only when it is on the prescribed route and not when it is off the prescribed route?
§ Mr. RobertsThe difference between the two figures is that 1,080 infringements were recorded but explanation was sought in only 816 cases. The difference of 264 represents the marginal cases in which explanation did not need to be sought.
§ Mr. SpriggsIs my right hon. Friend aware that excessive noise is injurious to health? What is he doing to try to make life more tolerable to people who live adjacent to airports?
§ Mr. RobertsI am well aware of the problem. Indeed, we had a far-ranging debate on it in the House this morning. It would take me too long to go into the efforts that we are making to improve the situation in the short term, but I emphasise that there is no quick and easy solution to the problem and that we must concentrate on the middle and long term.
§ Mr. CorfieldCan the Minister confirm or deny the suggestion in my hon. Friend's Question that some of the pilots were infringing air traffic control by being off their correct route?
§ Mr. RobertsI could not, off the cuff, confirm the actual circumstances which gave rise to the infringement and the inquiry. If the hon. Member and his hon. Friend particularly wish to have this detail, I will do my best to find it.