Aerodromes

HL Deb 31 July 1997 vol 582 cc373-86

3.27 p.m.

Lord Rotherwick rose to ask Her Majesty's Government whether they are satisfied with the range of provisions and facilities at aerodromes.

The noble Lord said: My Lords, I am delighted to be able to speak on this Unstarred Question and raise certain problems that are occurring within the range of provisions and facilities at UK aerodromes, and I hope that the Government will wish to address those concerns in a positive way. I should like to thank the noble Baroness, Lady Hayman, for being present to answer my questions. I am also grateful to noble Lords who are taking part.

I declare an interest insomuch that I am a member of the Popular Flying Association (PFA) and like many thousands of other members of the PFA I am a pilot who flies his own home-built aircraft. My plane is a two-seat Glasair aircraft and, everything working, I shall be flying to Pakistan in late September via Corsica, Greece, Cyprus, Jordan, Kuwait, Dubai and the Oman. I am also an elected member of the PFA Executive Committee as well as a member of a number of other flying clubs and squadrons.

A number of aerodromes and facilities at aerodromes are being lost to general aviation. Existing aerodromes are being closed or put under pressure to reduce their operations. For example, Hatfield was closed after Welwyn Hatfield District Council used lack of positive government advice as an excuse for failing to support the proposals for Hatfield aerodrome. Another example is that of West Mailing aerodrome which was closed and turned into a business park. The local residents of this area would probably prefer the odd plane coming and going to a large grassy aerodrome than the tarmac and concrete business park they now have, with all the associated noisy traffic. West Mailing's air traffic has been accommodated at other aerodromes such as Biggin Hill, which has become overcrowded with air traffic. There is often a 25-minute wait for take-off clearance.

The most recent concern is Little Gransden's battle with the South Cambridgeshire District Council, whose Airfields: Supplementary Planning Guidance, published in April 1997, will severely limit the airfield. I shall refer to this as the South Cambs. policy. The policy will have far-reaching consequences for general aviation (GA) where it is implemented. Indeed, the South Cambs. policy has succeeded where Hitler failed. It has grounded all the Spitfires in the Cambridge area except for those at two airfields. Are the Government happy with the South Cambs. policy, which will limit selected aerodromes to certain categories of aircraft and limit aerodromes to shortened flying times? Most importantly, are the Government happy with the South Cambs. policy authorising flightpaths and routes to and from aerodromes? Will the Minister agree that any aircraft, once it has left contact with the ground at an aerodrome, must comply with the Air Navigation Order (Civil Aviation Act 1982) and that the CAA administers that legislation?

Local government is making planning policies that are closing down or restricting aerodromes. These restrictions are dangerous and are in conflict with the remit of the CAA. The South Cambs. policy was produced by the council without proper consultation with the CAA, which not only wished to be consulted but also has a statutory right to be consulted. The guidance was seemingly produced without expertise and has direct safety implications. It also propounds unilateral changes to the Rules of the Air. The end result of the South Cambs. policy could produce a very hazardous situation. Are the Government concerned about that?

Also worrying is how the South Cambridgeshire District Council produced this policy. The council received 1,077 representations, of which five offered no comment; 13 supported the council; and 1,059 opposed the council. The PFA, with its 9,100 members, would have been just one of those 1,059 objectors. Surprisingly, Cambridgeshire County Council offered no comment; and Luton airport was supportive. Luton airport, which receives mainly commercial air transport (CAT) traffic and discourages general aviation from using its own area, is now seeking to discourage general aviation outside its own county. It is interesting to note that in 1990, 43 per cent. of all pilots entering CAT did so via GA's flying clubs and private flying movements.

Planning Policy Guidance 13 does not seem to be strong enough. The previous Government declared their support for GA and the importance it placed on flying training. PPG 13 states: small airports can serve local business needs, especially in outlying areas, as well as recreational flying. In formulating their plan policies and proposals, authorities should take account of the contribution of this General Aviation (GA) to local and regional economies and the benefits of having suitable facilities within a reasonable distance of each sizeable centre of population. As demand for commercial air transport grows, GA may find access to larger airports inconveniently restricted. GA operators will therefore have to look to smaller airfields to provide facilities". Further to that, Dr. Mawhinney, a member of the previous government, said that, The Government consider that strategic and local planning guidance will need to recognise the role that smaller airfields and landing strips play and the difficulty of reopening or providing substitute facilities for airfields that have been closed". Will the Minister confirm that the Government not only agree with PPG 13 and Dr. Mawhinney's statement but would also act positively where this policy is insufficient? The planning policy guidance has not been strong enough to save Ipswich airport, which has been closed in order to facilitate the building of more houses by the local district council. I am sure that the wide open space of this old aerodrome and its wildlife will be much missed by future urban dwellers.

Today, the planning system 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 development plan policy by local government officers, elected members and the Planning Inspectorate. It is therefore essential to have clear policy guidance regarding GA issues from central government. A lack of policy inevitably leads to confusion. With no national policy on aerodromes in the UK, it is not surprising that we are losing aerodromes. Do the Government believe that a national planning policy on aerodromes is important, and do they agree that it is disconcerting that the UK is losing aerodromes?

The noise and subsequent awareness of aircraft in the sky creates public hostility. New planes can be produced to be quieter and more efficient. Some older planes can be engineered to be quieter and more efficient, although this can be difficult and expensive. Both these aims can be achieved with motivation and resources. In the interests of aviation and good relations with the general public, we should strive to achieve these goals as soon as possible.

Considerably lower noise levels and better efficiency of planes can be achieved by fitting engine silencers, electric magnetos and multi-bladed propellers. To achieve these goals, modifications and new components would need to be cleared for safety by the existing regulators. Many engineering developments and modifications have been tested and approved abroad by well respected aviation bodies but require extensive and expensive duplication of tests before they are allowed in this country.

A number of district councils, such as Huntingdonshire and Suffolk Coastal District Council, seem to be interested in implementing the South Cambs. policy. If this were done, the rules of the air would change depending on the county a plane was flying in and the CAA would lose some of its regulatory powers to district planning officers. Would the Government be happy to accept that situation? Perhaps now is the time for a government national policy on aerodromes, a strengthening of PPG 13, in return for a professional body to come forward with proposals for an improved behavioural code for flyers dealing with such difficult subjects as reducing noise on individual planes and improving flying movements—in other words, a complete code of behaviour for pilots. What are the Government's thoughts on this matter?

3.48 p.m.

Lord Strathcarron

My Lords, I rise to support the Unstarred Question asked by my noble friend Lord Rotherwick on the provisions and facilities of aerodromes. I should like to declare an interest as I am chairman of Kent International Airport, which is still referred to by many by its old name of Manston, a famous fighter base during the Battle of Britain which was subsequently adapted to become an emergency landing field for aircraft in trouble. Having a very long and wide runway and an unobstructed approach from the sea, it was very suitable for that purpose. It was one of the few airfields to have a fog dispersal system, known as Fido, which consisted of 75,000 gallons of petrol spread either side of the runway in the form of a ditch. In foggy weather the petrol was ignited and the intense heat dispersed the fog sufficiently for an aircraft to land. Needless to say, it was abandoned after the war as being too expensive to continue.

I have always taken a keen interest in general aviation, having flown during the war and only having to stop flying 10 years ago for medical reasons.

There has always been a need for airfields near major cities to cater for business aircraft and private flying in general. They have now become more important than ever, as major airports are being extended, with new terminal buildings—for example, possibly a fifth terminal at Heathrow and a second runway at Manchester. With ever-increasing numbers of scheduled and chartered flights, the business aircraft will be squeezed out more and more. It seems strange that only 25 years ago a private pilot could land at Gatwick to clear customs and there was no landing fee at all to pay. It concentrated the mind when air traffic control would ask one to expedite one's landing—which means, in flying jargon, "For God's sake, hurry up"—because there was a Boeing 707 on final approach. Soon, unfortunately, those days were to end and very high landing fees virtually eliminated the possibility of light aircraft, private aircraft certainly, using Gatwick.

On the Continent and in France, in particular, there are well equipped airfields near most of the larger industrial areas. But it is better not to land between 12 noon and 2 p.m., as one would be lucky to find anyone in air traffic control or customs or anyone to refuel the aircraft. There is an excellent general aviation airfield at Cannes-Mandelieu on the French Riviera, which eases pressure on the nearby Nice airport.

The London area would benefit from a suitable airfield for business and private flying, with easy access to London. Farnborough comes to mind as suitable and as an airfield which could easily be developed for that purpose. Unfortunately, Hatfield, which would have been another suitable airfield, has already been closed. A few years ago, the north lost Sunderland Airport to make way for the Nissan car manufacturing plant, and northern regions certainly should not be neglected.

I hope that Her Majesty's Government will give their support to encourage general aviation airfields to the benefit of business and to ease the congestion at major airports.

3.52 p.m.

Lord Norton

My Lords, I thank the House for allowing me to speak in the gap. I only appreciated this morning that the subject was being debated. I speak from the standpoint of the private pilot. I declare an interest as a private pilot with some 1,200 hours flying time, although I must admit that most of those hours were flown on the Continent.

The very large airports have the facilities but no enthusiasm for the private pilot. That is quite understandable, given the enormous pressure of commercial activities. But it is at the other smaller commercial airports that I consider improvements can be made for the private pilot wishing to travel from one commercial centre to another.

The medium-sized airports—those with spare capacity—so far as I have experienced, have very little enthusiasm for the private pilot. The private pilot is a nuisance. Private pilots do not bring in jumbo-sized fees by way of landing charges, handling, maintenance, catering etc. I suspect that they are also considered more of a security risk. I shall make a specific recommendation about that later.

So, the private pilot represents low income. But, so far as the airport is concerned, exactly the same radio calls are made to land a large jumbo or a small light aircraft. Price is used to dissuade the private pilot from using the facilities at the commercial airports. To give just a small example, recently I had to divert from Coventry to Birmingham, having just missed the closedown of Coventry for the day. The price of landing and overnight stay at Coventry was £21, but at Birmingham it was £47. That included a £17 handling charge, for which no handling services were required. It is cheaper for me to land at Geneva, Paris, Marseille or Berlin than Birmingham, and in every case the facilities are as good or superior.

What are the special facilities or provisions that the private pilot requires? The most important is a realistic price for the facilities; the second is an enthusiasm for the private pilot. Otherwise, the demands of the private pilot are few. Strangely enough, one of the most important requirements is to have signs for easy access to the facilities available. That prevents private pilots being a nuisance because they do not know how to reach the facilities which are available. Airports are complex places to find one's way around. Signs are important. They also improve security.

Every airport has facilities such as weather forecasting, fuel and flight planning that will already be required for the commercial operators. There is no reason why the same facilities should not be used by the private as well as the commercial pilot, as happens all over the Continent. On the subject of security, perhaps I may suggest to the Government that they look at the possibility of having photographs on pilot licences. At present, there are airports such as Southampton which use the licence as a security document. That is ridiculous as it has no photograph and no ready means of identifying the person who is holding the licence.

What are the benefits? They are, first, increased revenue to the airports from increased use; secondly, a corresponding reduction on the pressures that exist on the smaller flying strips; and, thirdly, a greater ease of travel for the private pilot through the use of airport communication infrastructures. The small airfield communication facilities either by road or rail are frequently poor. What is required is an enthusiasm for private flying by the commercial airports from which the pilots and airports could benefit.

3.56 p.m.

Earl Attlee

My Lords, I, too, am grateful to my noble friend Lord Rotherwick for asking this Unstarred Question. It is a little unfortunate that the timing of it has reduced the number of noble Lords available to contribute when compared to the similar debate that he initiated earlier this year. It makes it difficult for me to respond to or amplify his observations and those of other noble Lords. My noble friend Lord Strathcarron and the noble Lord, Lord Norton, made valuable comments. But it must be harder still for the Minister to respond.

There is much to be said for revisiting this issue as we have a new government and an integrated transport review in progress. We also now have one department, the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions, responsible for transport as well as for the environment. Many of the points raised concern the balance to be struck between the requirements of general aviation and the implications for the environment. We shall have to see whether the DETR is in fact manageable and what advantage the Government are able to take of it.

My noble friend Lord Rotherwick mentioned the problems of Ipswich, Hatfield and West Mailing. My noble friend also raised the problem of local authorities' planning decisions impinging upon matters which are properly and indeed legally the preserve of the CAA. He particularly drew your Lordships' attention to the situation in South Cambridgeshire County Council. The council did not even consult the CAA before introducing changes. My noble friend has explained the situation in detail. I do not propose to repeat what he said.

The CAA is an internationally highly regarded regulatory authority and, quite properly, is legally responsible for regulating all safety matters, in particular take-off, circuit and landing routes for aerodromes. I recall a similar incursion by local authorities outside of their remit during the implementation of the night and weekend lorry ban in London. The desirability of that ban is a separate issue, but the local authorities were inviting—a polite way of putting it—operators to interfere with their vehicles' EU-type approved braking systems by fitting airbrake silencers in order to reduce the noise. We now seem to have a similar problem of adventurous local authorities interfering in matters properly in the domain of the CAA. I have to confess to being technically a little weak when it comes to aviation matters but it seems to me that anything to do with civil aircraft design, maintenance or operation should be the strict preserve of the experts at the CAA. I am sure the Minister will not dispute that.

My noble friend Lord Rotherwick also suggested that some local authorities are attempting to cut back, or at least to hold to a standstill, general aviation facilities for environmental reasons. I hope that the Minister, while understanding the concerns of local authorities, will want to allow the continued development of general aviation.

My noble friend Lord Strathcarron and the noble Lord, Lord Norton, also raised the problem of business aviation at major airports and the availability of landing slots and their cost. There is a difficult balance to be struck here. On the one hand, I am sure that the new Government's instincts will not suit the convenience of an international playboy. I do not know whether the noble Lord, Lord Norton, qualifies as an international playboy. On the other hand, if they are indeed the party of business, they will recognise the real economic value to be attached to the time of a chief executive of a major international—

Lord Norton

My Lords, I would like to put the record straight. I am not an international playboy.

Earl Attlee

My Lords, I am extremely grateful to hear that my previous friend, the noble Lord, Lord Norton, is not an international playboy. I would have been extremely disappointed if he thought that he was. As I said, if the Labour Party is the party of business, it will realise the real economic value to be attached to the time of a chief executive of a major international company based in the United Kingdom.

These are important matters for the integrated transport review, which I am sure the Minister will tell us will be much more than a re-statement of the desirability of public and, in particular, rail transport. It is surprising to me that light aircraft are really quite economic in terms of cost per mile. Can the Minister assure the House that when the review is finally published these particular matters will be covered in detail? Will the review include a comprehensive plan for small airfields, as asked by my noble friend Lord Rotherwick?

Part of the problem that local authorities are attempting to address is noise pollution. Of course, there are noise regulations for new aircraft. In another debate I have recently stated that I am wary of retrospective legislation. Furthermore, most light aircraft in use can meet international noise standards without modification, but that does not mean that there is no room for improvement. There are ways in which noise emissions of light aircraft can be reduced. My noble friend Lord Rotherwick mentioned silencers, multi-bladed propellers and, interestingly, magnetos, which are of course 1950s technology.

Some noise-reducing modifications would have other benefits to the operator and so would not necessarily be objectionable in cost terms. I am sure that so soon after the noble Lord spoke and so near to the Recess, the Minister and other noble Lords will not be disappointed if I do not repeat all the noble Lord's detailed arguments.

The Minister will be aware that there are many ways of measuring noise and I believe that PPG24 is relevant, although I have to confess that I am not familiar with the document. Is there more than one way of measuring aircraft noise? How is ambient noise accounted for and where is the noise from an airfield measured? Is the noise measured only on the airfield or is it at inhabited buildings near to the airfield or at all points of the compass?

I do not believe that the technical decisions that the CAA would need to take in order to secure improvements in noise emissions are too revolutionary. Some of the modifications that have been proposed this afternoon are already approved by the FAA. My noble friend Lord Rotherwick referred to the duplication of tests. The Minister will even be aware that aircraft registered with, and approved by, the FAA can fly in the United Kingdom without CAA approval of the modifications that have already been implemented. However, I do accept that the FAA is configured slightly differently from our own CAA.

My understanding is that the CAA is principally concerned with safety, but must have regard to environmental considerations. If we are to allow general aviation to continue to develop without unduly interfering with the right of others to their peace and quiet, the Minister might have to consider altering the CAA's terms of reference to give greater weight to environmental matters. That is another matter for the review to cover.

My final question is fairly general, but this is a good opportunity to ask it. The integrated transport review will be completed some time next year and no doubt there will be frustrating delays, such as those we experienced with the accelerated road review—and probably for the same sort of reasons. Does the Minister envisage a need for primary legislation as a result of some aspects of the review, particularly within her own areas of responsibility? Will there be a comprehensive and integrated transport Bill, such as the 1968 Act, or will there be only minor tinkering, using secondary legislation? Short though this debate has been, I am sure that it has been worthwhile. It will be interesting to hear how much the noble Baroness saves for her review.

4.6 p.m.

Baroness Hayman

My Lords—

Lord Graham of Edmonton

Wind-sock it to 'em!

Baroness Hayman

—I begin by thanking the noble Lord, Lord Rotherwick, for initiating this debate, and those noble Lords who have participated. Although we have heard only a few speeches, their content has made clear the importance and the value that noble Lords attach to general aviation. That is well understood by the Government. Unlike others, I have no direct interest to declare, not holding a pilot's licence myself, and I certainly cannot emulate my predecessor in this post who I understand took to paragliding at one stage of his career. I do not want to follow him down that route. However, perhaps I should declare an interest in the sense that for five years I had the honour of representing Welwyn and Hatfield as constituency Member of Parliament in another place and I am aware of the history of that aerodrome and have flown from there.

Perhaps I should first set out the regulatory framework within which aerodromes operate, which requires a brief explanation of the CAA's responsibilities with regard to aviation safety. Flights involving the public transport of passengers or pilot instruction must generally use aerodromes licensed by the CAA, which requires that specific safety arrangements and facilities be available. Other flights can use unlicensed facilities, but the CAA publishes guidelines as to the minimum safety facilities that these should consider. Pilots using unlicensed facilities will in any case have demonstrated their competence to the CAA via the pilot licensing process. I can certainly assure the noble Lord, Lord Rotherwick, that airborne aircraft must comply at all times with the 1995 Air Navigation Order. Separately, developments at all aerodromes with flight operations on more than 28 days a year may be subject to scrutiny under the planning system.

It was in relation to the planning system that the noble Lord, Lord Rotherwick, highlighted the loss of aerodrome facilities in this country. It must however be remembered that the Government are not responsible for the development or operation of civil aerodromes. This is a matter for the owners or operators of those sites working within the bounds of the established planning system. The noble Lord rightly pointed to the pre-eminence of the plan-led system. I am pleased that aerodrome operators, users and their trade associations are paying more heed than in the past to the need to make their views known early in the planning process. This system allows for public participation and it is right that all those with an interest should participate in it. Where my department can, and does, help is by examining draft development plans to ensure that, where appropriate, they accord with published planning advice.

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. In response to queries from the noble Lord, Lord Rotherwick, I confirm that we support the guidance set out in PPG13. As for a national planning policy, this guidance, including the approach to air transport, will be part of a wide-ranging review of policy leading to a White Paper on an integrated transport strategy to be published next year, to which the noble Earl, Lord Attlee, referred.

I confirm that civil aviation in all its guises has a role to play. I assure noble Lords that the environmental impact of aviation and airports and their contribution in terms of an integrated transport policy in this country will be integral to the review and the White Paper. We therefore encourage all interested parties, including the general aviation community, to respond to the consultation which will be launched shortly on the White Paper. In the meantime, I assure the noble Lord, Lord Strathcarron, and other noble Lords that the Government recognise the importance of general aviation, especially its contribution to business and flying training.

The noble Earl, Lord Attlee, asked whether the Government anticipated major legislation at the end of the White Paper. I believe that it would be wrong to prejudge the results of the consultation and what will go into the White Paper. What, if any, legislative framework follows must respond to what is set out in the White Paper.

I return to the issue of planning guidance. PPG24 also warns local authorities about inappropriate or noise-sensitive development such as new housing in the vicinity of aerodromes. But in the field of planning circumstances always vary from site to site and from one planning authority to another. It is therefore not appropriate to be more prescriptive. But the department is not aware of any concerted efforts by planning authorities to undermine general aviation.

The noble Lord, Lord Rotherwick, referred to particular cases where he believed that local authorities had ignored those interests. Our understanding is that Welling and Hatfield Borough Council engaged experienced consultants to study whether a general aviation use of Hatfield would be economically viable. I also understand that the option of a grass runway as part of an aviation heritage centre is among those currently being considered by the council.

As far as concerns South Cambridgeshire, I note the noble Lord's concern about the precedent that may be set for the CAA's regulatory role. I am pleased to report that South Cambridgeshire has formally sought CAA views on its supplementary planning guidance on aerodromes, and the two parties have since been actively discussing safety issues. The CAA has now given South Cambridgeshire specific guidance on safety requirements as well as more general advice on matters of policy. I can assure the House that the Civil Aviation Authority is very much aware of the issues involved. I can also reassure those noble Lords who have raised the point that planning authorities' policies on general aviation will be considered as part of the review of PPG 13.

The noble Earl, Lord Attlee, referred to the powers and competencies of the CAA. He is correct in his assertion that the CAA's primary responsibility is for the safety of aircraft. The authority has not at present indicated any problems arising from lack of powers in respect of environmental matters, but if it chose to do so in future we would give careful consideration to those concerns.

To return to individual cases, if a planning authority refuses planning permission for aerodrome development or takes enforcement action or one of the other options in the planning system, there is a right of appeal. In considering an appeal an inspector appointed by the Secretary of State will take account of all relevant circumstances and give them the appropriate weight according to published guidance. I am sure that noble Lords realise that I am unable to comment on the merits or otherwise of individual planning cases, especially where appeals are outstanding or decisions may be pending. That applies in the case of Little Gransden. But at the end of the day it is unrealistic to ask the Government to force an aerodrome to stay open if the owner or operator is determined to close it, be it publicly or privately owned. I emphasise again that it is perhaps at the early drafting stages of development plans that the department can have most influence.

I know that there is concern about some well-publicised cases of aerodromes closing or under threat. In fact the number of licensed aerodromes has remained close to its present total—just over 140—over the past few years. In addition, there are thought to be over 400 unlicensed aerodromes, as well as many more hang-gliding, paragliding and balloon launch sites. So while I can understand the concern of individuals about threats to their local aerodromes, that is not the national trend.

The noble Lord, Lord Strathcarron, asked about Farnborough in relation to business aviation. The MoD is currently in the process of tendering Farnborough Airfield for business aviation. The successful new operator, to be selected later this year, will be expected to continue its business aviation capacity. The Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions is following that process carefully.

Perhaps I might write to the noble Lord, Lord Norton, about photographic pilot licences. That strikes a chord, because I am wrestling with photographic driving licences at the moment. On the issue of charges for private pilots, the European Commission has just issued a proposed directive setting a framework for airport charges to all users across the Community. The UK is taking an active role in negotiations in the Transport Council to ensure that the interests of the UK industry, including general aviation users, are taken into account.

I turn to environmental considerations which have been highlighted in the debate. The environment is at the heart of the Government's policy concerns and throughout their transport considerations. I welcome and support the goal of the noble Lord, Lord Rotherwick, of reducing noise impacts of light aircraft. We must all recognise that noise from aircraft is a significant environmental nuisance at smaller aerodromes as well as at large international airports, although different in character and scale. But the prime responsibility is on aerodromes and pilots themselves to fly responsibly, and to be good neighbours. That has been acknowledged in the debate.

We know that leisure and private flying are found by many people to be generally more annoying than other forms of aviation. There are other patterns, which also emerge in the correspondence my department receives.

Localised or prolonged activities such as parachuting or aerobatics can also attract complaint, so here again it is important that those activities be conducted so as to minimise nuisance. The noble Lord, Lord Rotherwick, pointed to the need for a better behavioural code for flyers. In that context, we welcome the production of material such as the General Aviation Awareness Council's guide to considerate flying. That is an excellent document which, if followed, will ensure that flying will cause the least possible nuisance to people on the ground. In that area local public perception as to the nature and conduct of flying activities is central. That means that effective consultation with the community is in the interests of aerodrome, pilots and public alike. Some aerodromes are required, by designation under Section 35 of the Civil Aviation Act, to provide consultation facilities; but the non-designated aerodromes are not absolved of the need to communicate with their neighbours. As my noble friend Lord Clinton-Davis commented in this House earlier this year, we are keen to see good practice at all aerodromes. I am happy to commend again the very constructive advice on that subject produced by the General Aviation Awareness Council.

On the issue of aircraft noise reduction, the noble Lord, Lord Rotherwick, mentioned the various noise reduction devices that are available for individual aircraft, and where those are officially sanctioned I would hope that operators would choose to fit them. But it must be right that the CAA, as the body responsible for aircraft safety, must be convinced that their use does not diminish safety standards. In several instances, noise reducing measures developed in research institutes have fallen short of those standards in practice. There have been cases where such equipment has had an effect on airworthiness through vibration, reduction in engine cooling, airframe fatigue, power loss or weight increase. The CAA is considering this matter in collaboration with colleagues in the European Joint Airworthiness Authority from the safety viewpoint and, with the International Civil Aviation Organisation, from the noise angle. I should add that, while we welcome technological advances to individual aircraft, they are wasted if the aircraft are operated in an inconsiderate manner. I am sure that noble Lords who are pilots will understand that even better than I do.

The noble Earl, Lord Attlee, asked some specific questions about noise and its measurement. He is right in saying that there is more than one way to measure aircraft noise, but the system used within the United Kingdom is well respected and internationally accepted. He asked how ambient noise was accounted for. Ideally, it is accounted for by siting monitors away from where the ambient noise is generated. However, if unavoidable, allowance will be made for the ambient noise if it is, for instance, background traffic noise. As regards the place from where noise at an airfield is measured, two options are available. It can be done by siting the noise monitors at the most sensitive areas or by putting monitors where the aircraft are noisiest, which is UK policy. Therefore, we have a level playing field between the measurements taken at different aerodromes.

In conclusion, I wish to reassure noble Lords that the Government recognise the concerns of general aviation users and the role which small aerodromes can play in facilitating business aircraft and the training of pilots. Furthermore, we recognise that that is a legitimate interest which should be taken into account when we consult on the integrated transport White Paper.

Equally, we are committed to striking the right balance between aviation and the environment. The integrated transport White Paper will give us all the opportunity to consider these issues in the round. It is a theme that in the balance between transport, mobility and the environment, it is vital that we tackle across the transport field if we are to achieve an integrated transport policy that is the Government's aim.

Earl Attlee

My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for her reply. I am a little disappointed in her response to the possible means of reducing noise, the role of the CAA and the duplication of approval of the FAA and the CAA. I do not expect the Minister to reply today, but perhaps she will reflect on the issue and come back to us later.

Baroness Hayman

My Lords, I shall be pleased to write to the noble Lord on that matter. However, it is only right that I should reiterate the advice that the CAA is giving at present. It is that safety considerations must be its paramount considerations. I shall certainly write to the noble Lord on that issue.