HL Deb 06 May 1986 vol 474 cc685-95

9.24 p.m.

The Earl of Kinnoull rose to ask Her Majesty's Government whether they will make a Statement on the control of airspace for gliding, in particular the Upper Heyford area.

The noble Earl said: My Lords, following that powerful and fascinating debate on agriculture, I should like to ask the House to turn its attention now to the subject of airspace at Upper Heyford airfield. It is a subject that has won recent publicity for reasons different from those I shall discuss tonight. In raising the subject perhaps I may briefly describe the background to my Question and then the purpose of seeking an illuminating Statement from my noble friend on behalf of the Government.

As your Lordships' House will know, gliding is a popular, adventurous and skilful sport in this country, where there are more than 10,000 civilian glider pilots and 5,000 military pilots. I understand that there are among them 10 stalwart Members of your Lordships' House and, I suspect, Black Rod in his former days. My personal claim to gliding is very limited; one launch that, after daring to open my eyes, I found exhilarating and enjoyable.

It is a sport in which, despite the physical land limitations of our small islands, our busy air space, and our notorious weather, Britain has excelled over many years. Britain won the world championship in 1976, 1978 and 1980, and indeed the French championship in 1977. The sport is administered, with the blessing of the Civil Aviation Authority, by the British Gliding Association. Its duties include not only the training and licensing of pilots, but also the certification of the airworthiness of craft.

I may add that the record of safety for gliding in Britain is second to none, compared particularly with other countries. The credit for that is due not only to the standard insisted upon by the British Gliding Association in the training of pilots but also to the high degree of professional proficiency of the National Air Traffic Service. As the House will know, that body is jointly operated by the civil and military authorities. Indeed, we owe a great deal to that body, even if its handling of the Upper Heyford issued was not, in my opinion, exemplary.

I may add that despite the smallness of our islands and our busy air routes, Britain still maintains a commendable theme of freedom of the skies that is largely made possible by voluntary controls, self discipline, and self preservation by the smaller aircraft. It relies remarkably little on the inflexible legislative procedures of the air navigation orders—indeed, less so than other countries.

There are of course air traffic zones tightly controlled around our civil airports and the major military air bases. However, there are other zones around airfields that are less restrictive, including the radar advisory zone operated on a voluntary basis. Up until 10th April this year, it was that category which Upper Heyford airfield used.

Upper Heyford airfield lies in Oxfordshire and is geographically at about the centre of England. In consequence of that, it obviously attracts a very busy air space of light civil aircraft including gliders, hang gliders, microlights and balloonists. For 13 years, its airfield has been the home of the 20th Tactical Wing of the 3rd US Air Force. For 13 years, the F-111 has been based there, operating within the environment of those light aircraft.

I understand that about one year ago, the United States Air Force came to the view that the present system of air space control—or lack of it, in their opinion and judgment—had become an unacceptable risk, leading to the possibility of an air collision between an F-111 and a small light aircraft within the airfield zone—particularly since such light aircraft often arrive without notice, with no radio contact, and even not showing up on any radar screen.

Tonight, I do not blame the United States Air Force for their caution for safety, particularly as the F-111 aircraft is known for its very poor vision for pilots. However, I submit that their caution has led to an over-reaction, when one sees that in the past 13 years, of eight reported near misses involving gliders within the zone of the airfield, none was in Category A, deemed to be actual risk of collision.

Although I have no criticism of the United States Air Force, I do have criticism to make of the National Air Traffic Service, for what I believe has been a mishandling of the whole situation. Following the view of the United States Air Force being expresssed to the military authorities in Britain, a study was set up by the National Air Traffic Service which apparently identified a significant flight safety risk of collision, especially for gliders, around this airfield. But, despite this important study affecting the users, no figures or evidence have ever been produced. I hope that my noble friend will tonight give us an assurance that these figures will be published. I should say that there were three studies and I refer to the first study in particular, which is the critical one. I hope that my noble friend will tonight give us that assurance because it is very material to the objectives of certain of the users.

Two meetings for users of the airspace were held last October and November under the authority of the National Air Traffic Service. The outcome, in the view of the British Gliding Association, was that a decision was imposed. The option chosen by NATS was the establishment of a 208-mile radio area, or zone, twice as big as a similar zone for Brize Norton airfield, which is a major Royal Air Force establishment, and four times as big as that at most of the other Royal Air Force airfields. Under Rule 36A of the Air Traffic Control Regulations the conditions were laid down that this would be for a twelve-month trial period and that all gliders, other than three local gliding clubs, would have to fit radios to suit Band 129 in order to be able to contact air traffic control at the airfield. The three lucky local gliding clubs who would not have to do this would simply have to call up the air traffic control, as would the hang gliders, the balloonists and the microlights. As I said, this statutory duty commenced on 10th April this year. It is operative on weekdays but excludes weekends and public Bank holidays.

The criticism of the British Gliding Association of the decision by NATS was on three issues. First, and one must remember that it is a responsible body—there was a lack of proper information available at the time of the October and November discussions. It was an emotive subject and the particular lack of information related to the near-misses. This is very important information which is critical to the issue. Two schedules were produced by NATS, neither of which apparently tallied with the other. Perhaps my noble friend can explain that in his reply.

The second criticism was the lack of proper consultation about what the trial period would prove. This mishmash of exemptions by the users, with some having to be fitted with radios and others simply ringing the air traffic control, was, in the view of the British Gliding Association, likely to prove a valueless operation. The third criticism was that NATS produced a major overreaction in the size of the radio zone being imposed around Upper Heyford.

The consequence of this decision is that not only will 90 per cent. of gliders outside the three local clubs be excluded from this zone until they have the new radios fitted—I am told it can take up to three months or even longer to have this done—but also Band 129, which has been chosen and allocated, is already under severe strain at the airfield. To my mind, perhaps the most serious consequence is the inevitable increase in the traffic diverted from the airfield zone to a fairly narrow four-mile gap between the airfield zone at Upper Heyford and Brize Norton. This passage passes over Kidlington airfield, which is a particularly active trainer pilot airfield and an area in which a lot of inexperienced pilots are flying, and then over Weston on the Green, which of course is the parachute centre. I am told that already there is far greater traffic congestion in this narrow bottleneck area than in Upper Heyford. I hope that my noble friend can give an assurance that the Government will monitor this situation and that this narrow passage will be widened if necessary.

Beside asking my noble friend what useful experience is likely to come out of the trial period, I should also like to ask him what will happen at the end of the trial period. Are there to be further consultations among users and is information gathered during the trial period to be made available to them? Is a reduction in the size of the Upper Heyford zone also a possible option?

For those not involved in air recreational sport it may seem that the Upper Heyford issue is a storm in a teacup. However, I submit that there are two issues of substance beyond the argument of air safety. The first is that Rule 36A regarding mandatory radio calls has been brought in and this gives us a glimpse of the massive powers that lie within the Air Navigation Order 1983, with its 98 sections and 13 schedules. There is no appeal procedure and no parliamentary consent is required in this large piece of secondary legislation. The Member for North Tayside in another place recently stated very effectively that the lack of parliamentary control in such large orders should be reconsidered. I hope that my noble friend will consider this when he comes to reply.

Secondly, the handling by NATS of the current Upper Heyford issue is frankly disturbing and distressing. For instance, it is disturbing to find that a brief prepared by this body summarising the case in what, from such an authority, one assumes is an unbiased way, is angrily challenged both on detail and content by the British Gliding Association, which is itself a responsible national body and approved as such.

One asks why NATS has put itself into this position. I must remind the House that it is not the first time that the British Gliding Association has had to defend its territory as regards the freedom of the skies. It happened in Scotland, where it involved Leuchars airfield. In that case, again owing largely to the active parliamentary efforts of the Member for North Tayside, the Minister came down in favour of the British Gliding Association. I hope that at the conclusion of this 12-month period in Upper Heyford a better solution will be found than at present lies in Rule 36A of the Air Navigation Order.

9.38 p.m.

Lord Graham of Edmonton

My Lords, when I came to look at the subject of the debate this evening I was struck by the fact that I speak from this particular place on defence and on sport, and I wondered what my colleagues were doing in giving me a brief either on defence or on sport. I think it is a brief on the defence of sport, because the noble Lord, Lord Trefgarne, appears in his ministerial role at some stage—not that the problem started from his visit, but certainly the solution to the problem that we are now considering flowed from his proper ministerial interest in the matter. I am delighted to see with us tonight the noble Earl, Lord Caithness, who introduces a third dimension, that of transport, because, of course, that is his specialism.

I have no great animus in this matter. I listened carefully to what was clearly not a wholly unbiased but a very fair speech (and that. perhaps, is the understatement of the year!) though it may be outshone by the defence that the Minister will make. But I have benefited enormously from listening to the speech; and I have also read some of the background and the newspaper comments. The noble Earl fairly pointed out the local reaction. There have been letters and articles, particularly in the local press but also nationally. I do not think that airspace control is an irritating subject. It may be petrifyingly real for those involved: not only the people in the aircraft, but others over a wide area. It is a proper subject to be aired.

The burden of what I wish to say is this. I have a sense of unease about a small body being pushed around and getting short shrift from "big brother", whoever it may be, whether the ministry, the United States Air Force or any other body.

However, the noble Earl opened my eyes to the stature and standing of the British Gliding Association. I assume that its 10,000 members include men and women, as that is the way in which that sport has developed. We are not talking about a sexist organisation but a body of sports people who need to be encouraged and who are prepared to spend a lot of their own money. To the best of my knowledge, they do not call on the public purse. They are well organised and they take their job seriously. They have the blessing of the CAA, and they undertake licensing and training and set airworthiness standards. They are concerned to provide a framework for this peaceful sport, so that those who wish to follow it may do it properly and in safety.

This 208-mile zone, as the noble Earl said, is perhaps the first exclusive zone to be declared since the Falklands, and therefore it merits our consideration. I have heard what has been said so far. In effect, it is set by the American authority, because it is concerned about the possibility of accidents and damage. I am told that the track record at the American air base is considerably worse than the projected accident rate for glider collision. I have seen statistics to show the possibility of one accident in 830 years. Play is made in some of the documents that I have seen that there could be an accident next year and another the year after. By their nature, accidents can happen like that.

But I am also told that 13 F-111s have been lost from Upper Heyford in the past 13 years. I assume that the word "lost" means that they have been involved in accidents and damaged or destroyed, and not that they have disappeared off the face of the earth. It is a bit rich for an authority under whose management, or mismanagement, 13 aircraft have been lost in 13 years to try to keep out of the zone a simple, light pleasure activity that may cause one accident in 830 years. I have been struck, in what I have read and also in listening to what we have heard tonight, by some contradictions—

The Earl of Kinnoull

My Lords, the noble Lord is giving us a very interesting briefing. When he says that 13 aircraft were lost in the last 13 years, is he talking of the zone in which they were lost or their loss through misadventure?

Lord Graham of Edmonton

My Lords, they were not lost within the zone. I wish the House to appreciate the quality of the management and the skill of those who point to the need for keeping out glider pilots and glider organisations because of the manner in which they have managed their resources. No doubt the Minister is well aware of the background. I am told, however, that this is USAF Upper Heyford data. If it is disputed, I can only say that it is the advice that I have been given. It is fair to say that F.111s have been very much in the news of late and much interest is therefore taken in them. We have been advised through briefings from the MoD to MPs who are, in effect, the public, who include parliamentarians like ourselves, that the F.111, in its landing or take-off attitude, is widely known to have poor visibility through its canopy. The pilots have therefore to rely on their instruments and advice from air traffic control to detect and to avoid other airspace users. These are, I am told, the words of the MoD. I find this incredible. I put it to the Minister that if, as is suggested, pilots have to rely on instruments and air traffic control advice because they cannot see out of the F.111s this means that the aircraft could not be certified and would not be much use as a fighter. Perhaps the Minister can say tonight or can write to me later to say how, if this is so, the MoD was able to advise MPs.

I want the Minister not only to deal with that issue but also to examine some other conflicts that arise from the information that is available. The MoD says that there is a real risk of mid-air collision between military aircraft and unidentified gliders. The noble Earl the Minister has been asked by the noble Earl, Lord Kinnoull, to state what the record is. We do not doubt the Minister. We ask simply to see the colour of his money and to see the evidence upon which these statements are made. This is a sophisticated assembly. We understand that it would be nice, clean and tidy if there were fewer of these aircraft about. However, that is not good enough. For 13 years, without accident, they have been able to live side by side. So the Minister must say a little more about the matter.

We are also told in the documentation about a study that is going on. We want to know a little more about the study. We wish to know, too, what steps the Minister and the ministry have taken to try to get the United States Air Force to examine its practices. Surely the USAF would be concerned about accidents between two American planes as well as about accidents involving one of its aircraft and a British glider. We want to know what the ministry has done to raise the issue of flying in formation pairs. That is, I understand, the practice.

I believe that the noble Earl, Lord Kinnoull, said that 90 per cent. of those from outside the local clubs will be adversely affected; I do not say catastrophically affected, but they have to get the radio; they have to wait and pay money. I am of course concerned about the US Air Force and I deeply respect all that it is doing. However, my prime concern is the British sport and the sportsmen. I have had sight of a letter from the British Gliding Association to Mr. Michael Spicer, who I deeply respect from my knowledge of him in another place. I want the Minister and those advising him in this debate to give me some answers to this letter. Mr. Spicer was told: It is not correct to state … that, 'with the exception of the BGA the members of the Working Group acknowledged the flight safety hazard and recognised that action had to be taken' ". That is a categorical statement that those bodies were all as one. The British Gliding Association states: With the exception of the AOPA all other civilian recreational bodies … the British Hang Gliding Association, the British Balloon and Airship Association and the British Microlight Aircraft Association … protested that it was not necessary". The impression is given two or three times that somehow or other the British Gliding Association is out on a limb, that it is pursuing something which other people do not want. Yet the evidence I have here is that the association has not so much isolated itself, but has been isolated in a form of words and documentation. Therefore, I believe that the noble Earl, Lord Kinnoull, has certainly legitimately raised the sense of unease that this matter has been dealt with not quite fairly.

At the end of the day the Minister will ask: what are you asking me to do? I am asking the Minister to listen very carefully and sincerely, as he always does, to legitimate grievances. The issue would not be on the Order Paper tonight if people outside this House did not think that it needed an airing. They want redress; they want an opportunity to examine whether or not this is the best way of doing it. They also want the opportunity to appeal against decisions. Decisions are taken which will or will not give exemptions, and they want to feel that they are part and parcel of a proper judicial process. I am not talking about courts of law; I am talking about trying to satisfy all interests.

I think that the American authorities have made very heavy weather of this and I believe that a too hasty decision has been taken by the noble Lord, Lord Trefgarne. For the best of motives the noble Lord has come to this conclusion and the arrangements appear to have been worked out. Incidentally, I was told that fewer than a third of those people who took the decisions on this particular method were civilian or representatives of sport organisations; two-thirds were what I would call service oriented and therefore capable of being malleable if someone said, "This is what we would like".

I know that the Minister will have come well briefed, but if he cannot answer some of my points, I shall understand. However, there are those outside the House who have asked us to raise legitimate questions, and I look forward to the answers.

9.49 p.m.

'The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Transport (The Earl of Caithness)

My Lords, first, I am very grateful to my noble friend Lord Kinnoull for having raised the question of airspace control and gliding because it concerns aviation safety. As I am sure the House will agree, safety is something which deeply concerns us all and should always be foremost in our minds.

As my noble friend said, there can be no doubt that United Kingdom airspace is safe. Latest statistics show that the number of risk-bearing air misses to commercial flights has decreased, while the data for non-commercial aircraft does not show a significant change.

This is despite a significant increase in the amount of air traffic. But aviation is ever changing and what is satisfactory today may not be tomorrow, and it is incumbent upon those responsible for safety to be alert to the need for change and to make improvements where they are necessary.

The duty of ensuring that all aircraft can fly safely in Britain's crowded airspace rests with National Air Traffic Services, NATS, as my noble friend said, a joint Civil Aviation Authority and Ministry of Defence organisation. With relation to Upper Heyford, it is not an American authority that calls the shots, it is the CAA/MoD organisation, NATS. The effectiveness of this joint organisation is reflected in the good safety levels which I have already mentioned.

The Controller of NATS is appointed jointly by my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Defence and the Chairman of the CAA, and with the consent of the Secretary of State for Transport. They must satisfy themselves that the NATS are discharging properly the responsibilities which Parliament has entrusted to them. But these responsibilities must not be usurped. As I am sure the House recognises, the expertise in this area rests with NATS, not with politicians and their officials.

In exercising their duty to secure the safe operation of aircraft, NATS must consider the interest of all airspace users, civil or military, professional or private, from the simplest hang-glider to a crowded jumbo jet carrying several hundred pasengers. This is achieved through the involvement of the National Air Traffic Management Advisory Committee, known as NATMAC. This committee, comprising 27 members, was formed to create a regular and formalised means of dialogue between the NATS and all the various airspace users. It consists of representatives from a very broad cross-section of the aviation community. Of course, the requirements of different airspace users often conflict and it is seldom, if ever, possible to achieve solutions which satisfy the widely disparate requirements of them all. However, great efforts are made to achieve equitable compromises which have majority support and which ensure the continued efficient use of the limited airspace available.

General regulations covering the conduct of flying within the United Kingdom airspace are published in the Air Navigation Order and Rules of the Air and Air Traffic Control Regulations 1985, and all aircraft, including gliders, are bound by these rules. However, the unique performance of the glider has been recognised and some relaxations have been made in favour of the gliding community. For example, in airways—corridors of airspace along which the majority of passenger carrying airliners fly—all flying is totally controlled, but, nevertheless, gliders are free to cross an airway provided that they remain in visual flight and clear of cloud. Moreover, in some airways, sharing arrangements exist which allow gliders access for soaring when airline traffic is low. These arrangements work very well in Airway Amber 1 North of Manchester, and in Airway Blue 22 in Scotland. In the latter case, an operational concession was given to gliders operating from the important Portmoak gliding site, such that at weekends when soaring conditions are favourable airways traffic is re-routed via an alternative airway, specially created for the purpose. I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Graham of Edmonton, will realise the lengths we have gone to try to incorporate the gliders into a crowded airspace.

Outside areas of regulated airspace—that is, in free airspace—there are no constraints or restrictions on gliders other than that they must comply with the general rules and regulations I have mentioned. The rules which apply in visual conditions are designed to ensure efficient and effective separation between aircraft whose flight paths are in conflict, and can be summarised as "See and Avoid". More stringent rules apply in instrument flight conditions; such as in poor visibility or while flying in cloud.

Lord Graham of Edmonton

My Lords, the size of this zone is almost comparable to that which surrounds Heathrow. If the Minister is concerned with safety, would he also acknowledge that as one excludes gliders from the area then immediately outside the area there is built up a volume of traffic which is greater than is proper? So as one takes away the possible danger inside, one is helping to create further problems on the perimeter.

The Earl of Caithness

My Lords, the noble Lord is hasty tonight. Perhaps he wants me to finish in a hurry, but I was coming to his point in a minute.

I now turn to the problem of Upper Heyford specifically, as mentioned by the noble Lord. Lord Graham of Edmonton. The airspace around this major military airfield has been heavily congested since the 1960s. Due to possible flight safety hazards caused by the heavy congestion in this area, two major airspace reviews were carried out in 1974 and 1977, and these sought to improve flight safety in this busy airspace. These reviews resulted in an expansion of the already established Upper Heyford Radar Advisory Service Zone to 520 square miles. Within this zone it was mandatory for all military aircraft to obtain an air traffic service from Upper Heyford air traffic control. But for civil aircraft this requirement was only voluntary. Consequently, and I regret to say for their own reasons, many did not avail themselves of the safety service available. Thus the identity and intentions of a large number of aircraft flying within the zone were unknown to the ATC.

We must all appreciate the hazards this can cause. Official statistics show that since 1982 there have now been seven airmiss reports in the area covered by the radar surveillance zone. The increasing number of these unknown aircraft in the area led to renewed concern regarding the flight safety of all those who fly in this airspace, and another airspace review was carried out by NATS and the United States Air Force. This concluded that, despite previous measures taken to improve the situation, the large number of unknown aircraft operating in the vicinity of Upper Heyford still represented a grave flight safety risk. The review's recommended solution, which could have prevented aircraft from entering the area, was considered too restrictive. Therefore, NATS formed a working group, comprised of representatives of all interested airspace users, to review all flight operations in the vicinity of Upper Heyford and to suggest improvements. Airspace review reports are produced for the experts concerned and are used in the consultative process. The review was presented to all members of the working group. The working group agreed that it was necessary to improve flight safety in the Upper Heyford area, and because any solution required the support and participation of all airspace users, the solution should be legally enforceable.

That takes me to the point that my noble friend Lord Kinnoull raised, about there possibly being no general agreement within the working group, and this is tangential to the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Graham of Edmonton, that the BTA were being pushed around. There are 15 members within the working group. As I understand it, with the exception of the BTA the members of the working group acknowledged the flight safety hazard and recognised that action had to be taken. The British Hang Gliding Association and the British Microlight Aircraft Association were also in agreement with the proposed procedures, provided that these included agreed means of permitting access by their members' aircraft. Subsequently, the British Aircraft Users' Association, the British Microlight Aircraft Association, the British Hang Gliding Association, the Aircraft Owners and Pilots Association, the British Balloon and Airship Club, the Air Transport Operators Association and the large independent airlines, have all written to the Government or NATS in support of this trial. Therefore, I find it difficult to agree with the noble Lord, Lord Graham of Edmonton, that one particular member of the group is being pushed around.

Lord Graham of Edmonton

My Lords, of course I accept completely what the Minister has said. However, I shall send to him the correspondence that I have seen where a number of the bodies which the Minister has said have written in support are party to contrary views to that, having expressed it in some other way. I appreciate that the Minister is in receipt of information that he has been given; I am in receipt of information that I have been given.

The Earl of Caithness

My Lords, I look forward to receiving the information of the noble Lord. I shall do my best to satisfy him on these points, and I think it probably is the right way to proceed if he agrees with that.

After considerable discussion the working group agreed that the problem could be largely alleviated by establishing a "known" airspace environment around Upper Heyford. All aircraft intending to fly in the area would be required to make a radio call to Upper Heyford ATC. The working group decided—and it was not imposed, as my noble friend indicated; they decided and agreed it voluntarily—that this airspace would be designated as the Upper Heyford mandatory radio area, known as UHMRA. The size of the UHMRA is 260 square miles. May I remind the House that this is half the area of the radar advisory service zone which has now been disestablished. The comments of the noble Lord that we might reduce the area have therefore already been taken care of, but I shall look at his point again. The UHMRA exists only during the notified hours, during weekdays, and therefore all aircraft are able to fly freely in the area during weekends, British and American public holidays.

Providing an aircraft complies with the published regulations pertaining to the UHMRA, entry into the area is guaranteed. Additionally, there are special arrangements for non-radio aircraft based within the area, and special provisions have been made for microlight aircraft, hang gliders and balloons. These arrangements have been achieved after wide-ranging consultations between NATS and all interested parties represented on the National Air Traffic Management Advisory Committee. It is the responsibility of the pilot to ensure that his aircraft is properly equipped with radio equipment. However, as an exceptional measure to assist glider pilots, NATS has arranged an exemption for glider pilots to operate on the ATC frequency without holding a radio licence.

To test the efficiency of the proposed solutions a year-long trial of the new procedures started last month—as my noble friend said—to coincide with the usual seasonal increase in leisure aviation. NATS will monitor the effects on airspace users through trial reports, ATC reports and routine monitoring. After six months NATS will collate reports on the trial for submission to NATMAC. Either then or at the end of the trial, NATS, in conjunction with NATMAC, will consider whether the procedures are an effective solution to the problem and should be retained, or whether they should be modified.

Lord Graham of Edmonton

My Lords, will the noble Lord allow me to intervene? If one of the problems is an unidentified aircraft which could have caused accidents, how is one able to lay blame on the fact that the unidentified aircraft was a glider? If at the end of the six months one looks at the record, and if it is similar to the record of previous periods, where one has unidentified aircraft likely to cause risks, how is one able to say in the future, any more than in the past, that the planes causing the risks are gliders?

The Earl of Caithness

My Lords, as I understand it there are a number of unidentified aircraft that come up on the screen, but when these aircraft are identified it is then determined whether or not they are gliders. There are in the reports a breakdown between the gliders, which sometimes can be motorised (in which case the British Gliding Association say they are not gliders because they are motorised), or civil aircraft.

Lord Graham of Edmonton

My Lords, the noble Earl glided over that very nicely.

The Earl of Caithness

My Lords, as the noble Lord, Lord Graham of Edmonton, will know, it is sometimes extremely difficult to pick up a glider on a radar or to see it visually against a cloud background because of its design and natural colour.

Neither NATS nor Parliament can ever take lightly the safety of aviation in this country. The standards of airspace safety which NATS achieve are good, but it must see that those standards can be maintained today and tomorrow. Inevitably in doing so it will not be able to satisfy the demands of all airspace users, but it will always seek a balance which is acceptable to the majority. However, where one party or another feels that their interests have not been adequately catered for the solution is not for the matter to be referred on appeal to the Secretary of State as my noble friend suggested. Although there is a vested interest in this case, I do not beleive that the company is in the right position to pronounce on such matters, for the very good reason that the expertise necessary to weigh the merits of the competing claims is in the CAA and the final decision must rest with that authority. I believe that no responsible Secretary of State would seek to overturn a decision reached by the authority in matters such as these, in which issues of safety are at stake.

The United Kingdom is almost unique in having within one agency responsibility for all aircraft using our crowded airspace. That arrangment works, and works extremely well, as the safety record shows. I believe that we must not disturb the arrangements by seeking to take away from NATS' responsibility matters in which it, and it alone, is expert or by seeking to undermine it in any way.