§ 24. Mr. Skeetasked the Minister of Aviation Supply why he authorised the transfer of the training of pilots belonging to the British Overseas Airways Corporation and other airlines from Stansted to Thurleigh before he had ascertained the noise contours of the many villages likely to be affected in north Bedfordshire.
§ Mr. CorfieldNoise contours would have added little to our knowledge of the problem. The increase in disturbance relates to the extension of the airfield's operating hours rather than to the noise levels of individual aircraft. None of the B.O.A.C. aircraft produces highe-noise levels than the types of aircraft currently using the airfield.
§ Mr. SkeetSurely my right hon. Friend could have attempted to work out the noise contours before he reached his decision? Surely he is sacrificing the public to administrative convenience.
§ Mr. CorfieldThere is no administrative inconvenience about it. As I have explained, these flights are of exactly the same type as have been undertaken 1053 from that airfield for many years. It is an extension and therefore the investigation my hon. Friend has in mind would not have helped in any way.
§ Mr. TebbitIs my right hon. Friend aware—indeed, is my hon. Friend the Member for Bedford (Mr. Skeet) aware—that the airlines already have enormously high costs which they bear in going many hundreds of miles for local training? Many airlines, notably B.O.A.C., are doing no conversion training anywhere near either Bedford or Stansted, and my constituents living near Stansted are grateful to my right hon. Friend for helping to share this burden of noise from essential training around the country.
§ Mr. CorfieldThat is a factor one has to take into account. The plain fact is that no one wants this noise, but there is some merit in trying to spread it more fairly and evenly as time goes on.
§ 25. Mr. Skeetasked the Minister of Aviation Supply why, since the movements at Thurleigh are expected reach 40,000 in June, 1972, roughly equivalent to those at Stansted today, he did not take steps to ascertain public opinion at an earlier stage before authorising the transfer of the noise burden involved in the training of pilots for airlines from Stansted to Thurleigh.
§ Mr. CorfieldThe extended use of Thurleigh for training flights does not involve the introduction of a new activity, but only an increase in a type of flying already undertaken there.
§ Mr. SkeetSurely the Minister must realise that the local authorities should have been consulted on this matter in the first instance because it must lead to an intensification of the noise involved in asymetric flying. Why did he not consult them? Is he not aware that Bedfordshire expressed the view that if the proposal were to be carried through, the environment would be seriously affected?
§ Mr. CorfieldMy experience in these matters is that no local authority will do anything other than resist any increase in noise. This is a marginal increase, and I have set up a consultative committee between officials of the R.A.E., Bedford, 1054 and the local authorities, and I undertake to my hon. Friend to watch their proceedings and to see that their representations are considered.
§ Mr. HastingsDoes the Minister agree that the trouble lies in the short notice given to everybody concerned about this intention? Is there not some danger—indeed something has already appeared in the Press to this affect—that these training flights will be extended to other airlines? Therefore, is there not some ground for apprehension locally? Perhaps the situation might have been made easier if everybody concerned had been told in good time, instead of at a few days' notice.
§ Mr. CorfieldI note my hon. Friend's comments. I do not entirely agree with them, but I am keeping an eye on the extent to which this use would be further intensified in future.