Meeting of the Parliament [Draft]

Meeting date: Thursday, September 10, 2015

Official Report 836KB pdf

---

Edinburgh Airport Flight Path Trial

The next item of business is a members’ business debate on motion S4M-14018, in the name of Neil Findlay, on the Edinburgh airport flight path trial and lack of community consultation. The debate will be concluded without any question being put. I invite members who wish to take part in the debate to press their request-to-speak buttons now or as soon as possible. I also invite members who are leaving the chamber, and members of the public who are leaving the gallery, to do so quickly and quietly.

Motion debated,

That the Parliament notes with concern the trial being carried out that has changed the flight path for Edinburgh Airport; acknowledges what it understands is widespread concern from the communities in the trial flight path about an increase in aircraft activity and residents experiencing sleep disruption and enduring noise pollution as a result; expresses further concern at reports of a complete lack of consultation with people in these areas prior to the trial taking place, and notes the calls for the airport’s management to halt the trial and to carry out a full consultation with all of the communities affected.

12:32  

Many of us use air travel, whether for work purposes or for leisure. No matter how environmentally responsible we want to be, sometimes air travel is just unavoidable. People who live near an airport know and accept that they have to endure some disruption, but it is incumbent upon the airport authorities to keep such disruption to a minimum and to reduce that disruption wherever and whenever possible. That seems fair and reasonable to me, and I think that it would also be fair to say that most people would expect that approach to be taken.

At Edinburgh airport, established flight paths have been in existence for years. Communities have grown around the airport and people have, to an extent, learned to live with the disturbance caused. People choose to live under flight paths knowing that they are there, and planes taking off and landing at the airport go over several industrial estates such as Newbridge and Houston and over areas of open countryside. The airport copes well with the volume of air traffic and there is capacity to spare. Not everyone is happy with the current arrangements, but they have been in place for some time.

It was therefore with real surprise that residents in the Broxburn, Uphall, Linlithgow and Bo’ness areas found out that their homes would be sitting underneath a new flight path and that a trial was under way. There was no consultation, no input from those affected and no attempt to engage the community. The first that people knew of it was when they heard aircraft roaring overhead.

The airport authorities say that they do not need to hold a consultation. The Civil Aviation Authority guidance states:

“The need for consultation prior to the approval of airspace trials, is left to the discretion of the CAA”.

I find that completely and utterly unacceptable. It is unacceptable that such a major change with social, economic and environmental consequences for so many people can proceed without any consultation with local people.

It is unacceptable that organisations such as the CAA and Edinburgh Airport Ltd do not see the need for and benefit of engaging the public, and it is unacceptable that a large company such as Global Infrastructure Partners—the company that owns the airport—fails to recognise its obligations to the community, local businesses and near neighbours. More than anything, I believe that it is that approach that has most angered local people. Why do corporations continue to ride roughshod over local people? Why do they think that they can do what they like and no one will notice or care?

However, the lack of consultation is just one element of the situation. Let me look at other aspects, in particular the business case. Edinburgh Airport says on its website:

“As we continue to see more passengers travel through our airports than ever before, we’ll need to increase airspace capacity above Central Scotland to cater for this growth.”

That is the rationale behind the trial, but the reality is somewhat different. In 2007 there were 128,000 air transport movements at Edinburgh airport, but by 2014 the number had fallen to 110,000. There had been a 15 per cent drop in movements using the existing flight paths. Passenger numbers are up to 10 million, but 10 million and more can be comfortably accommodated within the current arrangements. There is therefore plenty of room for expansion. We can safely assume that the airport was not even at capacity in 2007, or a trial would have been undertaken then. The reality is that there is no business case whatever that is based on a need for more capacity.

The case of London city airport might offer a better indicator of what Global Infrastructure Partners is really up to. The company bought the airport in 2007 for £750 million. Despite protests from local residents and the London mayor—the bold Boris—it rapidly expanded capacity, increasing the number of flight paths going into and out of the airport. The airport has been held by the venture capital firm for 10 years—it is the firm’s longest-held asset—and it is currently up for sale. GIP is expected to make a profit of £1 billion.

The strategy is clear: buy an asset, fatten it up by developing more flight paths, and flog it at a huge profit, the quicker the better. That is a perfect example of profit-over-people, no-holds-barred venture capitalism. I am sure that GIP’s chairman, one Sir John Major, will pick up a few handy bonuses along the way.

The evidence from London and the introduction of a new flight path despite a drop in flight movements at Edinburgh make it perfectly legitimate to ask whether Global Infrastructure Partners has exactly the same approach in mind for Edinburgh. Is not the firm’s real intention to fatten up Edinburgh airport, regardless of the impact on local people and the local environment, and sell it off for a huge profit?

What about the environmental impact? Another flight path is designed for only one thing: to increase the number of flights. On top of that, the Scottish Government says that it will cut air passenger duty by 50 per cent. With such policies, is it any wonder that we have failed again and again to meet climate change targets? Once again, we see the Government trying to be all things to all people. It tries to be the friend of the airline industry and at the same time the friend of the environment.

What has most resonated with me is the social impact. I have had more than 400 complaints about the issue. People are losing sleep and feeling anxious, stressed and disturbed because of the noise levels that are being generated. Scientific research tells us what happens to people in communities that have to put up with such a number of flights above them. Sometimes the noise level reaches more than 90 decibels.

The issue is of grave concern for the people in the east of West Lothian, in Broxburn and Uphall, in Linlithgow and Bo’ness and in the Falkirk area, but it also highlights how we treat our environment and our communities and how large companies fail to consult people and think that they can get away with it. I urge the Scottish Government to intervene on behalf of my constituents, to urge the Civil Aviation Authority to stop the trial now and hold a full public consultation, as it should have done at the beginning of this sorry process.

12:40  

I am delighted to be called in the debate, not just because the airport happens to sit in my constituency of Edinburgh Western but because, apart from the first four years of my life, I have lived no further than 3 miles from the airport. I now live about 2 miles away from it.

I have lived with Edinburgh airport and I understand what it is like to live under a flight path. It can have a distressing impact on people’s lives, and I can go back to the days of Vanguards and Tridents, which were vastly noisier than what we have now. I can see why people are upset when there is a change to flight paths. I can also see why they are very concerned when they feel that it affects them, particularly when it has not been an issue for them before.

Mr Findlay tells us that he has had around 400 complaints from his area. I am being perfectly honest when I say that I can count the number of complaints from my constituents on two hands. That is just the way it is; perhaps we are a bit more used to the airport being on our doorsteps.

I fully agree with Mr Findlay about the effects of excessive noise. It definitely causes health issues and the environment has to be taken into consideration. However, I make no apology for the fact that I support the airport. While I think that these things should be consulted on, I also think that there should be an evidence base. If the change is so difficult for particular areas, as it might be, the trial will prove that there is a problem and it can be dealt with accordingly and stopped.

What evidence would Mr Keir like people to provide? There is one noise monitoring station for this project and often it ain’t working.

I have made inquiries about that and, as far as I know, there are three noise monitors scattered around. One is temporary and it gets moved around. Another two, which are static, are in Cramond and Livingston. I do not know what results we have from them; that is the evidence that we need. The question is, what would we be consulting on if we do not have evidence? That is one of my arguments.

Will the member take another intervention?

Will the member give way?

No, I am sorry but I am reduced to four minutes and I have to carry on with the debate.

You are in your final minute now.

On the business plan issue, yes, the Scottish Government is looking for more flights. I am fully supportive of more flights. It gives a better deal to the people of Scotland and the travelling public. The airport is an economic driver for the city and the nation. If the trial was to come to a premature end, up to 10,000 jobs could be affected, either directly or indirectly. That is why I support the airport.

I believe that evidence should be brought forward, put out there and consulted on, and I hope that the Scottish Government will take it into consideration. I want to see evidence, not just anecdotal evidence or guesswork.

12:44  

I congratulate Neil Findlay on securing the debate and on the enthusiasm and passion that he has put into the campaign during the past month or so. With the help of hundreds of constituents, he has certainly put this agenda on the map and it is rightly being discussed in Parliament today.

Like Mr Findlay, I have received a substantial number of complaints from residents across West Lothian. From the tone and tenor of the emails, the frustration and irritation that many people feel about the number of planes and the timing and impact of flights is obvious.

One of the particular irritations, which was highlighted by Mr Findlay, is the fact that there was no consultation. Although, in strict legal terms, there might not be a requirement to consult, the question for organisations is whether they ought to consult, as opposed to whether they must consult. There are lessons to be learned not just by the airport but by many other private and public bodies. Whether the law requires consultation is one thing; whether such bodies ought to consult in order to ameliorate concerns is another matter, and lessons must be learned in that respect.

I wish to come at this from a slightly different angle, so as to try and find some solutions. I address my remarks in particular to the Scottish Government, which may not have specific powers, although I know that the Minister for Transport and Islands has influence.

My first question is this. From the work that I have done, there seems to me to be no legal requirement for the trial to last six months. I have searched as much as I can, and I could be proven wrong, but I do not think that there is any strict legal or regulatory requirement for the trial to last six months. The obvious question, then, is whether the trial can be shortened. If the trial is not going to be halted overnight, as Mr Findlay has requested, is there a way of shortening it by a month, two months or more while still allowing it to be considered a successful trial in terms of CAA regulations? Residents would probably prefer the idea of the trial ending far sooner, instead of having to endure it until 24 December, which I understand is the current date, residents—although I suspect that they would still be unhappy about the process so far. I have written to the airport to request strongly that the idea of shortening the trail be examined in detail. If the minister and others in other parties were minded to do the same, I suspect that we might get that to happen.

Secondly, I guess that it is more difficult to change things at peak times. I suspect that the period when all the flights leave, from 6 until about 8 in the morning, is a more challenging time to make changes. One of the particular concerns that has been raised with me is about the overnight flights. At 2, 3, 4 or 5 in the morning, residents are being woken up by planes. That is a completely different issue. From my initial investigations, there does not seem to be any particular reason why that has to be the case. In my letter to the airport, I have asked it to consider that matter specifically. If the trial cannot be halted, and if we are stuck with some of the timings and they cannot be moved, surely the overnight flights, which are of particular concern to a number of residents, can be restricted severely as to where they pass over. Perhaps they could even be stopped, in their entirety, going over the residential areas concerned. That might be wishful thinking, but I have no doubt that they could be at least partly restricted. If the Government were minded to write to the airport in those terms, we might at least bring residents some comfort, if not everything that they are asking for.

Whether the trial is ended before December or goes on until December, it goes without saying that there must be a full consultation with all residents afterwards. The analysis has to be undertaken so that decisions are taken for the good of residents in future.

12:48  

I, too, thank Neil Findlay for securing this very important debate. I understand that the new trial route out of Edinburgh airport began on 25 June and that it will last for six months, ending on 24 December. The trial is for a new standard instrument departure—SID—route for aircraft departing to the west of the airport.

Residents are concerned that they were notified of the trial but not consulted. Airports are permitted a certain amount of discretion by the Civil Aviation Authority on whether they consult, but it is good practice to do so. Not only is consulting good practice; I believe that it is a moral duty. It is clear to me that Edinburgh Airport has not carried out a serious consultation, even though it plans to expand.

It is good that air passengers in Scotland are being given an increasing array of choices, but the plans must be carefully thought out. The lack of consultation puts the airport and its surroundings at risk on a number of levels. I understand that Edinburgh Airport is negotiating for a Chinese airline to run a new route from Scotland, and I assume that Glasgow Airport is attempting a similar bid. Airlines will choose based on aspects such as the stability of the airport, so Edinburgh may have shot itself in the foot with regard to that particular airline.

As Edinburgh Airport has committed itself to carrying out a full consultation if it wishes to change the flight path permanently, there will still be many months of insecurity and uncertainty, and residents in particular will be very unhappy. The airport’s ability to expand under the current plans will always be in doubt until that happens.

Glasgow has an advantage in the sense that it does not need to consult, and in addition the west of Scotland has a large Chinese diaspora population. Edinburgh Airport needs to think through its strategy more clearly and ensure that its plans are evidentially based in order to attract airlines to Scotland.

I call on the Government to do something about the situation. Although I understand the current legislation, I do not understand why the Scottish Government is not taking the side of the local community, the population and the people of Scotland—

Will the member take an intervention?

I am about to finish.

The member is in his last minute.

I would have taken an intervention, but unfortunately I cannot.

I know that the Government may sometimes feel under pressure, but when the local community around an airport suggests that it wishes to be consulted, that should happen. Any Government worth its salt would go the extra mile to consult the local community. Even the airport, if it wishes to have a good working relationship with the surrounding community, should carry the good will of the people with it.

I thank Neil Findlay once again for bringing the debate to the chamber and highlighting the fact that local constituents have not been consulted to the fullest extent. I fully support his calls for a proper and full consultation that takes on board the wishes of the local people.

12:52  

I thank Neil Findlay for bringing the debate to the chamber this afternoon. I also thank all those constituents who have written to me and met with me to discuss the issue.

This debate has given us an opportunity to ensure that the voices of local communities that are affected are heard loud and clear. It is about time too, because Edinburgh Airport and its owners Global Infrastructure Partners have failed to engage properly with the people on which the trial impacts.

This is an extraordinary case and it is causing grave concern. Without consultation, my constituents have found themselves in an experiment: a six-month trial of a new flight path. The surprise trial began in late June, and residents learned about it when flights roared overhead so low that they could clearly read the livery. Apparently that is all okay with the Civil Aviation Authority as it fits in with its guidelines. However, just because the airport does not need to consult does not mean that it should not do so.

As Gavin Brown has highlighted, my constituents do not need six months. They cannot bear six months. The children, who are exhausted and can hardly get up in the morning to go to school, do not need six months, and nor do those who have been reduced to tears by the impact of the relentless and hugely invasive noise pollution, given the effect on their health and wellbeing. Those people can assure Edinburgh Airport and GIP now that the plan to grow the airport is not in balance with the needs of neighbouring communities.

Gordon Dewar knows that this trial and the way in which it is being conducted are an abject failure on several levels. The airport and its owners have failed to be fully transparent with local communities, and I am certain that a multinational investment company will be well aware that providing community councils with information is not a comprehensive consultation, given that community councils have to rely on tiny budgets and volunteer efforts. Did the airport think that the community councils were going to print leaflets and go door-to-door in their spare time on behalf of the airport? What the airport has succeeded in doing is galvanising public opinion, because people are now going door to door with leaflets, but they are perhaps not ones that the airport would have wanted.

Colin Keir would have us believe that it is necessary to carry out the trial and then consult. Would we really take that approach on an issue such as genetically modified crops, for example? I do not think so. Does the member know how air pollution in the trial is being monitored? No, and nor, as of 17 August, did the chief executive of Edinburgh Airport. This is a deeply worrying case. As Neil Findlay told us, the company involved has tried and failed to expand capacity at London City airport and Gatwick airport. The company wants to inflate the value of its asset and make it worth more by getting permission to increase flights even when, as we have heard, they are not needed.

Since 25 June, the trial has been imposed, without any meaningful consultation, on thousands of residents under the new flight path. The airport has received thousands of complaints so far and I have no doubt at all that their number will grow if the trial continues. It involves multiple flights every day from 6 in the morning until almost midnight—loud and low flights over residents. It is scheduled to last until Christmas eve, and the noise and pollution that are being generated are significant. Residents know, though, that declining airport movements at Edinburgh airport since 2008 negate any perceived need for a new flight path, and there is even no commitment to a second runway until at least 2040. So what is the trial about?

The Government has yet to meet its annual climate change targets, and I suggest that this flawed trial is not part of the answer. There is minimal noise monitoring of the trial—indeed, my constituents are monitoring the noise more diligently than the airport is—and there is a lack of air pollution monitoring. It is time now to stop this flawed trial.

12:57  

The social and environmental impact of the new flight path trial at Edinburgh airport is serious, and I am grateful to Neil Findlay for providing us with the opportunity to debate the issue in the Parliament chamber.

First, though, I congratulate Edinburgh Airport on the past expansion of its business. It now provides important flight connections to Europe, the middle east and North America, as well as to other United Kingdom airports. As has already been pointed out in this chamber and at Westminster, at a time when Heathrow is grossly overburdened with air traffic it is encouraging to see Scottish airports enhance their passenger services. A record 10.2 million people used Edinburgh airport last year, and that figure is set to rise. The increase in business now enables the airport to employ, directly or indirectly, 8,000 people, which is good news for people in the surrounding area, including those who live in my constituency of Falkirk East.

However, for those affected by the railroaded-in new flight path the news is not so good. I have received a number of complaints from constituents in Bo’ness, Blackness and the surrounding area, which is under part of the flight path. I know that my colleague Fiona Hyslop has received a significant number of similar complaints and has conducted a survey of her affected constituents.

My constituents have expressed deep concern not only about noise levels and pollution but about the sheer frequency of the flights, which disturb affected constituents between 5 am and 11 pm daily; and I heard two days ago that there is also a flight at 2.30 in the morning. There have also been protests over how dangerously low the planes fly over houses and how they are frightening the wildlife in the surrounding area.

A proper public consultation could have resulted in some form of compromise being reached—for example, diverting the flight path further over the Firth of Forth. However, although the Edinburgh airport authorities appear on paper to be committed to seeking input from the affected communities, their first token gesture at a public meeting on the issue was not held until mid-August, nearly two months after the six-month flight path trial commenced on 25 June. Even then, although notes might have been taken and boxes ticked, so to speak, the airport authorities failed to seek any solution to assuage community concerns. Moreover, if, following the trial, the CAA gives the go-ahead to the new flight path, the six-month-long noise nuisance will become a permanent one.

More than that, even, the campaign group stop Edinburgh airspace trial contends that CAA principles governing flight paths are being breached by the trial. The new flight path trial sees planes fly below 4,000 feet over additional areas of West Lothian and my Falkirk East constituency. The noise impact of airspace changes at such low altitudes is recognised by the CAA and is expected to be considered as a dominating environmental factor. In accordance with that fundamental principle, the guidelines put to the CAA are clear that airspace changes should neither increase the number of people affected by the noise nor promote the dispersal of departure routes.

Many negative impacts should have been considered before the trial went ahead, for example the impact on health. Studies show that noise pollution can cause drastic developmental effects on people’s wellbeing, including sleep deprivation and stress. I have heard first hand how my constituents are being affected by sleep deprivation.

There has been a marked lack of transparency. Information on flight path monitors, which allow flights to fly 1 mile either side of the defined flight line, has not been published. As we have heard, information regarding the monitoring of sound levels, which were breached at Ochiltree for a period, was not made available to the public. However, I understand that a community noise report is being produced by independent consultants and will be available to local residents.

I am running out of time, and London City and Gatwick airports have been covered in other speeches.

The bottom line is that, in spite of the impact that the flight path trial would have on people, there was no proper consultation with the local community prior to its commencement. Consequently, nearly 2,000 complaints have so far been lodged with Edinburgh Airport. On a poignant ethical and environmental issue such as this, I would urge the Government to send a clear message to the authorities at Edinburgh and other airports: no implementation without proper consultation.

13:01  

It has been useful to hear the perspective of members from across the political spectrum on this issue relating to Edinburgh airport. Many of the suggestions and comments have been helpful. Members are aware that, as Scottish Government ministers, we have not expressed a view on the flight path; it would not be customary for us to do so. As members are aware, we have no decision-making role in the issue. Such a role is a matter for the Civil Aviation Authority. I have heard some interesting points on that, to which I want to return.

That said, the Government supports sustainable economic growth. Like the growth in aviation in general, the growth at Edinburgh airport—with more than 10 million passengers a year—is to be welcomed, as is the internationalisation of Scottish business and tourism routes.

Later today, Parliament will have a debate on internationalising Scottish business and other pro-economic development points of view, although, of course, let us not forget the environment. I would not want members to be accused of hypocrisy if they were anti-airport development one minute and pro-airport development the next. That is not to say that the airport should not have engaged comprehensively and in a transparent way. I think that it should have. Certainly, in response to the calls for further engagement beyond the trial and for a comprehensive, wide-ranging and in-depth consultation with communities, I say that of course there should be such consultation.

Will the minister take an intervention?

I will make some progress first, because there is a lot of ground to cover.

I want to pick up Gavin Brown’s helpful suggestion about overnight flights and the truncation of the trial period. It would be difficult to ban overnight arrivals because it could mean that flights arriving into Scotland—or into Edinburgh, if a ban was to happen at an individual airport—would simply be sent elsewhere. There would b terrible knock-on consequences of that. However, if members will pardon the pun, I agree with the general direction of travel of trying to minimise overnight, late evening and early morning flights. So, no to a ban but yes to better management of flights.

As transport minister, I will absolutely take up the suggestion to write to Edinburgh Airport to say, “Once you have the data and evidence you believe you require to inform your decision, make the trial period as short as possible.” I support that call and will write to Edinburgh Airport.

Edinburgh Airport advised me that the overall aims of introducing additional departure routes are to reduce congestion, increase time-of-departure performance, reduce fuel burn on the ground and meet demand for growth without building another runway.

Of course there is a debate about whether a second runway is required in the short, medium or long term. I have my doubts about a second runway. For the reasons that I have laid out, the trial period should be truncated if it can be. I will express that view from members.

I will take a quick intervention before I cover further ground.

Fair enough—of course the airport is going to provide the minister with what it wants to provide him with. However, the reality is that there has been a 15 per cent drop in the number of movements, so surely the Government must question the evidence that the airport has provided of the need to increase capacity.

I assure Neil Findlay that if I was here to speak for Edinburgh Airport, I would be giving a completely different speech.

One element of Edinburgh Airport’s briefing note that constituency members and all of us will find helpful is the main bullet point, which says:

“We understand that noise can have a detrimental effect on those under flight paths and we understand that this trial is an imposition on people who did not buy a house under a flight path.”

That point is very important and the airport should reflect on it when it makes decisions. Like some other members, I have lived underneath a flight path all my life—a flight path from Glasgow airport, as it happens. There is an issue when people face living under a flight path for the first time, which is why consultation and engagement are so important. It is a change to people’s living circumstances, which is why I expect consultations to be conducted comprehensively. The environmental responsibility must also be borne in mind.

Fiona Hyslop MSP cannot express her view as a Government minister, but she has expressed a very strong view as a member whose constituents are affected. She has been inundated with hundreds of responses to her constituency survey on this subject. Members including Neil Findlay, Alison Johnstone, Gavin Brown and others have described how constituents have contacted them as well, and I encourage Edinburgh Airport to reflect on that very closely when considering the objectives that it is trying to achieve.

This is not about a change to a flight path. What is being trialled is an additional flight path.

As I have said, this is a matter for the Civil Aviation Authority. However, I have transport responsibility, a degree of aviation policy responsibility and environmental responsibilities, and I will use the powers that I have at my disposal very carefully to try to ensure that the right decisions are taken. Nevertheless, it is a matter for the CAA and Edinburgh Airport.

I say to Hanzala Malik—this is the intervention that I wanted to make—that if he is keen for the Scottish Government to be able to do more, he needs to support the devolution of aviation policy to Scotland, so that the Government and Parliament can be empowered to take an even more proactive approach to strengthening the consultation that we would all expect.

Will the minister give way?

I have less than a minute left. It is sweet retribution that I cannot take the member’s intervention in the same way that he could not take mine, because I am in my last minute. I am now in my last 30 seconds.

I make the point that I want community engagement to be strengthened. I hope that Edinburgh Airport will deliver what it has committed to regarding that comprehensive engagement. People can engage with the official process and with elected members, and that engagement will be fed in.

Although I am advised that the airport is conducting the trial in accordance with CAA guidance and the UK Department for Transport’s guidance on environmental objectives, the Scottish Government expects the local community’s views to be fully taken into account. Although the Government and the Parliament do not have a formal role in the process, I very much hope that Edinburgh Airport and the CAA will reflect on the views expressed in the chamber this afternoon and engage fully with all stakeholders and communities, particularly those in West Lothian. I hope that they will bring the trial to a close as quickly as possible and consider the next stage in the process. I will convey that message to Edinburgh Airport.

13:09 Meeting suspended.  

14:30 On resuming—