§ 2.38 p.m.
§ THE EARL OF ALBEMARLEMy Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
§ [The Question was as follows:
§ To ask Her Majesty's Government:
- (1)whether they are aware of the Oklahoma Sound tests of 1964 in regard to the harmful effects of supersonic aircraft;
- (2)what priority they will give to the interests of the sleep-needing millions in Southern England as against those of the relatively small number of airborne passengers who may travel in these noisy giants of the future;
- (3)what protection from harmful effects to life and property (e.g., from fractured and falling glass) they will ensure, before they sign the Anglo-French contracts for the construction of the Concord aircraft;
- (4)whether they will repeal the relevant sections of the Civil Aviation Act 1944 which exempt air line operators from liability to pay compensation for the damage done by their aircraft.]
§ THE MINISTER OF DEFENCE FOR THE ROYAL AIR FORCE (LORD SHACKLETON)My Lords, I will answer the noble Earl's Question in four parts. Reports on the sonic bang tests carried out by the Federal Aviation Agency in the Oklahoma City area in 1964 have been studied with great care. As the Federal Aviation Agency has pointed out in the final report, the results were largely inconclusive. Flights over this country at supersonic speed will be controlled in 1304 the interest of those below the flight path. There is as yet not enough information available about the sonic bang problem to enable reasonable decisions to be made about the regulation of these flights. Except possibly in the immediate vicinity of airports, engine noise will be less than that of present day jet aircraft because supersonic transport aircraft will fly at higher altitudes. The British and French Governments have already placed contracts with the airframe and engine manufacturers for the development and construction of the Concord aircraft. However, I can give an assurance that Her Majesty's Government are well aware of their responsibility to ensure that the Concord will be generally acceptable to the public. Finally, there is no such exemption as the noble Earl suggests in the fourth part of this Question, in respect of material loss or damage caused by aircraft.
§ THE EARL OF ALBEMARLEMy Lords, I thank the noble Lord for his Answer. May I take the last part first, that you cannot prosecute for compensation? I understood the noble Lord to say that that is not so. I read the relevant sections in that Act, and they definitely show that you cannot get at operators for any damage alleged to have been caused by them.
§ LORD SHACKLETONMy Lords, I think the noble Earl has probably looked at the wrong subsection. It is Section 40 of the Civil Aviation Act 1949. Subsection (2) of that section says that in respect of material loss or damage to persons or property on land or water by an aircraft in flight, taking off or landing, or by a person in such an aircraft or by an article or person falling from such an aircraft, unless the loss or damage was caused or contributed to by the negligence of the person by whom it was suffered—which clearly would not apply in this case—damages are recoverable from the owner of the aircraft without proof of negligence or intention or other cause of action. There are certain qualifying clauses. If the noble Earl looks at Section 40(2) again, he will find that there is rather more protection than in ordinary cases of damage.
§ THE EARL OF ALBEMARLEMy Lords, I am very much obliged to the noble Lord for that answer. It is an 1305 intricate subject. I read it, but I suppose I did not remember everything about it. With regard to the Oklahoma tests, they were inconclusive because some of those who were collecting information for the poll which appeared in the papers did not continue to collect information when the flights and the power of the engines in those flights began to be stepped up. Therefore, I do not think—
§ THE EARL OF ALBEMARLEIs the Minister aware that since then we have had information showing that damage was done, not to property and not to certain aspects of family health—I am sorry, I cannot go on with that question now, because I have not been able to formulate it as I should wish. However, may I now come to the question of protection from harmful effects? Is it not a fact that the number of flights of jets has increased so much that in view of the capacity of the aerodrome, operators will soon need to try to obtain leave to fly during the hours of night? If that is so, it will mean that there will be further interruption to the rest of the people who live under those bangs, and also to the rest of the children. Can the noble Lord give any assurance that the earlier hours of the night will not be impinged upon in order to agree to foreign competitors trying to have more flying time in 24 hours?
§ LORD SHACKLETONMy Lords, I am sure the whole House shares the concern of the noble Earl about the disturbance that is caused by aircraft. The last point the noble Earl made, about the danger of a further increase of night flying, is certainly one that Her Majesty's Government will have to take into account, and they do regulate such matters. I assure the noble Lord that this will be considered. Of course, this does not arise purely from the supersonic nature of the aircraft, but from the number of flights of aircraft.
On the first point, I would say to the noble Earl that the position with regard to the effect of supersonic bangs is still very indeterminate. The Oklahoma Study itself, in its final words, comes to no conclusion other than that the study was of lasting interest. It does not come to any firm conclusion as to the effect. On the question of damage 1306 to houses, it is likely that over-pressures of even twice the amount that are expected—and it is the discontinuity in the pressure that causes the trouble—would not damage houses. So I can only say to your Lordships that we are very concerned about this matter, that very careful consideration will be given to it, and that there is no doubt that further testing will be necessary.
§ LORD MOYNEMy Lords, does the noble Lord not consider that it may be extremely difficult to identify aircraft in order to bring actions for damages, particularly as more kinds of these aircraft come into use?
§ LORD SHACKLETONMy Lords, I anticipate no difficulty whatever in identifying the aircraft. They will be identified in control on their flight path—that is, if they fly supersonically over this country at all, which is by no means certain.
§ BARONESS SUMMERSKILLMy Lords, as my noble friend said the Government regulate night flights, can he tell us the terms of the regulations?
§ LORD SHACKLETONMy Lords, I am afraid I cannot deal with this point: it does not arise directly from the Question.
§ LORD AMULREEMy Lords, can the Minister tell us whether any work has been done to ascertain whether it is possible to cut out some of the noise of these aircraft without detracting from their efficiency?
§ LORD SHACKLETONMy Lords, again that really is another question. The noble Lord is not bothered by supersonic aircraft at the moment because the Royal Air Force does all its supersonic flying over the sea, but a great deal of research is going on into reducing the noise.
§ LORD MERRIVALEMy Lords, when the noble Lord says it is proposed, quite rightly, that the Concord should be acceptable to the public, can he confirm a statement made by the Bristol Siddeley Aircraft Company to the effect that the noise level of the Concord at take-off will be within the limits laid down by airport authorities? Also, would he not agree that the results of tests on various forms of silencers have shown that considerable noise reduction 1307 can be achieved with a negligible loss of thrust, so that in the end the Concord may be quieter outside airport boundaries than some present-day jet aircraft? Of course, I am not referring to high altitude flying.
§ LORD SHACKLETONMy Lords, I thought I had more or less said that in my Answer. But, of course, the Concord will not be travelling at supersonic speed at take-off.
§ LORD BROCKWAYMy Lords, may I ask my noble friend whether Her Majesty's Government are giving any assistance to those who live within the area of the airport in providing soundproofing for their houses?
§ LORD SHACKLETONMy Lords, I suspect when the noble Lord was in his constituency he may have been just outside the range of the provisions that were made for soundproofing houses, the Act for which was passed through this House in the last Session.
§ LORD CONESFORDMy Lords, does the Minister accept that when the aircraft interest talk about the level of noise being acceptable, they mean it does not quite drive the listener to murder or suicide?
§ LORD SHACKLETONMy Lords, I fully accept that there are different views. A French farmer has contrived to prove that 850 of his chickens died as a result of a supersonic bang.