Recreational Aviation

HL Deb 04 February 1997 vol 577 cc1605-19

7.37 p.m.

Lord Rotherwick asked Her Majesty's Government whether they are satisfied with the regulatory provision and range of available facilities for recreational aviation.

The noble Lord said: My Lords, I initiate this debate today partly for personal reasons. I declare that I fly my own home-built Glasair II. I am a member of a number of flying clubs and squadrons. I should like to thank my noble friend Lord Goschen for being present to answer my questions, which are in three parts. I am also deeply grateful to all noble Lords who are taking part.

First, can my noble friend tell me when the new medical rules under the Joint Aviation Requirement (JAR) will apply to private pilot licences? Does he agree that the new medical regulations will result in the medical examination being too frequent, too complex and too expensive? Flying examinations are not cheap. Their increased frequency and complexity will financially hurt the average recreational flyer. As a result, recreational flyers will pay more to know about their health and have less to keep up their standard of airmanship.

Secondly, can my noble friend tell me the up to date situation about training in group-owned aircraft and permit-to-fly (P to F) aircraft? This is a complex area. I will do my best to make the situation simple and precise.

UK law does not class recreational aviation as a separate activity, unlike some other European countries. Flying activities are governed by the Air Navigational Order (ANO) and this dictates, depending on the nature of any remuneration involved, that planes fly in the private category or aerial work category. These two categories are known as general aviation. All the rest fly in the Commercial Air Transport category, known as CAT. In the past, group members wishing to use their own aircraft and pay a qualified instructor to help improve their flying were unable to do so unless their group-owned aircraft's private category was uprated to an aerial work category, an expensive and complex process. Owners of permit-to-fly aircraft were not able to do this at all. Although the pilot of a group-owned aircraft could pay an instructor to be checked out, revalidate his licence or renew his ratings, this was not the case for pilots of permit-to-fly aircraft. I ask the Minister to confirm that the Standing Advisory Committee on Pilot Licensing is intending to endorse a long awaited and much required change in the rules, enabling professional instructors to be paid to help private pilots in group-owned aircraft flying under a private category certificate or to be paid to help pilots in their aircraft being flown under a permit to fly.

Perhaps the Minister could set out any new initiatives in the planning process that will affect general aviation, under which recreational flying is included. The national picture is one that has caused great concern to the world of general aviation. Flying sites are being lost nationally and new flying sites are very difficult to open, for a number of reasons. First, there is no national policy on aerodromes. Secondly, general aviation is being "squeezed out" of larger commercial operations, such as Manchester, Birmingham and Humberside, by Commercial Air Transport (CAT) operators, forcing general aviation to seek bases on smaller sites. Such sites are simply not available to accommodate general aviation. Thirdly, existing general aviation sites are being put under increasing pressure to reduce their operations or have been threatened with closure, often due to a vociferous minority of local residents. The result can be enforcement action against the site owner with onerous limits placed upon flying activity or closure of the sites altogether. Fourthly, long established airfields have been redeveloped, such as the West Mailing, Kent, business park and residential development and the Burnaston, Derby, industrial development. Finally, local opposition has resulted in very few new flying sites being established. This situation is alarming, especially when viewed against the background of an almost constant number of aircraft being used by a wide range of general aviation operators.

The importance in the UK of general aviation, under which recreational flying comes, can be summarised. It provides pilot training at no expense to the British taxpayer. In the early 1990s, 43 per cent. of all commercial pilots entering the profession came via the club and private flying route. A heavy demand for pilots to serve the Commercial Air Transport sector is arising again. It broadens the range of available recreational and sporting facilities, such as gliding, parachuting and microlight flying, all of which have a place in the overall sporting picture at national level. Perhaps the Minister could also confirm, as a paraglider, that his sport has no interest in airfields, since it concentrates on looking for parasites. General aviation assists, inter alia, medical services, such as air ambulances and police services and the work of statutory undertakers such as aerial mapping. It is the essential element in the overall transport infrastructure, providing quick and easy access for business operators to move goods and services within the country and Europe, allowing the UK to compete economically in an international context.

The planning system we have today in the UK is a plan-led system (Section 54A of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990). This means that increased emphasis has been placed upon the development plan policy by the local government officers, elected members and the planning inspectorate. It is therefore essential that there is a clear policy guidance regarding general aviation issues. This policy should emanate from central government in order that it can be disseminated through the system and be incorporated in structure and local plans. With clear policies in place, elected members will then be able to determine applications in the appropriate context. A lack of policy inevitably leads to confusion and, more often than not, refusal of the related application. A General Aviation Awareness Council survey of general aviation related applications, recorded during the five year period 1988-1993, indicated that 63 per cent. of applications were refused, compared to the "all applications" average of 14 per cent. refusal for the same period.

The GAAC undertook a further survey of all county and regional councils throughout the UK in order to establish, inter alia, how many authorities recognised general aviation in the structure/regional plan policy. A 91 per cent. response rate was achieved and confirmed fears that general aviation issues were not being given due consideration. There was no mention of general aviation in 60 per cent. of the nation's key planning documents. Of those policies in place, many were poorly worded and would do more harm than good to the future of general aviation.

At present the only national policy guidance comes in the form of two paragraphs (5.35 and 5.36) which are lost in PPG 13 Transport, a document geared primarily towards road-based transport. It is a good start, but not enough. Without a stand alone general aviation related policy statement or document, the issue will continue to be overlooked by county or regional and district or borough councils. The reality is that existing flying sites are being lost. In the case of the British Aerospace site at Hatfield, the local authority cited the lack of a clear government policy regarding general aviation as one of its reasons for not giving encouragement for the retention of the main runway for operational use. Another example is the action of Doncaster City Council in turning its airfield into a boating lake.

In conclusion, surely, while ensuring that safety in general aviation is not compromised, there must not be an overkill of bureaucratic rules that result in the decline of recreational flying. The excitement and enjoyment of flying over the United Kingdom's countryside must not be curtailed.

Central government should take a more proactive stance as regards general aviation and ensure that general aviation facilities are available to meet the nation's needs. I ask my noble friend the Minster to consider the following: first, more general aviation facilitites are needed. They form part of the nation's transport infrastructure. Secondly, planning procedures should recognise the need to retain general aviation aerodromes in view of their value to the local community for general transport services, for training and for leisure facilitites. Thirdly, the competitive disadvantages suffered by UK flying training organisations should be eased by removing the requirement for full rescue and firefighting services to be available at all training aerodromes. This is not a requirement in other EU countries or in America. Fourthly, it is essential that there is a national air traffic service that accords consideration to all airspace users. Fifthly, there should be a minimum distance between any new building development, particularly housing, and aerodrome boundaries. Sixthly, there should be positive provisions for general aviation facilities in county structure plans and in district local plans and airfields should be recognised in the planning process as open spaces that should be preserved rather than be seen as sites ripe for development.

Next, planning authorities should be given positive guidance on the measure and assessment of noise from general aviation operations and, to promote a quieter environment, the CAA could be more sympathetic in recognising the certification that other countries use, especially in the area of noise reducing propellers and silencers.

Finally, the CAA charter could perhaps be amended to extend its responsibilities beyond its existing regulatory powers to enable it to support general aviation in a more positive way, similar to the policy statement of the US Federal Aviation Administration.

7.50 p.m.

Lord Trefgarne

My Lords, noble Lords will be grateful to my noble friend Lord Rotherwick for raising this important matter. I have to start by declaring an interest. I am the president of the Popular Flying Association which is the largest body within the recreational aviation sector. I am also president of the British Association of Aviation Consultants which has an interest in this matter.

As I say, the PFA is the largest body representing recreational aviators. We have some 8,500 members—a number which has been increasing steadily in recent years. We have delegated to us authority to issue permits to fly, as my noble friend correctly described them, for a number of smaller aircraft, including, I am proud to say, one built by my noble friend. I hope that it is as safe as he thinks it is and we believe it is.

The PFA of course has a major interface with the CAA. As my noble friend recognised, many of the issues that he touched upon in his speech are matters for the CAA, which I am sure my noble friend the Minister will correctly explain in a moment. The PFA has excellent relations with the CAA. Indeed, only recently I took what is now almost a routine delegation to see the new chairman of the CAA, Sir Malcolm Field. We were cordially received. More than that, we were constructively received, and had a most useful discussion with him and his senior officials.

But not all the problems confronting recreational aviation are matters for the CAA. At the top of the list, as my noble friend said, is the problem of airports and aerodromes for use by recreational aviators. There is a most serious shortage of such aerodromes. That is a matter for the Government and not for the CAA.

I recognise that an announcement made by Ministers not so long ago—I think that it was in the context of announcing the future of Farnborough—was a step in the right direction. It is too much to hope that any government would lay a duty upon local authorities to provide facilities for recreational and general aviation, but it is hoped that there could be more encouragement than there is at present. There are a number of local authorities around the country which are positively antagonistic to general aviation. A number of names spring to mind. Ipswich council, for example, just a few weeks ago closed Ipswich Aerodrome, which has been there for the benefit of general aviation and the people of Ipswich as a whole for very many years—since before the war, I believe. It decided suddenly a few weeks ago to close it. Closed it was on 31st December. It is to be hoped that the Ipswich authorities will agree to sell the aerodrome to interests which are, I know, interested in and willing to buy it and operate it as an aerodrome, although there has not been much sign of any enthusiasm for that step.

There are other aerodromes which have suffered equally from local planning difficulties. Crowfield in Suffolk was one not so long ago. I believe that has been partially although not wholly resolved. My noble friend referred to Burnaston near Derby which was closed a few years ago and is now completely lost to aviation interests.

One of the problems that has beset general aviation and the aerodromes that it needs has been the ill-informed lobbying that takes place. There is an organisation called the Airfields Environment Federation, which is nothing more than a political front. Unfortunately it received some public money. I hope and believe that that public money has now stopped. Those people were of no benefit to the local communities which they sought to serve, and they were seeking only, as far as I could judge, to further their own interests. Happily their influence is now waning, following the elimination of public money, as I now believe.

My noble friend referred to the current wholesale review of aviation regulations which is going on, I believe rightly, under the auspices of the Joint Aviation Authority, leading to what is called joint aviation regulations. My noble friend referred to the problems that are emerging from that forum with regard to the medical examinations to be required of private pilots. The fact of the matter is as I understand it, although this is not yet finalised, that increasingly frequent and demanding medical examinations will be called for for private pilots, without, we are assured—no one claims to the contrary—the slightest medical justification.

I do not know why it is that the British representative at the JAA negotiations agreed to those recommendations. I am told that when the French authorities saw what was happening they just said that they would not observe them. I hope that the CAA will be so guided. I am told that all the JAA regulations, as they are called, have to be approved by the European Commission. The Commissioner responsible for these matters is no less than Mr. Kinnock who now occupies the post that the noble Lord, Lord Clinton-Davis, occupied with such distinction a few years ago. I hope and intend that we shall be able to make representations to Mr. Kinnock so that the European Commission does not approve those regulations, and that they do not then become imposed wholesale upon unwilling countries such as the UK, and that we shall be able to get our message across when we see him in due course. I should say that I have not yet told Mr. Kinnock that I want to see him. So if he is able to read this debate, I should not want him to think that I have any complaint about his attitude, because I have not yet approached him. I intend to do so in the near future.

Another matter causing some anxiety among the general aviation fraternity, and another matter for which the Government are indeed responsible, is the proposed privatisation of the National Air Traffic Service. I have no objection in principle to the privatisation of NATS or, for that matter, anything else, but we need to be assured that the interests of the general aviation community will not be trampled underfoot by that privatisation process when it comes forward in, it is hoped, the not too distant future.

Those are the principal issues that I wanted to put before noble Lords. My noble friend Lord Rotherwick raised a number of other detailed issues which I endorse. Recreational aviators are as entitled as anyone else to follow their leisure pursuits. Of course they, too, have a duty and obligation not to trample too roughly upon the community. Small aeroplanes are sometimes rather noisy, but I am glad to say that there have been many advances in recent years where the nuisance has been reduced or even eliminated. I hope that that can be reflected in a more flexible approach by the planning authorities when applications for the use of sites for those purposes go before them.

The House will be grateful to my noble friend for raising this matter. A number of issues have been mentioned. Many of them are indeed within the province of the CAA rather than my noble friend the Minister, but I, too, look forward to his reply.

7.58 p.m.

The Earl of Liverpool

My Lords, it is with great pleasure that I, too, express my gratitude to my noble friend Lord Rotherwick for giving us the opportunity to focus on matters affecting light aviation in this country. His Question refers to recreational flying, but as it may be difficult to see exactly where recreational flying ends and business aviation begins, I hope that my noble friend the Minister will forgive me if I allow my remarks to meander between the two.

I must declare an interest in that I, like my noble friend Lord Rotherwick, am a member of the Air Squadron which has a membership of 100 aviators. It will therefore come as no surprise to noble Lords to learn that I hold a private pilot's licence for fixed-wing and helicopter flying.

I have great admiration for my noble friend Lord Rotherwick because his enthusiasm for flying has led him to devote countless hours of his time to building his own aircraft. He should be very proud of his achievements. I have seen his Glassair II, and a very fine example it is. He has offered me a flight in it but so far I have not found time to take to the skies with him. However, I hope that this will soon be rectified.

My noble friends Lord Rotherwick and Lord Trefgarne have comprehensively covered issues concerning general aviation and I hope that my noble friend the Minister will forgive me if I indulge in an element of repetitiveness. General aviation performs a great service in this country. It is not, as is so often assumed, the rich playing with their toys. Many aspiring private pilots make huge sacrifices to learn to fly. Approximately 43 per cent. of all pilots entering commercial aviation were able to do so as a result of learning to fly at their local flying clubs. This training plays an important role and should be supported.

Unlike America, we only permit flying training to take place at licensed airfields and too many of our airfields have recently been lost to development and have not been adequately replaced. It can be extremely difficult to redress this declining balance because local planning authorities are frequently swayed by a small minority who use noise pollution as an objection to establishing a new airfield.

It is all too often overlooked that airfields are essentially green, open spaces which live in harmony with the country landscape. If they become business parks or light industrial parks they create road traffic build-up and other pressures on the environment which may be more polluting or invasive than the transitory noise of an aircraft. An airfield can be returned to agricultural use fairly easily should the need arise, whereas that is all but impossible once development has taken place.

Business today needs good communications. Time is a valuable commodity, and light aircraft play an important part in maximising efficiency. Well-run airfields also provide local employment and promote a dynamic image to the regions they serve. But too many of our smaller airfields fail to promote such an image and their facilities are disappointing. That is because the high cost incurred in obtaining the licence for the airfield leaves little over to promote the image I am seeking. On the Continent, where an aerodrome's value to the community tends to be more readily understood, many facilities are provided by the local chamber of commerce. We could perhaps seek to emulate that in this country.

I turn briefly to the need for a helicopter landing site for London. It is true that Battersea exists, but it can take anything up to 40 minutes to get there from the City. The benefits of a heliport in close proximity to, or even in, the City of London would have an exponential effect on international business and inward investment in this country.

Returning to my earlier point about efficient use of time playing an ever-more important role in our lives today, a helicopter flight from Heathrow Airport to the City will take approximately seven minutes. If it then took another seven minutes to get to the office—making a total journey time of approximately 15 minutes—that would be a dynamic improvement on what is currently available at Battersea.

We should not overlook the fact that as the feelgood factor kicks in, the demand for landing slots at Battersea will exceed those available, thus making the need for a second heliport even greater. For those reasons I strongly supported the Thames Heliport plc application for a floating and moveable heliport on the River Thames and I was sorry that it was turned down on appeal. Will my noble friend the Minister tell the House what government thinking is on a second heliport for London?

To return to my earlier point about pilot training being permissible only at licensed airfields—a point made by both noble Lords who spoke before me—the cost associated with obtaining a licence for an aerodrome is onerous. Does my noble friend the Minister have plans to relax this rule? I look forward to his reply.

8.7 p.m.

Lord Clinton-Davis

My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Rotherwick, for initiating this interesting debate, and the noble Lord, Lord Trefgarne, and the noble Earl, Lord Liverpool, for their contributions.

I must declare an interest. I am the only Peer to participate in this debate who is not a pilot. I can claim to do this vicariously through my presidency of the British Airlines Pilots Association but I would not encourage anyone to put me at the controls of an aircraft on that basis. It would be different for political control.

General aviation is extremely important. This debate has ranged beyond recreational aviation, and it is just as well that it has. There are difficulties to which none of your Lordships who have spoken have alluded, and I will come to those in a moment. Unquestionably, general aviation and recreational aviation serve a very useful purpose—certainly as far as business and pilot training are concerned—and we must never lose sight of that fact.

Aviation policy should embrace these important components and I shall be interested to hear what the Minister says about that particular issue. Where does the issue fit in with the government's perspective about aviation? No doubt the Minister will also touch on the reasons for the relative decline in the number of licensed aerodromes as compared with the increase in general aviation which has taken place over the past decade or so. I accept that the impact of this on pilot training can be serious. On the other hand, other than in terms of criticising planning procedures, none of your Lordships referred to the environmental disadvantages which sometimes do accrue from general aviation and, in particular, training.

It was argued that, without undermining safety or requiring increased government funding, recreational aviation could be encouraged far more and that in turn this would enhance the number of military and civilian pilots, designers and engineers. That point was argued on behalf of general aviation to the Select Committee on Transport in the House of Commons a couple of years ago.

I am not convinced that the suggestions made in the name of deregulation are desirable. I do not wish to have any unnecessary red tape relating to this area or any other area, but the suggestions made in the course of this debate and in the submission of the General Aviation Awareness Council in December 1994 might well fit into this category. It has to prove its case; mere assertion is not sufficient. Nor am I convinced that the introduction of a further tier of licensing in the form of a restricted PPL which would allow pilots to operate in the local vicinity of their airfield would be justifiable. That was another point made by the General Aviation Awareness Council. I say that not withstanding the French experience of such restricted PPLs.

The point has been made that there ought to be less rigidity for medicals affecting the PPL. In the United States, FAA standards are designed to enable periods between medicals to be less frequent. So, notwithstanding that fact, is it right—and I ask the Minister this question, although I am not sure that he will be able to respond immediately—that no evidence in the air safety records in the US suggests that their safety record is less good than our own? Why do we not, like the FAA, use comparable cost-benefit analyses to secure a comparison? I am not committed to the view that we should do so, but I should like the Minister to tell me what the position is in that regard.

An interesting point was made by the noble Lord, Lord Trefgarne, concerning the powers of the JAA. The noble Lord may well know that those powers are under consideration, most particularly since the authority applied to establish quite substantial differences in its constitutional position. In relation to the issue affecting flight and duty time limitation, the JAA sought initially to assert—and the Commission has certainly taken steps to rebut that assertion—that it had the right to promulgate its regulations and expect the Commission simply to rubber-stamp them. I do not think that that is acceptable because I believe that the JAA would be arrogating to itself rights which it is not entitled to have under the treaty. I hope that the Minister will support that view.

On the question of cross-border flying requirements, as I understand it we still require general aviation aircraft, including microlight aeroplanes, to use either a Customs designated airfield or to register their movements with the police. It is legitimate to ask why such requirements are not extended to other forms of recreation; for example, motoring and yachting. What is the reason for that distinction?

In relation to the Government's proposal, which, it is to be hoped, has been abandoned or at least deferred for the foreseeable future and to which the noble Lord, Lord Trefgarne, referred—namely, to privatise NATS—can the Minister say whether the Royal Aero Club was consulted? Having responsibility for the oversight of sporting and recreational aviation activities in the UK, does the Minister know that it certainly should have been? Indeed, if it had been consulted, the Minister would have known of its hostility to the proposal. That seems to me to be a good example of where an organisation like the RAeC has reservations regarding a proposal which clearly could impinge on safety, on costs and on responsible freedom of movement in the air. It would be sad if the Government failed to consult the RAeC on the matter.

I turn now to the question of rescue and fire-fighting services. During the course of tonight's debate it has been suggested that such services are required on all aerodromes which are used for flying training and that that is unnecessary. It is said that it represents an unnecessary cost factor and the provision of resources in many instances, and should not, therefore, be mandatory at every aerodrome. Again, I am not convinced that such requirements should be abandoned—at least not without a most careful study. Like other Members of this House, I should like to hear from the Minister on that point.

As regards the environment and planning, I believe that noble Lords who have spoken in support of general aviation should not underestimate the noise nuisance that is caused to residents who live near training aerodromes. I well remember going to Hamble in the late 1970s. Indeed, the course that is followed by such aircraft is unquestionably a disturbance. It has been argued that people should not buy houses situated close to existing aerodrome, and there is something in that view. The argument is that you do not have the right to complain if you come to the nuisance.

However, in other cases where it has not happened, it does not perform a service for general aviation to deny or deliberately underestimate what is a real problem for many people. In that connection, I gave the Minister notice of a question which I wish to raise; namely, how many private aerodromes used for general aviation are there in the United Kingdom? Further, how many of them refuse to recognise consultative committees? The noble Lord, Lord Trefgarne, has considerable knowledge about such committees, and, in the main, they are valuable. Nevertheless, they are seen by some rather narrow-minded aerodrome owners to represent a nuisance, in that they create an unnecessary constraint on the activities of the aerodrome. I believe that to be an unacceptable point of view, and, indeed, contrary to the interests of a functioning aerodrome.

I am sad that that point was not raised by the noble Lord who initiated the debate. Being perhaps a witness whose credibility is more acceptable, I beg of him and others to do so in the interests of ensuring that the pluses and minuses of the argument are put forward. However, having said that, we have had a useful debate and I have but one final point to make about Ipswich.

I have no personal knowledge of Ipswich, but the noble Lord, Lord Trefgarne, will realise that the Government have placed limitations on improvements and investments so far as concerns local authority airports. Coupled with the other restraints that are imposed on local authorities, I imagine that Ipswich airport was being run at a loss, or at least very close to the margin. Therefore, I do not wish to jump to a conclusion in that respect, which the noble Lord seemed to do. There may be very powerful reasons for the local authority taking the view that it did. However, as neither the noble Lord nor I have the facts within our grasp, I can say no more than that.

I thank the noble Lord once again. We have had a useful debate and it is right that the Government and the Opposition should take such points on board. I look forward to hearing the Minister's response.

8.16 p.m.

Viscount Goschen

My Lords, I should like to begin by thanking my noble friend Lord Rotherwick for initiating this evening's debate on recreational flying. Indeed, I should like to thank all noble Lords who have taken part. Certainly, a considerable amount of expertise on the subject has been displayed. For such a short debate a great many questions have been raised and I hope, therefore, that noble Lords will forgive me if I plough on and attempt to answer as many as I can.

The House may wish to be aware that, as has already been said, I maintain a current private pilot's licence myself and have indeed been known to fly a paraglider.

The Government are very much aware of the valuable role which general aviation plays in the UK. I was pleased to see that this was a position that had universal support this evening. My noble friend Lord Trefgarne has already referred to the December 1994 Statement by the then Secretary of State for Transport, Dr. Mawhinney. The Statement said that, the Government recognise that General Aviation, and in particular business aviation, can bring economic and wider benefits to national competitiveness as well as to local and regional economies. The existence of aviation facilities can be a factor in business location, especially for international companies. The Government wish these benefits to be fully recognised in the planning system, alongside the environmental impacts". I shall speak more about the planning system in a moment or two, but I believe that to be an important Statement.

Business and recreational aviation often exist at the same sites, but recreational aviation is of itself an important activity both in economic terms with aircraft manufacture sales, maintenance and flying training businesses, among others. Moreover, as we have heard, on many occasions it provides the first step on the ladder towards a professional flying career in the airline industry in which the UK is a world leader.

In terms of the planning and development of airports, it should be remembered that the Government are not responsible for the development of aerodromes. My noble friend Lord Liverpool raised the issue of heliports for London—of course, what applies to aerodromes applies equally to heliports. However, I would draw my noble friend's attention to the London Heliport Study which identified a number of technical issues which would need to be addressed at any future planning inquiry. It developed an effective method of measuring the effect of helicopter noise. The report did not make recommendations and it would be for a private developer to come forward with specific proposals.

My noble friend Lord Rotherwick rightly pointed to the pre-eminence of the plan-led system. Where my department can and does contribute to the process is by examining draft development plans to ensure that, where appropriate, provision is made for general aviation aerodromes. Planning Policy Guidance Note 13 on transport—with a section highlighting to planning authorities the economic benefits of general aviation and smaller airports—has already been mentioned. Other planning guidance, PPG24, also warns local authorities about inappropriate or noise sensitive development such as new housing in the vicinity of aerodromes. That again was a subject stressed this evening in your Lordships' House. However, in the field of planning, circumstances always vary from site to site and it is often not appropriate to be more prescriptive.

However, it is interesting to note that the number of licensed aerodromes has, I understand, remained close to its present total of just over 140 over the past few years. In addition, as we have heard, there are many unlicensed aerodromes as well as a number of hang-gliding, paragliding and balloon launch sites. Planning authorities need to be aware of both the benefits of general aviation and sensible ways of mitigating its impact—balancing the scales, as the noble Lord, Lord Clinton-Davis, stressed this evening. It is for that reason that I applaud the efforts made in this area by bodies such as the General Aviation Manufacturers and Traders Association, the Aircraft Owners and Pilots Association and the General Aviation Awareness Council. Those bodies raise the profile of the issue and of the debate.

It is perhaps not surprising that as larger airports attract more commercial traffic it is recreational aviation that may begin to suffer. To some extent this is an inevitable by-product of the success of liberalisation of aviation services and the greater use of regional airports for scheduled services. The Government do not direct that particular types of traffic or services should use particular aerodromes. We believe this is a matter for the owners and operators. I regret it is inevitable that recreational flyers will increasingly have to look to alternative sites because of this development of services at major airports.

The Government are also very much alive to the environmental impact of general aviation, particularly in terms of noise. This was one of the central issues which the noble Lord, Lord Clinton-Davis, rightly focused upon. The results of consultation exercises have drawn attention to the propensity for annoyance to be caused by light aircraft and in particular activities with a degree of repetition such as parachuting, aerobatics and circuit training. The latter is an essential part of the training process and underlies the need which most aerodrome operators fully appreciate to ensure that pilots are aware of prescribed circuit patterns and of areas where overflight must be avoided. The consultation identified areas where the present legislative framework could be improved. We proposed to introduce a new power of designation. This would require an aerodrome designated under it to prepare a noise amelioration scheme and agree it with a specified local authority. Of more importance perhaps for the majority of aerodromes, there would be new powers to help aerodromes to enforce their own voluntarily prepared mitigation schemes.

But within this framework I firmly believe that the right way to tackle these problems—which are fundamentally local problems—is at local level, by consultation and co-operation between the fliers and the overflown, often represented in residents' associations or environmental groups. My noble friend Lord Trefgarne mentioned the Airfields Environmental Federation. It is not for me to speak for that body but I have met it and at that meeting I was pleased to hear its assurance that it takes a positive attitude towards the debate on general aviation.

The issue of consultation committees was mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Clinton-Davis. Clearly these are an important means by which this interface can occur. I think the specific question concerned how many aerodromes had refused to accept such committees. I am not sure that that is the right question to ask. A number are designated under Section 35 of the Civil Aviation Act, which requires them to set up adequate facilities for consultation. I understand that 50 are designated, but I can certainly let the noble Lord have a list if he wishes. The number that are not designated are the total minus 50. Some have only recently been designated and will set up their committees in due course.

My noble friend Lord Rotherwick asked about the silencing of light aircraft. Most light aircraft can meet the international standards without modification. However, as my noble friend mentioned, some states, such as Germany, have tighter standards which often involve the fitting of external silencers or specially designed propellers. There are drawbacks to these solutions as there is some evidence that they can have adverse effects on an aircraft's airworthiness, and safety must take priority.

I was also asked about the Civil Aviation Authority's charter. The duties of that body are set out in the Civil Aviation Act 1982 and other related statutes. Within these statutes no section of aviation receives the kind of positive support that my noble friend envisages for general aviation. That is quite right. That is the right approach for a safety regulator to take; that should be absolutely constrained within the law.

The possibility of the privatisation of NATS and other airspace issues were raised. We certainly agree that airspace planning and management are important issues which must be carried out even-handedly to ensure access to our airspace on a non-discriminatory basis. To this end the Directorate of Airspace Policy has been set up as an independent unit to act as the national airspace authority to plan and to promulgate all airspace arrangements; to advise on the environmental implications; to consider and when appropriate approve proposals for change from NATS or any other user or ATC organisation. The DAP is run jointly by the CAA and the MoD under directions from the two Secretaries of State and would remain in the public sector after the privatisation of NATS. GA is appropriately represented in the airspace debate and particularly on the principal consultative body, the National Air Traffic Management Advisory Committee chaired by the director.

The deregulation of aerodromes was mentioned by a number of noble Lords. This has been the subject of detailed industry consultation by the CAA. A report regarding that consultation will be sent to all respondents by the CAA soon. Briefly, the exercise did not find clear support for the removal of rescue and firefighting services, but indicated a need for clarification and simplification of requirements at the smaller licensed aerodromes. The CAA will invite industry representatives to begin discussions on the findings during February.

As part of its review the CAA investigated arrangements in Europe. While flying training at unlicensed aerodromes is permitted, it often still takes place at licensed sites within Europe either by choice or by default. Where it takes place at unlicensed aerodromes, there is usually some kind of local firefighting provision.

JAA medical rules formed an important part of the debate this evening. I can confirm that the new JAA medical requirements will result in a small increase in the number of medical examinations a UK private pilot's licence holder will have to undergo during the course of his flying career. The frequency of medical examinations increases with age to reflect the increase in medical risk that comes with advancing age. The main increase in the number of medical examinations required under JAR-FCL comes from the lowering of the threshold between annual and six-monthly examinations from the age of 70 to 65. While a private pilot will require 36 medical examinations between the ages of 30 and 70 under JAR-FCL compared with 28 under current rules, the bulk of the increase comes after the age of 65. That is an important point to bear in mind when making a comparison. Between the ages of 20 and 65 the number of medical examinations required for a private pilot will only increase from 25 to 28, so the difference is much smaller there.

The JAA medical requirements were agreed only after careful consideration by the medical experts of member states. In relation to electrocardiographs, urinalysis and pulmonary function the CAA believes that there could be scope for a relaxation of the requirements for private pilots. It is in the process of compiling further evidence on this issue and hopes to present it to the JAA next year. That may be beyond the scope of this debate.

The issue of training in group owned aircraft was another significant issue which was raised. It is somewhat involved. There are a few minutes in hand. Perhaps the House will permit me to give a reasonably detailed answer to my noble friend.

It is a requirement of the Air Navigation Order that aircraft flown for valuable consideration should have a certificate of airworthiness in the aerial work or transport category. However, provisions were introduced in the late 1980s to allow group ownership of private category C of A aircraft and of aircraft with a permit to fly. Under those provisions, group owners of an aircraft are allowed to contribute to the annual costs of any flying carried out provided that these financial contributions are the only form of valuable consideration in respect of the flight. Flying training can be undertaken in any class of group owned aircraft provided that the instructor does not receive payment. If instruction is given, the instruction may generally take place only in aerial work or transport category certificated aircraft. Owners have the option of upgrading a private category C of A to a higher class if they so wish.

The situation for individually owned aircraft is different. A general exemption exists to permit the sole owners of aircraft with a private category C of A to pay an examiner for a flying test. In addition, the CAA concluded an agreement with the PFA in May 1996 on the introduction of a pilotage coaching scheme. The scheme's objective is to improve safety standards among PFA members operating light fixed wing aircraft by allowing remunerated coaching to take place. It is restricted to aircraft that are in the sole ownership of the pilot receiving the coaching and cannot be conducted in aircraft that are group owned. That applies to aircraft operating with a permit to fly and is a concession to allow pilots to obtain experience of such aircraft while under professional supervision.

The CAA recognises that new members of a group owning permit to fly or private category aircraft may need to undertake some conversion training for that aircraft.

This may be carried out by another member of the group or a qualified flying instructor although this activity is not flying instruction as defined in the relevant legislation. However, recognising the desirability of this process on safety grounds, the authority is actively seeking a means of permitting this to be carried out in all group owned aircraft including those with a permit to fly. I have to stress that any change in the requirements would not cover training for the grant or renewal of a licence or rating.

The Government recognise the value of recreational aviation and the need for suitable facilities. We also consider that environmental consequences are best resolved at local level. Although the CAA is responsible for the regulation of general aviation, it does so in co-operation with the sport's governing bodies. This keeps the regulatory burden to the minimum while at the same time ensuring that an acceptable level of safety is maintained.

The CAA is in the process of instituting a forum in which representative organisations can discuss matters of interest to the GA community. This group, which will be known as the GA Consultative Committee, will assist the CAA in the development of technical and operational policy with the aim of both improving safety standards and encouraging the development of general aviation.

This will help to build on the existing system whereby a number of leisure flying activities are now regulated jointly by the CAA and the relevant governing body. For example, the Popular Flying Association, of which the noble Lord, Lord Trefgarne, is president, has a high level of responsibility for standards of amateur built aircraft and gives recommendations to the CAA on the issue and renewal of permits to fly for such aircraft. The British Gliding Association has overseen conventional gliding activity for over 60 years through its own organisations and member clubs and its model is now being followed by the British Hang Gliding and Paragliding Association. The British Microlight Aircraft Association, the British Parachute Association and the British Balloon and Airship Club all also exercise a degree of regulation over their sport.

We value the important work of these bodies and their contribution in co-operation with the CAA to the attainment of the higher standards of safety in aviation.

I thank my noble friend for raising this important issue of general aviation this evening.