Meeting of the Parliament

Meeting date: Tuesday, June 25, 2019

Official Report 1233KB pdf

---

Aircraft Noise (Health)

Our final item of business today is a members’ business debate on motion S5M-15408, in the name of Gil Paterson, on health issues raised by aircraft noise.

Motion debated,

That the Parliament notes the recent World Health Organization report, Environmental Noise Guidelines for the European Region, which looks at the effect of aircraft noise on people who live under flightpaths in the vicinity of airports; understands that the paper indicates that noise above 45dBA during the day and 40dBA at night damages people's health, and notes the view that consideration should be given to what it sees as this important report, including the action that could make a difference to people in the Clydebank and Milngavie area and across Scotland who live under flight paths.

19:05  

I put on record my thanks to Tam Brady, Joe Henry, Reuben McLean, Pat Hoey and Adam Garnick. Those folk have been beside me for the past 12 years, helping me on aircraft noise issues. Some of them had expected to be in the public gallery tonight but, unfortunately, because of holidays and a few unforeseen things, they could not be here.

In 2007 and 2009, I conducted two extensive surveys into the effects of noise on individuals who live under the flight path of Glasgow airport. Not surprisingly, I had a high return. Many of the comments concerned ill health, and the respondents were convinced that their condition was down to aircraft noise. Since then, much research has been carried out by my office, most of which confirms my constituents’ fears that noise from aircraft is indeed detrimental to people’s health.

One of my research projects, which was conducted in 2014, was a comprehensive undertaking that resulted in a 32-page report. It covered the causes of the problem, how widespread its effects were, what damage was being done, what compensation was available elsewhere, who was responsible for action and, most important, what could be done to alleviate the impact.

I presented the report to Glasgow airport, seeking dialogue, with a view to seeing whether there were any elements in the report that we could constructively work on. I am pleased to say that representatives of the airport agreed to meet me.

One of the major on-going complaints was about people being kept awake at night by flights in the wee small hours—there are no restrictions to flights at Glasgow airport through the night. My ask of the airport, which I put to Amanda McMillan, the then chief executive of AGS Airports, was for the airport to carry out a pilot scheme to insulate houses to protect people against the noise, which would allow them to get a night’s sleep. The airport’s representatives said that they would consider that, but thought that it would not be possible to retrofit a house at a reasonable cost in a way that would make the proposition viable.

I took up the challenge and, after much further research, this time into the process, I retrofitted a house in Clydebank in an attempt to prove that the work could be done economically. In September 2016, I commissioned Sonoflo, a specialist condition monitoring company owned by Reuben McLean, to professionally monitor the noise outcomes, and Mr McLean produced a night-time aircraft survey for me.

The monitoring went through four distinct phases over a week. First, a sound test inside the house was carried out with no added insulation, and a noise level of 63 decibels was measured. Then, the loft was insulated, with a noise level of 50 decibels measured in a further test. After that, triple glazing was fitted, with a further test measuring a noise level of 45 decibels. The measurement taken on the outside of the house showed a level of 84 decibels. Although the house was already equipped with double glazing, a major difference was achieved by installing the triple glazing. An increase of 3 decibels doubles the sound value, so a decrease of 3 decibels halves it.

When I presented the findings to representatives of Glasgow airport, they accepted the findings and the quality of the work that had been carried out by that professional. After a few meetings, to the credit of those at the airport, they came good on their promise, saying that they would prepare the details of a pilot scheme.

In the intervening period, the United Kingdom Government issued a directive to the effect that airports with noise levels of 63 decibels and above would be required to put in place a sound-reduction scheme for all affected houses. Some 500 to 800 houses in Clydebank will be eligible for the scheme, which overtakes the voluntary scheme and will deliver way above my expectations.

It should be noted that, just this week, the UK Government’s consultation, “Aviation 2050—the future of UK aviation”, closed. It contains a proposal to reduce levels of aircraft noise before compensation is payable by a further 3 decibels, to 60 decibels.

The member said that there will no longer be a voluntary scheme. For clarity, is the new scheme a compulsory scheme? My understanding is that there are no compulsory schemes.

It absolutely is the case that the voluntary scheme has been replaced by a mandatory scheme. As long as the inside-house measurement is more than 63 decibels, spread over 16 hours, a household will qualify. I am grateful for that, although I would have accepted a lower level.

Can the member explain how the scheme works? I take it that the householder has to apply to the scheme. Must the person make a contribution, or is 100 per cent of the cost covered? I am interested in what the member is saying, because this is all new to me.

I cannot say, unfortunately, because the scheme is currently being developed and I do not know its full extent—that is why I am not sure whether it will apply to 500 houses, 800 houses or something in between. I am not entirely sure how the scheme will be applied; if I find out, I will keep the member posted. This is a bit of an anorak issue for people who do not have to put up with aircraft noise, so I am glad that Neil Findlay is interested and I will do my best to keep him informed.

I have been engaged with the Scottish Government, West Dunbartonshire Council and East Dunbartonshire Council, although, of course, the Scottish Government and local authorities have little or no power over aviation. I encouraged West Dunbartonshire Council, whenever it is involved in fuel poverty projects that involve installing double glazing and loft and wall insulation in properties under the flight path that are affected by noise, to consider using—for a small additional outlay—materials that protect against heat loss and sound penetration. The materials that I used in my experiment were excellent in both capacities.

Members might ask why the Scottish Government and local authorities, which have no responsibility for the issue, should spend a penny on a matter that is reserved. I point to the warnings that the World Health Organization has given for many years about the hazards of aircraft noise. In its most recent warning, in October 2018, the WHO referred to problems relating to, among other things, “cardiovascular disease” and “cognitive impairment”, impacts on

“quality of life, well-being and mental health”

and “metabolic outcomes”. Therefore, if the Scottish Government and local authorities take preventative action to upgrade the vital and welcome fuel poverty scheme for houses under the flight path, untold future expenditure will be saved and people, particularly children, will be protected and enabled to flourish.

I am pleased that my constructive talks with the Scottish Government—in particular, the Minister for Local Government, Housing and Planning, Kevin Stewart, who is in the chamber—and with West Dunbartonshire Council are bearing fruit. A proposal will go before the council in August to approve a second pilot scheme, in which 12 houses will be retrofitted for heat-loss and sound protection.

According to the World Health Organization, there is damage to people’s health if noise levels are higher than 45 decibels. Therefore, housing regulations for new-build homes in the zone—incidentally, the zone is identified in a publicly available document—must require builders to install materials that protect up to the level of 45 decibels. The cost of installing such materials on a virgin housing site is considerably less than having to rip out materials and reinstall new ones later.

Right now, in the 60-decibel zone in Clydebank, houses are being built that are not being fitted with dual heat-sound protection products. Such protection will be required in a few short years, but I am glad to say that West Dunbartonshire Council has engaged with and is alert to the matter, so there is every chance that those houses will be fully protected to the appropriate level.

Although this is a health portfolio debate, it could easily have been an education debate, because of the damage to attainment that is caused by aircraft noise. However, in all cases, the remedy relies on protecting buildings. My message from the debate is simple: we either stop night-time flights or insulate buildings and homes to safeguard people. Those are the solutions.

19:16  

I thank Gil Paterson for bringing the debate to the chamber and for the information that he has shared, which has been enlightening.

Airports are a fantastic feature of any city, and bring a huge swathe of benefits to citizens locally and nationally. They facilitate travel for millions of people to hundreds of destinations, and improve the economy through tourism and exports.

Edinburgh airport, for example, has a hugely positive impact on the Scottish economy. According to a recent study, the airport contributes nearly £1 billion to the Scottish economy every year and supports 23,000 jobs nationwide. Its impact is wide ranging and must not be underestimated, as it provides a foundation for many Scottish industries—tourism, in particular, which for Edinburgh especially, but also for the whole of Scotland, is a vital industry, with more than 14,000 business focused on catering to the millions of visitors who come to our country each year. Visitors are attracted by our magnificent environment and culture—not forgetting golf, whisky and, of course, Edinburgh castle.

Undoubtedly, it is important to be mindful that, despite their incredible benefits, airports have an effect on their surrounding environments. Noise is the concern at hand, and that issue is raised, on occasion, by communities along airport flight paths. Although the noise problem cannot be completely removed, airports wish to manage the impact on local communities. I am delighted about what the UK Government is doing to move from a voluntary system to a statutory formation.

Edinburgh airport has a noise action plan in place for the period from 2018 to 2023. That was created in order to engage with local communities on the noise issue. The aim of the plan is to consult the communities on how they are affected by living under flight paths or near the airport. The consultations will provide information that will help the airport to understand the specific issues that affect people and, ultimately, how best it can work with them to improve its impact.

Is Mr Balfour aware that the expansion of Edinburgh airport’s flight paths has been rejected twice by the Civil Aviation Authority, because the airport has not provided the correct information to the communities that would be impacted by noise and other factors?

I am aware of that and have been involved in the process. As Mr Findlay will be aware, there is a challenge in that aeroplanes previously took off in one direction, but the airport has been suggesting that they might now fly over other parts of West Lothian. That will have an effect on local communities. The airport still needs to come up with a system that allows aeroplanes to land and take off efficiently, but which also protects communities, especially those that were not previously affected by noise. On Neil Findlay’s point, I understand that Edinburgh airport has now set up an independent noise management board that is made up of community councils and other airport stakeholders. I hope that it will engage with communities across the Lothians.

Ultimately, it is not possible to eliminate all the noise that is generated by airports. There must be some give and take, especially given factors such as the varying levels of people’s experience of noise and how much economic growth is generated by the airport. However, it is clear that airports across Scotland are taking the matter seriously—I was pleased to hear Gil Paterson’s examples from Glasgow. I hope that my local airport in Edinburgh will follow that line and take the issue seriously, and that it will support local communities as best it can.

19:21  

I am grateful to my friend and colleague Gil Paterson for bringing this important debate to the chamber, and I pay tribute to him for his long-standing work on the issue. He has been working on it for more than a decade and has been relentless in his pursuit of justice for people who live under the Glasgow airport flight path, and it is great to hear that success is finally round the corner.

Gil Paterson has outlined the more technical issues in the debate and noted the fact that the Scottish Government has no powers in relation to aircraft regulation because that is reserved to the UK Government.

The Scottish Government also has very limited powers in relation to health and safety: I will concentrate on that. Gil Paterson articulated many of the negative health aspects. Everyone now accepts that excessive aircraft noise, especially at night, has a negative impact on health. It can contribute to heart disease, strokes, high blood pressure and mental health issues as a result of sleep being constantly disturbed by night flights. We all know how bad we feel after we have had, for whatever reason, a disturbed night’s sleep. If members think about enduring that every night, they will begin to see the magnitude of the problem.

In addition, one of the most depressing and unfair impacts of noise is how it can affect children’s cognitive development. The constant interruptions from overhead noise during school hours and during the night can adversely affect children’s educational attainment.

Aircraft noise does not affect every household in Scotland. My constituency of Strathkelvin and Bearsden, which is next door to Gil Paterson’s constituency of Clydebank and Milngavie, is under the flight path to and from Glasgow airport, but there is no doubt that, due to Clydebank’s proximity to the airport, Gil’s constituency is most adversely affected. However, to put that into context, the World Health Organization guidelines recommend that noise at over 40 A-weighted decibels is enough to affect sleep adversely, and noise has frequently been recorded at over 50 dBAs and 60 dBAs in parts of Bearsden.

Last year, when the Civil Aviation Authority instructed Glasgow airport to alter flight paths, many of my constituents contacted me because they were worried about the increase in noise pollution. Many had children who were sitting important exams, or were university students who were concerned about the impact that the noise would have on their concentration and sleep. When the airport organised a consultation day in Bearsden to illustrate the changes that were being planned, more than 400 people—to the organisers’ astonishment—turned up over the course of the day, which is far more than turned up to the Heathrow consultation.

This is an issue that we must address, so I am really pleased to hear of the progress that has been made for the sake of people whose lives have, for many years, been blighted by excessive noise and night-time flights. Gil Paterson outlined how solutions can be achieved, and described the progress that has been made despite our limited powers, so I hope that matters will progress quickly for the sake of people who live under flight paths. We are talking about the health and wellbeing of future generations; it is our responsibility to act now so that the problem is dealt with before they, too, suffer the ill effects of excessive aircraft noise.

19:24  

I congratulate Gil Paterson on bringing the debate to the chamber. A few years back, I brought to the chamber a debate on the expansion of Edinburgh airport flight paths. At that time, I hosted a couple of public meetings in West Lothian, which were attended by huge number of people who were very concerned about the impacts of flight expansion on them and their communities.

We know that airports are unhealthy environments because of noise, stress, waste, fumes, overcrowding and all the rest of it. They have a major impact on the environment and are significant contributors to pollution and global warming. However, they are also, of course, important to our economy and society. They provide many jobs, and most of us use air transport from time to time.

We have to look at how to address those conflicting features of air travel. I recently read research from the World Health Organization that shows how some cities have joined what is called the healthy cities movement. Those cities are trying to bring airports and local communities together to create far more healthy places. The two can coexist in a much healthier way by reducing waste, offsetting and reducing emissions, providing sustainable travel to and from airports, and mitigating noise. That is the approach that we must take in the future. However, that has not been reflected in my dealings with Edinburgh airport over the past couple of years, or in how senior airport management have conducted themselves during the process.

I understand what Neil Findlay says about airports—I have the same thoughts. However, there is a very political dimension. I did not bring the debate to Parliament to talk about the environment; I was talking about people whose health is affected. In comparison to the number of people who use Edinburgh and Glasgow airports and other airports, we are talking about a very small number of people being affected, so it is feasible and possible to take care of them. I believe that the only way that that can be done is through a political act. The UK Government is doing something, but, for me, it is doing it too slowly. The UK Government should look at the World Health Organization research and work to that, rather than using salami-slice noise reductions, as it is doing.

I do not disagree with Mr Paterson on that. I will come on to those issues, in a minute.

The reality is that airports are noisy places. Planes are big noisy machines that impact negatively on people in the community. Members have spoken about the extensive body of research on the impacts of high levels of noise. The more that people are exposed to such levels, the higher the risk of adverse health impacts, including heart disease. We know that noise impacts on children’s learning capacity, causes sleep disturbance, has psychological impacts and contributes to obesity and low birth weight. There is a significant body of research on those and all the other issues. The increased air pollution from aircraft and the road vehicles that service airports compounds the impact on nearby communities.

There are things that can be done to reduce ground noise and noise in the air. Quieter engines are being developed, for example. Electric planes are not science fiction, and might be here sooner rather than later. Restrictions on night flights, which have been mentioned, and more sensitive scheduling of flights are the correct way forward.

Some countries have statutory schemes for the sort of project that Mr Paterson spoke about. I hope that it will become a statutory scheme here. At the moment, provision is patchy and it is up to the airport to decide what happens. In other countries, statutory schemes are paid for by taxes and levies on travel, but that is not the case here. However, I hope that we are moving towards that, because a number of properties in my region would benefit greatly from it.

Some countries have property removal initiatives, through which properties are bought and people are compensated. That has been done in the Netherlands to good effect. To help to deal with ground noise, bunds and noise walls have been constructed. My experience of dealing with the expansion of flight paths at Edinburgh was not good, and nor was it good for the affected communities.

Airports have to be up front and honest about what they are doing, and they have to build relationships with communities. Edinburgh airport should have done that prior to submitting the application to extend flight paths, but it did not, which was a huge missed opportunity.

Edinburgh airport also needs to end its professional arrogance. A professor of aviation joined the campaign group that I worked with, so the baffling science and engineering that the airport would throw at us was easily addressed because we had the good fortune to have that professor. However, not all community groups have that luxury.

Edinburgh airport also needs to respect its neighbours and to provide genuine live information on flights and their noise. As I said earlier, Edinburgh airport’s proposal for expansion has twice been rejected by the CAA because of the poor information that was provided to communities. The airport cannot continue to do that. If we are to have a credible way forward for communities to co-exist with airports, airports must provide genuine information and work collectively with the communities that will be impacted.

19:30  

I join other members in thanking Gil Paterson for his work on this issue over many years.

A number of members have already talked about the numerous studies that have been conducted that show that higher levels of aircraft noise can impact on high blood pressure, heart disease, heart attacks, strokes and even dementia. There are also educational impacts on children, in the classroom or at home, because the noise impacts on their reading, comprehension and memory skills. I believe that at least 20 studies have looked into that.

Across the United Kingdom, as Mr Paterson said, the numbers affected are relatively small, but there are still 60,000 people who are exposed every night to noise from night-time aircraft that exceeds the World Health Organization limits. It is therefore clear that noise from airports is causing a major public health crisis for the communities affected. It is our responsibility in this Parliament to tackle that problem.

My constituents in Fife live under the shadow of existing and potential future flight paths out of Edinburgh airport. From 2016 until October last year, the airport undertook an airspace change programme that ultimately sought to double the number of planes taking off from the airport at peak times by having a departure every minute. It also proposed eight new arrivals paths, meaning that nearly every community within a 15-mile radius of the airport, with the exception of central Edinburgh, would have a flight path overhead.

I was inundated, as Mr Findlay and many other members were, with people’s concerns. For me in Fife, they stretched from Charleston in the west through to Dunfermline, Inverkeithing and Kinghorn in the east. Throughout the multiple consultations that took place, community concerns about noise were repeatedly downplayed and ignored by Edinburgh airport. Residents felt that the information on noise mapping that was provided was deliberately made difficult to understand and that it did not take into account the clear noise impacts inside people’s homes.

Concerns were also raised by members of the airport’s noise advisory board as to the accuracy of the information that was provided. It was clear to many of us that the airport largely saw concern about noise just as an issue to be swept under the carpet.

I think that what galled the community most was that the airport was not operating at capacity and there was no need for the expansion of flight paths. My opinion all along has been that the airport is being fattened up for sale, because the business model that the owners operate involves keeping assets for a short time before flogging them on for huge profits. When the owners were challenged about that, they did not deny it.

That issue was raised at many of our community meetings in Fife; it is clear that Edinburgh airport gains money not only from flights but from selling duty-free products and from its commercial operations.

The CAA rejected the proposed new flight paths last October. It criticised the airport for increasing the proposed flight path numbers mid-consultation, and then failing to engage properly with communities on the impacts. The rejection by the CAA was a major win for communities, but Edinburgh airport has already begun the work to submit a fresh proposal for new flight paths. That is why now, more than ever, we need to get a handle on tackling the noise issue.

Recent changes to regulations at UK level mean that we can finally take action here in Scotland on noise pollution from our airports. New regulations give Scottish ministers the power to introduce noise-related operating restrictions in all airports with more than 50,000 civil aircraft movements per year.

Earlier this year, I welcomed the opportunity to meet Transport Scotland officials, along with representatives from Dalgety Bay and Hillend, Kinghorn and North Queensferry community councils, and I look forward to the further guidance that is due to be published imminently on the subject. I hope that it reflects their concerns and I would welcome an update from the minister, if he is able to provide one this evening.

My colleague Andy Wightman and I have spoken in the chamber before about the opportunity for ministers to have more control over the operating conditions through the formal designation of Edinburgh airport and the use of powers under the Civil Aviation Act 2012. That would allow us to address the issue of night flights from the airport; such flights are already restricted at Heathrow, Gatwick and London Stansted.

Last month in the chamber, cabinet secretary Michael Matheson committed to review the vast permitted development rights that are granted to airports, which can further contribute to expansion and related noise. I noticed that Kevin Stewart was here earlier and I hope that he will go back and think about the forthcoming review of permitted development rights and how we can get more control over the airports. At the moment, they seem to have vast unlimited permitted development rights in the curtilage of the airport, which can facilitate expansion and lead to noise issues.

If we are all in agreement about the health impacts that are caused by noise from aviation, there appear to be multiple ways in which we could address those in Scotland. It is about not just insulating properties, but going further and looking at measured restrictions. I look forward to working with colleagues from across the chamber to tackle this growing public health crisis.

19:36  

I thank my colleague Gil Paterson for bringing this important issue, which can clearly have an impact on people’s quality of life, before us for debate today. Aircraft noise is not a new issue; it has been a constant source of frustration for communities for a considerable period and, in certain circumstances, there is no way to escape it.

As members will be aware, in 2015 Edinburgh airport embarked on an airspace trial that saw aircraft use a newly designed flight path from take-off, which sought to reduce the amount of fuel that aircraft were burning while waiting on the runway, reduce the time between aircraft departures and provide a better service for passengers and airlines that were flying from the airport. The trial resulted in the unintended consequence of significant proportions of east-central Scotland being overflown by jet and turboprop aircraft, when previously they had not been. Areas in my constituency, including Mannerston Holdings and the village of Blackness, were particularly affected, as were swathes of the constituencies of my colleagues Angela Constance and Fiona Hyslop—Almond Valley and Linlithgow respectively. Of course, I acknowledge the work that Neil Findlay has done on the issue in West Lothian.

The vast majority of complaints arose from the level of noise that was emitted by the aircraft. Given that one of the trial’s aims was to reduce the time between take-offs, there were also complaints about the number of jets that were using the new flight path, which were causing untold stress and anxiety to residents in those areas.

High-powered passenger jet aircraft were breaking what was once tranquillity and turning a peaceful life into a noisy nightmare in the process. As we have heard, Edinburgh airport operates a not insignificant number of night flights, which are defined as flights between the hours of 11 pm and 6 am. As recently as 2018, the airport has faced calls to curb the number of flights during that period. Figures from one chosen week in July 2014 showed that there were 138 take-offs and landings between 11 pm and 6 am at the airport; four years later, night flights had increased by 38 per cent to 191 in the same week that was studied. There were 191 times per week when someone could have had their sleep disturbed by the intrusion of aircraft noise.

Any sustained intrusion in our lives during the day or while we are asleep can result in detrimental impacts on our health. Exposure to regular aircraft noise plays a large part in such intrusion for people who live near airports or under flight paths. Gil Paterson and other members have referred to the recent WHO report on environmental noise guidelines, which makes strong recommendations for achieving aircraft noise levels that are below 45 decibels during the day and below 40 decibels through the night. Any noise above those levels would have an adverse impact on the health of exposed populations.

I turn to the findings of Edinburgh airport’s trial airspace change. The average noise levels that were recorded in places across the flight path area were consistently above the 40 to 45 decibel threshold; in some cases, they were considerably above it. In 2012, Virgin Atlantic pledged to reduce the noise energy output of its fleet by 6 decibels per aircraft movement by 2020. That is in line with advancements in aircraft engine technology and is very welcome, but reducing noise by 6 decibels from an original level of above 70 decibels leaves a level that is still well above those that are recommended in the WHO report.

The Civil Aviation Authority, the European Union and the International Civil Aviation Organization should be working to ensure that policies are in place to continue innovation and mitigation wherever it is appropriate and possible to limit the impacts of noise on our communities. In particular, in future in the UK it will be for the CAA to ensure that its procedures and guidelines are fit for purpose for airspace change and that changes in use of existing flight paths are appropriate and take the impacts on communities into consideration as a priority.

Although the revisions that were proposed by Edinburgh airport’s trial airspace change were ultimately rejected, the communities that were subjected to it, and to subsequent changes in the use of other flight paths, are a long way from healing properly.

The WHO report should be taken very seriously if we are to ensure that communities are given every chance to live in the relatively peaceful way that they rightly deserve. However, it is incumbent upon all the parties who are involved to be at the table to ensure that progress in the area is made for everyone, in the spirit of collaboration and collective responsibility that we all have towards our citizens and our communities.

19:41  

I welcome the opportunity to respond to the debate, on behalf of the cabinet secretary, for the Scottish Government. I recognise the strong feeling about aircraft noise that exists among residents and communities that are affected by it, which we have heard about, and among members across the chamber. I recognise, too, the long-standing interest that Gil Paterson has in the issue. I sincerely congratulate him on securing time for the debate, which will be important to his constituents and those of other members.

Until Kevin Stewart, who I was sitting next to, pointed it out to me, I had not appreciated that Mr Paterson had done a pilot project, which, if Mr Stewart is correct, was carried out at Mr Paterson’s own expense. That is definitely going above and beyond the call of duty for members, but it adds further strength to the commitment that Mr Paterson has shown in trying to resolve the issue for his constituents.

I start by referring to the WHO report. The assessment of noise and noise annoyance is a complex process and, as we have heard, different noise sources affect people in different ways. The issue of the extent of health effects that are associated with noise is an on-going area of research, and the WHO report makes an important contribution to our knowledge on the issue. As Rona Mackay, Angus MacDonald, Gil Paterson and others have said, the thresholds that the WHO report has established—45 decibels by day and 40 decibels at night—are very informative. However, it is worth mentioning that, in addition to aircraft noise, the report covers a number of other issues that are associated with road traffic, rail, wind turbines and leisure noise.

Although we might consider the impact of different noise sources in isolation, we must remember that their interaction is also important. At any given point, individuals and wider communities are likely to be exposed to noise from multiple sources simultaneously. Any efforts to mitigate the impact of noise should take that context into account.

As Jeremy Balfour alluded to, part of the reason for our debating the issue is the on-going success of Scotland’s airports. As a number of members have referenced, last week, Edinburgh airport announced its busiest May on record, and in 2017 Glasgow airport had its busiest ever year. Of course, the Scottish Government takes that into account in its targets on and actions to address climate change, the impact of which I know that members are concerned about managing.

Scotland now has direct air services to many parts of the world that we did not have before—including those to the middle east, a range of destinations in North America and numerous cities across Europe—on which we rely for doing business or taking our families on holiday. Edinburgh airport’s newly launched service to Boston, which the Scottish Government assisted it in securing, further enhances Scotland’s route network and eliminates unnecessary connecting flights to hub airports. However, that does not diminish the concern that I know that members have about noise. As I have said, although I recognise the need to place downward pressure on the environmental impacts of aircraft activities, we should not lose sight of the fact that the continuing success of Scotland’s airports brings with it significant economic benefits to an airport’s local area, its wider region and Scotland as a whole.

However, I have been listening closely to the debate and I very much respect the views of members across the chamber who are concerned about emissions. I hope that we can all agree that, with the success that comes from growing airport activity, airports have a wider responsibility to consider the communities around them—in particular, those directly impacted by their activities. Gil Paterson, Rona Mackay, Neil Findlay, Jeremy Balfour and Mark Ruskell all said that they expect airports to act responsibly and to take into account their impact on the community.

It is important to remember that there is already a regime in place to mitigate the impact of noise from airports, with every major airport required to have measures in place to do that. The Environmental Noise (Scotland) Regulations 2006 require major airports to produce a strategic noise map and a noise action plan setting out how they plan to mitigate the impact of noise from the airport. There is a requirement under the regulations for an airport to use all reasonable endeavours to take the actions set out in its action plan.

It is important to stress that the action plans are required to be updated at least every five years. Glasgow airport updated its plan last year to cover the period 2018 to 2023. As I understand it, Glasgow airport’s plan was produced on the basis of extensive feedback gathered during a 13-week public consultation between January and April 2018. That represented an opportunity for the public to have their say on what the airport is doing to mitigate noise specifically.

Given the concerns of Mr Paterson and others, it is worth highlighting that Glasgow airport is taking further measures under its noise action plan to mitigate noise for residents. Those measures include developing a noise insulation policy to mitigate noise for residents who are most affected by aircraft noise—clearly, the move by the UK Government will aid those efforts—and incentivising the use of quieter aircraft through differential landing charges. Mr Findlay is, however, right to indicate that, in future, electric planes may well play a role in helping to reduce aircraft noise. Indeed, they are already being trialled in Norway so, as he said, they are not perhaps as far away from being used commercially as people may think.

The measures also include encouraging aircraft to adopt continuous descent operations, which involve aircraft maintaining a steady state of approach, which in turn reduces noise; and developing an airspace change proposal, which will allow aircraft to fly more accurately along departure routes, minimising the number of people affected by aircraft noise.

It should be noted that the regulations do not just cover airports; they also cover major roads and railways as well as major urban areas. That recognises the need to address—as previously stated—the fact that noise comes from multiple sources. However, colleagues are right that the airports should take action where they can do so.

The exchanges between Mr Findlay and Mr Balfour touched on the point, which Mr Ruskell made, too, that they are conscious that changes in flight paths can mean that although some communities become less impacted by aircraft noise, others see aircraft noise increase.

Although, as a number of colleagues have said, airspace change is a reserved matter that is the responsibility of UK ministers and the UK Parliament, and the Scottish Government has no direct, formal role in the process, we have emphasised previously the need for airports to properly consult local communities on their proposals. Mr Findlay made clear that he is very concerned about making sure that that happens and that those consultations are genuine. Indeed, I make the point again today that we expect that to happen.

At present, large parts of our airspace are crowded and inefficient. That is clearly bad for passengers, but it is also bad for the environment and for the wider economy. It is perhaps obvious, but I should restate it, that using our airspace more efficiently can lessen the need for things such as aircraft stacking, thereby making journeys quicker and using less fuel—meaning a cut in emissions and, I hope, less noise over the communities closest to airports.

It is important that the necessary changes are made to the use of our airspace to accommodate future growth in a sustainable way. It is also essential, however, that airports consult local communities effectively and take account of the responses to that consultation before deciding which options to pursue as part of an airspace change process.

Finally, the mitigation of the impact of noise from an airport must be balanced against the benefits that an airport brings in terms of economic growth, employment and so forth. The 2006 regulations impose requirements on airport operators to take action in relation to noise. I was greatly heartened to hear about the impact of individual measures that can be taken and my colleague Kevin Stewart was keen to emphasise that he will be looking at protection against noise in his review of building standards.

Does the minister believe that there is a contradiction in the view that we can have sustainability and exponential growth in aviation?

I do not agree with the way that Mr Findlay put it, but I certainly recognise that we have to get the balance right. If we are growing air traffic in Scotland, we have a responsibility to communities that are affected and a responsibility to ensure that we manage the greenhouse gas emissions from air traffic.

With technology improving, we see more efficient and quieter engines and indeed entirely new propulsion systems with electric planes, so it is not necessarily a given that air travel has to be bad for the environment. We can try to design out those vulnerabilities in future. However, I take Mr Findlay’s point. It is a tension in policy, and that is why we reflect the impact of emissions in our statutory annual greenhouse gas emission targets.

Mr Stewart is keen to emphasise that we will be looking at the issue that Mr Paterson raised about how we can make the most of energy efficiency investments to try to tackle noise impacts on residents in the review of building standards. Before Mr Stewart had to leave, he asked me to make that point to members in the chamber.

We obviously have work to do in respect of the matter, but we believe that the requirements of the regulations are sufficient for now, augmented by the steps that the UK Government has taken, and that they meet their intended purpose. There are no plans for arrangements to be changed at this time, but I have taken extensive notes of the points that members have made and I will ensure that my colleague Mr Matheson is aware of the strength of feeling across the chamber—I will report that back.

Will the minister take an intervention?

I will.

It will have to be brief, but I am happy to allow the intervention as there have been only a few speakers.

Will the Scottish Government consider taking back control of Edinburgh airport and designating it as an airport that is under the control of Scottish ministers? Would that not be the most strategic thing to do, given that the Scottish Government has a balanced interest in aviation?

I hope that the member will forgive me but, as I am not the lead minister on that topic, I will relay that point to Mr Matheson and ask him to correspond with Mr Ruskell. I have noted the point. It is not within my side of the portfolio, but I will certainly relay it to Mr Matheson and make sure that he is aware of it.

With that, I will conclude, Presiding Officer. Thank you for your patience.

Not at all. It has been an interesting debate. Thank you.

Meeting closed at 19:52.