Gliding (Portmoak) (Hansard, 17 November 1982)

§ Mr. Bill Walker (Perth and East Perthshire)
I am sorry that my hon. Friend the Minister for Consumer Affairs, who is a most considerate man, should have been asked to stand in tonight. Nothing that I say will be a reflection on him as an individual or Minister.
The Civil Aviation Authority's proposal to turn an advisory route between Glasgow, Edinburgh and Aberdeen into an airway has caused concern to all those involved in light aviation in Scotland, and considerable concern to every glider pilot and gliding club in the United Kingdom. The manner in which this matter emerged and became public knowledge also gave rise to concern. In the absence of an independent appeals procedure, the British Gliding Association, on behalf of glider pilots, and the Scottish Gliding Union—the owners of the airfield at Portmoak—have brought the matter to the attention of the House. That is why I applied to raise the matter on the Adjournment.
More than 200 hon. Members have been approached by glider pilots in the United Kingdom. As the parliamentary spokesman for the British Gliding Association, I have had meetings with the Minister responsible for civil aviation, to whom I have written on this subject. I also tabled early-day motion 47, which has been signed by more than 60 hon. Members from all parties representing every area of the country.
I have raised the issue in an Adjournment debate because I wish to put the facts on record and to give my hon. Friend an opportunity to explain to the House and country the reasons for the airway, why it must be located only in the area defined and why the CAA has behaved in the way that it has done. He might also explain to the House why it was considered necessary for the Department of Trade to inform the media that the proposed airway will still permit 90 per cent. of gliding conducted at Portmoak to continue.
I should explain that I have experience of gliding at Portmoak and have been a gliding instructor for more than 30 years. I spent some years as a full-time instructor with the Royal Air Force. Consequently, I know from my knowledge of the conditions at Portmoak that this claim is complete nonsense, and cannot be left unchallenged. Without considerable safeguards and modifications, the most optimistic figure would be 70 per cent. of present operations. The most likely figure—I stress that point—would be nearer 30 or 40 per cent.
I am saddened that I have been compelled to introduce this debate and table early-day motion 47. Other hon. Members, including Ministers, have implied in letters and conversations that they support me in my efforts to find an acceptable solution to the problem. Let no one be in any doubt. If the Scottish airway is introduced in the form proposed by the CAA, the unique gliding and soaring site at Portmoak will be sentenced to a slow, lingering death. The best way to describe the way in which the CAA has behaved is to call it dictatorial and a distributor of misleading information.
Ministerial letters based on CAA information have either been a deliberate attempt to mislead hon. Members about the true situation or just plain incompetence. 390 Something is wrong and action should be taken to alter this state of affairs. The individuals responsible for this situation and who are accountable should be disciplined most severely. In a letter to my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Trade, who is responsible for aviation issues, I detailed the areas in which errors of fact had been included in ministerial letters to hon. Members. To date, I have not received a reply to that letter. Further, the story being put out by the CAA and the Department of Trade to the effect that the matter had been resolved and that 90 per cent. of gliding at Portmoak would continue shows complete ignorance of what happens during ridge and wave soaring at Portmoak.
The whole matter should be investigated by an independent body and the facts made public. All options, including the route to the east of Portmoak and to the west of RAF Leuchars via Dundee should be debated publicly. In the absence of an independent appeals procedure, the Secretary of State should intervene to stop the present proposals. Alternatively, the CAA and the National Air Traffic Services should present in writing the safeguards that NATS is prepared to offer gliders from Portmoak so that glider pilots from all over Britain and Europe can participate in the unique combination of site location and weather conditions which make Portmoak the finest ridge and wave soaring airfield in Europe.
Finding another site, with two hill ranges offering ridge lift throughout the northern wind directions and wave lift conditions making it possible to climb vertically to heights of well over 20,000 ft and making possible flights of over 500 miles, would be costly, and finding such a site near large urban conurbations would probably be impossible. The cost of the exercise has been estimated at about £9 million.
The site at Portmoak was selected after many years of searching. For 40 years it has been progressively developed. Gliders were flying at Portmoak using the Bishop and Bunarty hills long before the airlines started flying the advisory traffic routes. The full potential of the site has not been realised. Many famous glider pilots fly there, including the present world gliding champion Squadron Leader George Lee of the Royal Air Force. Squadron Leader Lee is one of this country's few world champions. More important, he is one of the few who have successfully defended their championship. He has been world champion on three successive occasions.
The efforts of the Scottish Gliding Union and the British Gliding Association to prevent their death are supported by the Perth and Kinross district council, the Tayside regional council and the Fife regional council, which has its own glider and instructors, based at Portmoak, who train schoolchildren, under the control of the education authority.
The SGU and the BGA also have the support of the Scottish Sports Council, the Central Council for Physical Recreation, 203 right hon. and hon. Members, the Royal Aero Club and my hon. Friend the Member for Dumfries (Sir H. Monro) who represents the club's views in the House.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Taunton (Mr. du Cann) asked me to mention that he supports the gliding groups, and they are also supported by my hon. Friends the Members for Bristol, North-West (Mr. Colvin), Winchester (Mr. Browne), Petersfield (Mr. Mates) and Hastings (Mr. Warren), my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Kinross and West Perthshire (Mr. Fairbairn), 391 my right hon. Friend the Member for Stafford and Stone (Sir H. Fraser) and my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Hexham (Mr. Rippon).
Glider pilots throughout Britain have sadly concluded that the CAA and its offspring National Air Traffic Services are merely splendid old-boy closed shops, with all the ghastly restrictive practices that exist in places where such self-perpetuating and inward-looking bodies are permitted to flourish. I believe that that view is shared by private pilots, light aircraft operators and parachute clubs.
The two bodies concerned with restrictions on the use of airspace are the CAA and the Ministry of Defence's Air Force department It is interesting that the controller of NATS is a serving RAF air marshal and the man in charge of the Air Traffic Management Advisory Committee is a serving RAF air commodore. I often defend the interests of the RAF, but it is a strange body on which all the voices speak to themselves.
The only appeal against decisions made by the CAA and NATS is to the chairman of the CAA. In other words, an appeal is made to the chap in charge of those taking the decisions. The views of the Air Force department of the Ministry on the introduction of airways cannot be challenged, particularly by other interested parties.
It is interesting to note that an escape route window from RAF Leuchars to Lossiemouth cuts across the airway. I do not argue with that, because it is sensible and proper, but it proves that the airway, as shown to Ministers and the media, is not quite what it seems. That is important.
The time scale of events causes especial concern. NATS claims that it held discussions with the BGA between October 1980 and August 1982. However, only outline plans were available and they were for information only. During that period, in-house discussions between the civil and military interests took place, and the following dates are significant. Details of the proposals were eventually extracted from NATS on 9 August. The meetings to discuss the proposals, held at the BGA's request, were on 13 and 17 September. The British Gliding Association requested a working party to be set up, and that was conceded by NATS after 24 hours. The working party met on 21 and 24 September and 24 October. NATS would not delay the implementation date to allow detailed debate on the matter. Indeed, it would not allow any debate on whether an airway was necessary.
The National Air Traffic Services, as a branch of the Civil Aviation Authority, is, to all intents and purposes, autonomous. Its direct responsibility is to the Air Traffic Control Board which, through an independent chairman, answers to both the Secretary of State for Defence and the Secretary of State for Trade. Air space design criteria place undue importance on the expediency and economic operations of commercial traffic. New or extended air space requirements are resolved between the military and civil commercial interests within NATS and presented mostly as a fait accompli to all other air space users. It is only when we have a unique site, such as Portmoak, that we can see that another avenue of debate is needed.
In the circumstances, one would expect there to be a proper appeals procedure, but, sadly, the only appeal is to the chairman of the Civil Aviation Authority. On 26 October 1982 he wrote to the chairman of the British Gliding Association: 392 In these circumstances, I really do not think that the Authority would be justified in taking the matter before the Air Traffic Control Board in an attempt to explore further the 'East Coast Option'". That is yet another reason why Ministers must intervene to show that democracy works.
A letter shows that the Civil Aviation Authority and the Department of Trade advised Ministers incorrectly. It is a fairly common letter, but the one that I have is dated 23 September 1982 and was sent to my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, West (Lord James Douglas-Hamilton). On the proposal that NATS had been discussing with the BGA and the SGU for 18 months, the Minister said that the BGA was informed in October 1980, at which time its concern was made known. However, there was no difference between the proposals that emerged 20 months later, except a higher airway base of 4,000 ft. instead of 2,500 ft. It took 20 months for NATS to reach agreement with Ministry of Defence.
The letter says that NATS … is in frequent contact with these bodies"— the BGA and the Scottish Gliding Union— in order to try and reach a compromise. The only word to describe that is "rubbish". The only contact was regular calls to NATS by the director of operations of the BGA to check on the progress of the Ministry of Defence discussions. The letter continues: In fact, at a meeting on 19 August with the BGA, NATS agreed to set up a working group". That is not true. The BGA requested the working group and NATS took 24 hours to reply. The letter states that the working group had to report by mid-October. In fact, the working group completed its work on 4 October, having met three times. The working group's terms of reference excluded discussion of the need for an airway, and the Ministry of Defence would not consider any line further east than the advisory route via Perth. That shows clearly that there was little to discuss and that it was a fait accompli.
The BGA was misled into believing that a route over Leuchars would be possible if Leuchars had secondary surveillance radar. That is not the case, although Leuchars would be happy with that.
The letter continues: I am afraid that there is little that this Department can do to resolve the conflict of interest. It would be wrong for Ministers to question NATS' professional competence in this matter. They are the experts on airspace management. … We would not want to disagree with their professional opinion. I can imagine what the reaction would be if it were designing a roadway rather than an airway. If that were the case something would have to be done. The letter contains more inaccuracies.
I look to the Minister to confirm that the proposed airway will not be introduced until full and proper consideration has been given to the alternative proposals contained in my letter. Otherwise I expect him to confirm that the British Gliding Association and the Scottish Gliding Union will be given the opportunity to discuss the safeguards for gliding proposed by Air Marshal Pedder to my hon. Friend the Member for Dumfries and myself. To ensure that there is no misunderstanding the safeguards would need to be in writing.

§ Sir Hector Monro (Dumfries)
As a pilot with over 40 years' experience, of which a significant amount was in central Scotland, I should like to say that everything that my hon. Friend has said is correct. We look to the 393 Government to support the unique position at Portmoak and to take a stand against commercialism, which is supposedly is the interests of air safety.

§ Mr. Walker
I thank my hon. Friend for his intervention. There are many other hon. Members who take the same view as my hon. Friend and myself. I ask the Minister to acknowledge that in the absence of an independent appeals procedure it is up to the Secretary of State to protect the interests of glider pilots and to heed the views of so many hon. Members.
If the Minister cannot give me sufficient assurances, the matter will not go away. There are about 200 hon. Members who have an interest in the matter and they will continue to press the responsible Minister. Flight safety is paramount in all flying. I believe that that can best be achieved by spending more time investigating the alternative options.

§ The Minister for Consumer Affairs (Dr. Gerard Vaughan)
I appreciated the opening remarks made by my hon. Friend the Member for Perth and East Perthshire (Mr. Walker). I understand why he has brought the matter before the House. He has great experience in aviation and, as he has told us, he is a gliding enthusiast. It is helpful to have someone with his background and technical expertise to raise such a matter. It is unfortunate that my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary, who has taken a direct part in this matter, is abroad on Government business. I understand that the Under-Secretary of State for the Armed Forces also is not in a position to respond to the debate.
I have genuine sympathy for what my hon. Friend the Member for Perth and East Perthshire has said. I regard gliding as an extremely enjoyable, highly skilled recreation that we should support. I undertake to bring the various points that he has raised to the notice of the Under-Secretary and to discuss them with him to ensure that he understands fully what has been said.
I am advised that what we are discussing is a clear conflict between four different needs. These are the needs of gliding and the need for a civil air service to Aberdeen. That service has increased considerably as a result of the oil industry traffic and includes not only flights by airliners but a considerable number of flights by helicopters. Then there are the needs of the Royal Air Force at Leuchars and the need for basic air safety. As my hon. Friend said, that is the professional advice of National Air Traffic Services and the joint Ministry of Defence and Civil Aviation Authority. It is on grounds of safety, and difficult to argue against.
It is suggested not that gliding should stop but that the air route be diverted so that it is not directly over Portmoak, which is the main gliding area, and that there should be three major zones for gliding—a virtually unlimited zone with total freedom; one with total freedom in clear visual conditions, free from cloud; and the actual airway that gliders can cross but again only in clear visual conditions. The proposal is purely to achieve reasonable safety and to allow gliding to continue.
My hon. Friend said that he had not had a reply to his October letter. That surprises me. I understood that he had 394 had two recent meetings with my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary, who has been looking into the complaints carefully and who I know will wish to come back to my hon. Friend on the matter, if necessary.
It does not appear that there has been a lack of consultation. The National Air Traffic Management Advisory Committee was first advised in December 1979 that National Air Traffic Services was considering upgrading the Scottish advisory routes. Discussions between NATS staff and the British Gliding Association began in October 1980 and a working group was set up by NATS. This is more the province of my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for the Armed Forces, but I should mention that the British Gliding Association visited RAF Leuchars and discussed the problem with the station commander.
The second strand in my hon. Friend's case is doubt about whether the proposed airways to Aberdeen are necessary. The facts are clear. The traffic increase began in 1977 and rapidly rose to 400 movements a week. The situation has not changed significantly over the past four years. One advisory route lies directly over Portmoak and public transport aircraft are flying through areas of fairly intensive gliding. I shall be interested to know whether my hon. Friend disagrees. Safety must be the prime consideration. The professional advice is clear: the present situation should not continue.
The third strand of my hon. Friend's case is that the compromise proposal is unacceptable. He would like to see the airway routed to the east over Dundee or along the east coast. Both options would adversely affect the activities of RAF Leuchars, which would place at risk air defence aircraft, as well as creating a general air hazard.
There is no doubt about the importance of the Portmoak gliding facility. It is a unique location. But I am advised that the NATS proposal will enable the greater part of the gliding activity to continue. As my hon. Friend argued that that was not the case, we must look into the matter.
There will also be the advantage that airliners will no longer fly over Portmoak. It is accepted that gliders should not fly in the path of airliners in cloud. That arrangement will mean that our airliners must fly a less direct route to Aberdeen. I have the figures and I can assure my hon. Friend that that would increase their costs considerably. Taking the even less direct route to the west and then back to Aberdeen would place a huge burden on civil aircraft costs.
My hon. Friend referred to the lack of a formal appeals procedure. He is quite right, but there is a highly developed consultation procedure that is supplemented, when necessary, by direct approaches to the chairman of the Civil Aviation Authority and to my hon. Friends the Under-Secretaries of State for Trade and for the Armed Forces.
By raising the matter, my hon. Friend has drawn attention to several substantial points and has ensured that my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary re-examined all the proposals. The NATS proposals appear to represent the best compromise between the needs of a variety of interests and are necessary for the safety of the area.
The controller of National Air Traffic Services, Air Marshal Sir Ian Pedder, has given an assurance that within the proposal his staff will do all that they can to accommodate the Portmoak activities. To this end, he is arranging for the Scottish Air Traffic Control Centre to discuss special arrangements for gliders with the gliding 395 club. When they are worked out, there will be a letter of agreement between the Scottish centre and the gliding club at Portmoak. I hope that on that basis my hon. Friend will accept that these are intended as helpful moves. He has done a valuable service in bringing the matter before the House.