---

Civil Aviation Bill

We have some sympathy with the aim behind the amendment—the identification of aircraft for the purpose of noise complaints. We understand the frustration which the noble Baroness reflected on behalf of those people who find it is impossibleto identify a plane that has disturbed them. I do not believe that this failure is due to any lack of will on the airport’s part, and I will seek to identify how airports are addressing themselves to the issue. The problem with the concept of the commercial flights officer is that there is no single comprehensive source of information and no complete record of all flights. So it is not the case that if you designated somebody to this role that he would have the information it is assumed he would. Most large airports, such as the London airports and the Nottingham East Midlands Airport, operate a noise and track-keeping system. This is specific to the airport’s own movements and is usually limited to a range of approximately 25 miles. Complainants can call or write to the airport concerned with details of the date and time when they were disturbed. The airport then can provide details, such as the height of the aircraft, operator and destination. Since most aircraft will fly at their lowest—and therefore their noisiest—on approach and departure, most complaints will relate to aircraft which are within an airport’s noise and track-keeping system. So the vast majority of complaints can be and should be responded to. The overall control of aircraft is much more complex than the control exerted from the airport from which it is taking off or landing. NATS—the National Air Traffic System—is responsible for providing en route air traffic control; that is, for flights in corridors from 5,000 feet up to a height of 24,000 feet, 20 miles from the arrival and departure airports. All air traffic control providers are responsible for providing that service for flights operating only in controlled airspace. But there are also flights in uncontrolled air space. They are not compelled to receive an air traffic control service, nor are they required to notify the flight for the purpose of receiving permission to fly in such air space. Consequently, flight data is often not available for such flights. I seek to indicate by these remarks the difficulty in making the assumption that if we had a national officer, he would have before him national information on the flights of all aircraft because he just would not. So our problem with the concept of a central inquiry point is that, through no fault of his and the role that he is carrying out, he just would not have the information to respond to the complaint. I recognise local concerns about aircraft noise. Because such noise generally relates to aircraft taking off and landing at our main airports, they can be identified. But it is the airport that can do the identifying, it is the airport that should receive the complaint, and it is certainly the airport that should do something about it. That is why it will be recognised that within the framework of the Bill we are working on the presumption that airports are responsible for noise control. They are certainly therefore responsible for presenting the correct facts and dealing with the aircraft, which has been the source of public complaint, once it has been identified. Airports seek to do that. Under the Bill we will be giving additional powers for them so to do and we will expect improved performance. Where self-regulation is not enough, we have the power to designate airports for the purposes of Section 78 of the 1982 Act, to regulate noise from their operations. If there is evidence that an airport is failing to deal with a major noise problem, that is what the Secretary of State will do. So, I do not underestimate the problems at some airports. When airports do well, they do very well indeed. For example, over 95 per cent of flights at Manchester stick to noise preferential routes, and the percentage is even higher at London Heathrow. So they are responding to the controls which the airports are demanding of them in terms of the flights they make in order that the noise pattern can be regulated to the best possible effect on the ground. So I completely sympathise with the Opposition in identifying the fact that nothing can be more frustrating than to be disturbed and then to be unable to identify the aircraft concerned. In the vast majority of cases, we maintain that the airport will be able to do that because the aircraft causing the problem is within its control and purview. Because there is not a total system, it would not make sense to have a national officer with imperfect information. That is why I hope that the noble Baroness will recognise that the purport behind the Bill is to do better in terms of noise emission and, indeed, pollution, and that that obligation is laid upon airports, backed up by the reserved powers of the Secretary of State. That is how we expect that to be effective.