àng. Rm甚麼First Minister I,iatrima business between the United Kingdom and Kurt Aletaan may rolled out before thelong discussions of the Scottish Government and what it looks like in the future, I think that there will be some high demand either of us and that's very interesting. Glenfellyr, Pat Hoy, am Garnac. Mae ddod oes заedd rhanoligfer o drafodol eich gwrsau o arfer o ddechrau i gael. Mi'n bwysig â'r hollwyr, a'r byd i ddych chi hefyd yn ddadwn nhw'n trafodol i gael ar hyn, ac yn hyn yn dweud. Felly, yn 2007 a 2009, rydw i gael i gael i gael i gael amser i gyfailuedd Cymru, dwi'n dweud i'r cymdeithasau i'r effeithio i'r dweud o unigwyrs o'r ddych yn wneud yn gyfrifio glasgwyllion, not surprisingly, i'r cyfrifio gyrfa gweithio. Many of the comments were in regards to ill health and the respondents were convinced that their condition was down to the noise from aircraft. Much research has been carried out by my office, most of which confirms the fears of my constituents that noise from aircraft indeed is indeterminental for people's health. One of my research projects conducted in 2014 was a comprehensive undertaking 32 pages long, which covered the causes, the extent of how widespread it affected, what damage was being done, what compensation was involved elsewhere, who was responsible for action and most importantly what can be done to alleviate the impact. I presented this report to Glasgow Airport seeking dialogue with the view to see if there was any elements in the report that we could constructively work on. I am pleased to tell the chamber to say that the airport agreed to meet me. One of the major on-going complaints was 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, was a request that the airport carry out a pilot scheme to insulate houses to protect against the noise that would allow for a night's sleep. The airport said that it would consider this but thought that it would not be possible to retrofit a house at a reasonable cost that would make this a viable proposition. I took up this challenge and again after much research this time into the process, I retrofitted a house in Clydebank and in an attempt to prove that it could be done economically. In September 2016, I commissioned Sonoflo Limited, a specialist condition monitoring company owned by Ruben McLean, to professionally monitor the noise outcomes. He produced, for me, a night-time aircraft survey. The monitoring went through four distinct phases over a week. First, a sound test inside the house was carried out with no added insulation, which measured 63 decibels. Then, the loft was insulated, a further test measured 50 decibels, after which triple glazing was fitted and a further test measured 45 decibels. The outside of the house was measured at 84 decibels. Although the house was already equipped with double glazing, a major difference was achieved by installing triple glazing. The significance of three decibels is that three decibels is a doubling of the sound value. Three is double or three is half, depending on the way that you measure it. When I presented the findings to Glasgow Airport, the airport accepted the findings and the quality of the work that has been done by the professional. After a few meetings to their credit, the airport came good with their promise and said that it would prepare the details of a pilot scheme. In the intervening period, a directive was issued by the UK Government to the effect that airports with noise levels of 63 decibels and above will be required to put in place a sound reduction scheme for all those houses affected. That means that some 50—500 to 800 houses will now be eligible in Clydebank. That overtook the voluntary scheme and will deliver way above my own expectations. It should be noted that the UK Government has just this week finished an aviation 2050 consultation on aircraft noise with a proposal to reduce the levels before compensation by a further three decibels to 60 decibels. Gil Findlay. I have a point of clarity. I mentioned that it would no longer be a voluntary scheme. Is that a compulsory scheme? My understanding is that there are no compulsory schemes. Gil Paterson. Absolutely. The voluntary scheme has been taken over by a mandatory scheme. As long as the households are inside measurement as above 63 decibels spread over 60 hours, they will qualify it. I am pleased that, obviously, what I was going to accept was a smaller number, but having that number, I am really grateful for it. Gil Findlay. Gil Findlay. I wonder if you could just explain further how that works. Let's take it. The householder has to apply to the scheme. They have to make a contribution that is 100 per cent of the cost that is covered. That is new to me, and I am really interested in what the member is saying. Gil Paterson. Unfortunately, I am not able to say that because the scheme has presently been developed. I do not know the full extent, and that is why I am not sure if it will be £500 or £800, but it will be somewhere in between. As to how it will apply, I am not entirely sure. If I find it, I will certainly keep you posted. It is a bit of an anorak issue in many cases if you do not have to put up with this. I am glad that you are interested in that, and I will do my best to keep you informed. I have also been engaged with the Scottish Government, Westin-Bartonshire Council and Eastin-Bartonshire Council, although neither the Scottish Government nor local authorities have little or no powers over aviation. My discussions with Westin-Bartonshire Council were to encourage them, whenever they were involved in full-poverty projects, where they typically are installed, double glazing, loft insulation and wall insulation, by suggesting that areas under flight paths are affected by noise and that, for a very small additional outlay, the materials used should be materials that are protected for both heat loss and sound penetration. It should be noted that the materials that I used in my experiment were excellent in both capacities. You may ask if the Scottish Government and local authorities have no responsibility for this issue. Why should they spend a penny on reserved matters? I need to point out to the warnings over many years from the World Health Organization, which have highlighted the hazards that are caused by aircraft noise. The latest of those warnings from the World Health Organization came in October 2018, raising the prospect of cardiovascular disease, a cognitive impairment, quality of life wellbeing and mental health issues, metabolic outcomes and more. Therefore, the costs that are met by the Scottish and local Governments would, for a modest additional cost, by taking preventative action and upgrading their vital and welcome fuel poverty schemes under the flight path, will save untold expenditure in the future. People, particularly children, will be protected and able to flourish. I am pleased to say that my many constructive talks with the Scottish Government—in particular, the minister who is sitting here in Kevin Stewart—and the Westumbartonshire Council are bearing some fruit. There is a proposal going forward before Westumbartonshire Council in August to approve a second pilot scheme that will retrofit 12 houses for heat and sound protection. The World Health Organization says that people are damaged at levels over 45 decibels. Therefore, I believe that housing regulations for new-built homes are within that zone. Incidentally, that zone is identified on a public record document. It is required to install materials that protect to the 45 decibels level. Of course, the cost of installing on a virgin housing site is considerably less than having to rip it out and reinstall it later on. It is really interesting that, right now, in Clydebank, there are houses being built that fall within the 60 decibel zone, which, if not fitted with dual-heat sound protection products at the start, would be required to do so in a few short years. However, I am glad to say that Westumbartonshire Council has been very engaged and alert in this matter. There is every chance that those houses will be fully protected to that secure level. To conclude, although that is very much a health debate, it could have easily been an education because of the damage to attainment. However, the remedy lies in all the cases in protecting the building. My message from this debate is quite simple. You either stop night-time flights—that is an option—or you insulate buildings and homes to safeguard the people. That is the solution to that. I thank you very much for giving me this time. I thank you very much, Mr Paterson. I call Jeremy Balfour to be followed by Rona Mackay. Mr Balfour, please. Thank you, Deputy Presiding Officer. I thank Gil Paterson for bringing the debate forward this evening. I also thank him for the information that he has shared already, which has been enlightening to me. Airports are a fantastic feature of any city, bringing a huge wave of benefits to citizens both locally and nationally. They facilitate the travel of millions of people to hundreds of destinations while also improving the economy through tourism and exporting. For example, Edinburgh airport has a hugely positive impact here 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, providing the foundations for many of the Scottish industries, particularly tourism. Tourism, particularly here for Edinburgh but for the whole of Scotland, is a vital industry, with more than 14,000 businesses focused on tourism that cater towards the millions of visitors coming to our country each year. Visitors are attracted by our munificent environment, our culture by not forgetting golf, whisky and, of course, the castle. Undoubtedly, it is important to be mindful that, despite the incredible benefits, airports have an effect on the surrounding environment. Noise is the concern at hand and is raised on occasion by communities along the airport flight paths. While noise cannot be completely removed, airports deal with it to manage the impact on local communities. I am delighted that we have already heard about what the UK Government is doing and will do. That will move it from a voluntary system into a statutory formation. Our airport has had a noise action plan in place for 2018 to 2023, which has been created in order to engage with local communities around the issue of noise. The aim of the plan is to consult with local communities on how they may be affected by living under flight paths or near the airport. Those consultations will give information that will help the airport to understand what are the specific issues that affect people and, ultimately, how best can it work with them to improve its impact. I wonder if Mr Balfour is aware that the expansion of flight paths at Edinburgh airport has been rejected twice by the CAA because the airport has not provided the correct information to communities that would be impacted by noise and other factors. Jeremy Balfour, I am aware and have been involved in that process. We have a challenge of when the airplanes take off, as Mr Finlay will be aware. They have previously gone in one direction and the airport had been suggesting that they go over other parts of West Lovian. That has had an effect on local communities. The airport still needs to come up with a system that allows airplanes to land and to take off in an efficient way, but it also protects communities, particularly communities that have not been affected by that noise previously to now. By Mr Finlay, I understand that Edinburgh has now set up an independent noise management board that has been made up of community councillors and other airport stakeholders. I hope that that will engage with local communities across Lovians. Ultimately, it is not possible to eliminate all noise generated from airports. There must be a degree of give and take, especially given factors such as the varying levels of people's experience towards 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 am pleased with Gil Paterson's example at Glasgow. I hope that my local airport in Edinburgh will follow that line of Glasgow and take it seriously and support local communities as best as we can. I am grateful to my friend and colleague Gil Paterson for bringing this important debate to the chamber tonight. I would like to pay tribute to him for his long-standing work on the issue. I know that Gil has been working on this for more than a decade and has been relentless in his pursuit of justice for those living under the flight path of Glasgow airport. It is great to hear that, finally, success is around the corner. Gil has outlined the more technical issues in the debate and the fact that the Scottish Government has no powers in relation to aircraft regulation, as this is reserved to the UK Government. It also has very limited powers in relation to health and safety. It is those aspects that I would like to concentrate on tonight. Gil has articulated many of the negative health aspects. Everyone now accepts that excessive aircraft noise, particularly at night, has a negative impact on health. It can contribute to heart disease, strokes, high blood pressure and mental health issues in relation to constantly disturbed sleep due to night flights. We all know how bad we feel after a disturbed night's sleep for whatever reason. Think about enduring that every night and you'll begin to see the magnitude of the problem. One of the most depressing and unfair impacts in relation to 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 Straskell and Bearsden, which neighbours Gil Paterson's constituency of Clydebank and McGuy, is on the flight path to and from Glasgow airport. However, there is no doubt that, due to the proximity of Clydebank to the airport, Gil's constituency is most adversely affected. However, to put that into context, the World Health Organization guidelines recommend that more than 40 DBAs are enough to adversely affect sleep, and frequently noise has been recorded at more than 50 and 60 DBAs in parts of Bearsden. Indeed, when the Civil Aviation Authority instructed Glasgow airport to alter the flight path last year, many of my constituents contacted me worried about the increase in noise pollution. Many of children sit in important exams or were university students concerned about the impact that noise would have on their concentration in sleep. When the airport organised a consultation day in Bearsden to illustrate the changes that were being planned, to the astonishment of the organisers, more than 400 people turned up over the course of the day. That was far more than had turned up when they organised a Heathrow consultation. That is an issue that we must address, and I am really pleased to hear of the progress that has been made. It is for the sake of those whose lives have been blighted by excessive noise and night-time flights for many years. Gil Paterson has outlined ways in which that could be achieved and the progress that has been made, despite our limited powers. I hope that that will progress quickly for the sake of those who are living under the flight path. We are talking about the health and wellbeing of future generations, and it is our responsibility to act now so that the problem is dealt with before the two suffer the ill effects of excessive aircraft noise. I congratulate Mr Paterson on his debate. I brought forward a debate on the expansion of Edinburgh airport flight paths a few years back. During that time, I hosted a couple of public meetings in West Llywain, in which a huge number of people attended and were concerned about what the impact of flight expansion would be on them and their community. We know that airports are an unhealthy environment—noise, stress, waste, fumes, overcrowding and all—and the rest of it have a major impact on the environment. We know that they are a significant contributor to pollution and global warming, but they are important to our economy and society and provide a lot of jobs. Most of us use air travel from time to time. We have to look at how we address the conflicting features of air travel. The research from the World Health Organization recently shows how some cities have joined what they call the healthy cities movement that are trying to bring airports and the local community together to create far more healthy places that can coexist in a much healthier way by reducing waste and offsetting and reducing emissions, having sustainable travel to and from airports and mitigating noise. That is how it has to be in the future. It is not my experience of having dealt with Edinburgh Airport over the past couple of years or how the senior management of the airport conducted themselves during the process that I spoke about earlier. Airports are noisy places. Gil Paterson, I appreciate what you say about airports. I have the same thoughts, but I think that there is very much a political dimension. I do not come to this debate as someone who is talking about the environment. I am talking about people who are affected with their health. If you consider the low number of people in comparison to the people who use Edinburgh Airport, Glasgow Airport and other airports, it is a very small number. It is feasible and possible to take care of them. I really believe that the only way that it can be done is with a political act. The UK Government is doing it, but for me it is too slowly. It should look at the World Health Organization and work to that order rather than salami slice at the way that it is doing it. Mr Finlay, you will get your time back. That is a long intervention. I would not disagree with what Mr Paterson says, but I will comment on some of those issues in a minute. The reality is that airports are noisy places. Plans are big and noisy machines have impacts negatively on people in the community. That extensive body research that people have spoken about has the impact of high levels of noise contributing to heart disease. The longer you are exposed to it, the higher your risk of adverse health impacts. We know that it impacts on the learning capacity of children, on the impacts of sleep disturbance, has psychological impacts, contributes to obesity and low birth weight and all of the other issues that there is a significant body of research on. Combining the noise with increased air pollution from aircraft and from road vehicles servicing the airport, all of that compounds the impact on communities nearby. There are things that can be done to reduce ground noise and noise in the air. With quieter engines being developed, electronic planes are not science fiction. They may be here sooner rather than later. Restrictions on night flights, as has been mentioned, and more sensitive scheduling of flights is the correct way forward. Countries have statutory schemes for the likes of the projects that Mr Paterson has spoken about. I hope that that is becoming a statutory scheme, because what I have looked at at the moment is that this is a very patchy thing. It is up to the airport in that area to decide what happens. Statutory schemes in other areas are paid by taxis and levees on travel, and here that is not currently the case. I hope that we are moving to that because certainly a number of the properties in my region could benefit greatly from that. In some countries, of course, they have property removal initiatives, where the properties are bought up and people are compensated, and that has been done in places such as the Netherlands. On the ground, ground noise blends and noise walls have been constructed to help with ground noise. My experience of dealing with expansion of flight paths at Edinburgh was not a good one. I have to say nearer was it good for the communities who would have been affected. Airports have to be upfront. They have to be honest about what they are doing, and they have to build relationships with communities. They should have done that prior to submitting their application to extend the flight pass and did not. I think that there was a huge missed opportunity. They also need to end the professional arrogance. They actually came up against it in the campaign group that I worked with, because we had a professor of aviation who joined the group. Any of the baffling science and engineering that they would throw at us was easily addressed because we had the good fortune to have a professor of aviation. Not all community groups have that luxury. They also need to respect their neighbours and provide real and genuine and live information on flights and the noise from them. As I said earlier, the airport proposal for expansion at Edinburgh has twice been rejected by the CAA because of the poor information that they provided for the community. They cannot do that. If we are going to have a credible way forward where communities coexist, they have to provide genuine information and work collectively with the communities that are impacted. Thank you very much, Mr Finlay. I call Mark Ruskell before I go about Angus MacDonald. Mr MacDonald is the last speaker in the open debate, Mr Ruskell. Thank you, Deputy Presiding Officer, for joining members and also thanking Gil Passan for his work on this issue over many, 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, on heart disease, on heart attacks, on strokes and even dementia. Of course, the educational impacts as well on children, whether it is in the classroom or at home, the impacts on their reading, on their comprehension and memory skills have been, I believe, at least 20 studies that have been done into this and looked at looking into this. Across the UK, Mr Passan says that it is a rather small number. There are 60,000 people who are exposed to night-time aircraft noise that exceed those world health organisation limits every single night. It is clear that noise from airports is causing a major public health crisis for those communities that are affected. It is our responsibility in this Parliament to tackle it. 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 air space change programme, which ultimately sought to double the number of planes taking off from the airport at peak times to a departure every single minute. It proposed eight new arrivals paths, meaning nearly every community within a 15-mile radius, with the exception of central Edinburgh, would have a flight path overhead. I was inundated, as Mr Finlay and many other members were, with concerns for me in five stretching from Charleston in the west through to Dunfermline in the Keithing and Kinghorn in the east. Throughout the multiple consultations that have taken place, community concerns about noise were repeatedly downplayd and ignored by the airport. Residents felt that the information that noise mapping provided was deliberately difficult to understand and did not take into account the clear noise impacts within the home. Concerns were also raised by members of the airport's own noise advisory board as to the accuracy of the information that was provided. It was clear to many of us that the airport saw concern about noise as an issue, just to be swept largely under the carpet. Of course, I think that the thing that galled the community most was that the airport was not operating at capacity and there actually was no need for the expansion of flight paths. My opinion all along is that they are fattening the airport up for sale because the business model that the owners operate to is that they keep assets for a short period of time, then flog them on for huge profits. When they were challenged about that, they did not understand. No, that was raised at many of the community meetings that we had in Fife, and it is clear that Edinburgh Airport gains money from the flights but also gains money from selling duty free and its commercial operations as well. The CAA rejected the proposed new flight pass last October, criticising the airport for increasing the proposed flight path numbers mid- consultation and failing to properly engage with communities then 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, and all airports with over 50,000 civil aircraft movements per year. I welcome the opportunity earlier this year to meet transport Scotland officials, along with representatives from Dalgethey Bay and Hill End, Kinghorn and North Queens Free community councils. I look forward to further guidance that is due to be published on the subject imminently. I hope that it reflects their concerns and I welcome an update from the minister if he is able to give us one this evening. My colleague Andy Wightman and I have also spoken in this chamber before about the opportunity for ministers to have more control over the operating conditions through formal designation of Edinburgh Airport and the use of powers under the Civil Aviation Act. That would allow us to address the issue of night flights in the airport, which are already restricted at Heathrow, Gatwick and Stanstead. Last month in this chamber, the Cabinet Secretary, Michael Matheson, committed to reviewing the vast permitted development rights granted to airports, which can further contribute to expansion and related noise. I noticed that Mr Stewart was here earlier on. I mean, hopefully he will go back and think about the forthcoming review into permitted development rights and how we can get more control over the airports. I mean, at the moment, they just have seen to have vast unlimited permitted development rights within the airport and that, of course, can facilitate expansion and noise issues. Presiding Officer, if we are all in agreement about the health impacts caused by noise aviation, there do appear now to be multiple ways that we could be addressing those in Scotland, not just about insulating properties, but actually going further and looking at measured restrictions as well. I look forward to working with colleagues from across the chamber to tackle this growing public health crisis. I would like to thank my colleague Gil Paterson for bringing this important issue before us for the debate today, which can clearly have an impact on people's quality of life. Aircraft noise is not a new issue. It has been a constant source of frustration for communities for a considerable period and there is, in certain circumstances, no way of escaping it. As members will be aware, in 2015, the Edinburgh airport embarked upon an airspace trial that saw aircraft use a newly designed flight path from take-off, which sought to reduce the amount of fuel aircraft were burning while waiting on the runway, reduce the time between the departures of each aircraft and provide a better service for passengers and the airlines flying from the airport. That resulted in the unintended consequence of significant proportions of East Central Scotland now being overflown by jet and turboprop aircraft that previously were not before. Areas within my constituency, including Manurston Holdings and the village of Black Ness, were particularly affected. As two were swathes of my colleagues Angela Constance and Fiona Hyslop's constituencies of Almond Valley and Llynsgo respectively. Of course, I acknowledge the work that Neil Finlay has done on this particular issue, too, in West Lodian. The vast majority of complaints were around the level of noise emitted by the aircraft. Given that one of the trials' aims was to reduce the time between take-offs, there were also complaints about the number of jets using this new flight path and causing untold stress and anxiety to residents in these areas. High-powered passenger jet aircraft breaking what was once tranquility and turning a peaceful life into a noisy nightmare in the process. Edinburgh Airport also operates, as we have heard, a not insignificant amount of night flights. These are defined as flights between the hours of 11pm and 6am in the morning and, as recently as 2018, the airport has been facing calls to curb the amount of flights during this period. In July 2014, figures from one chosen week marked 138 take-offs and landings at the airport. However, four years later, night flights had increased by 38 per cent to 191 in the same week studied. That is 191 times per week that someone could have their sleep disturbed by the intrusion of aircraft noise. Presiding Officer, we must consider that any sustained intrusion to 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 that intrusion for people living near airports or under flight paths. As Gil Paterson and others have referred to in this evening's debate, the recent WHO report on environmental noise guidelines provides strong recommendations for achieving aircraft noise levels below 45 decibels during the day and below 40 decibels through the night. Anything above those levels will have an adverse impact on the health of exposed populations. Turning to some of the findings of Edinburgh Airport's trial airspace change, the average noise recorded in places across the flight path area were consistently above the 40 to 45 decibel threshold and in some cases considerably above. In 2012, Virgin Atlantic pledged to reduce noise energy output of its fleet by six decibels per aircraft movement by 2020. That, in line with advancements in aircraft engine technology, is all very welcome. However, reducing noise by six decibels from an original level of about 70 decibels is still well above the recommendations of the WHO report. The Civil Aviation Authority, the European Union and the international civil aviation organisation should be working to ensure that policies are in place to continue innovation and mitigation wherever appropriate and possible to limit the impact on our communities. In particular, it is for the CAA in the UK going forward to ensure that its procedures and guidelines are fit for purpose for airspace change and the changes in use of existing flight paths is appropriate and takes into consideration the impact of communities as a priority. Although the changes proposed by the Edinburgh airspace change were ultimately rejected, the communities subjected to the trial and subsequent changes in the use of other flight paths are a long way from properly healing. 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 parties involved to be at the table to ensure that progress in this area is made for everyone in the spirit of collaboration and collective responsibility that we all have towards our citizens and our communities. I welcome the opportunity to speak in this debate and to respond to the Scottish Government on behalf of the cabinet secretary. I also recognise the strong feeling that there is about this issue among some residents, as we have heard, in the communities that are affected by aircraft noise and members across the chamber. I also recognise particularly the long-standing interest that Gil Paterson has in this issue and I want to congratulate him and sincerely thank him for the support that he has provided to the Scottish Government and I congratulate him sincerely on securing time for this very important debate for his constituents and clearly for other members across his chamber's constituents as well. I hadn't appreciated until sitting next to Mr Stewart was pointing out to me the example that was given that Gil Paterson had done a pilot project. I believe that if Mr Stewart is correct he was actually paid for at the expense of Mr Paterson, which is definitely going above and beyond the call of duty for MSPs, but I think further adds strength to the commitment that has shown to trying to resolve this issue for his constituents. I want to start by referring to the WHO report. Of course, the assessment of noise and noise annoyance is a complex process and different noise sources affect people in different ways, as we have heard. The issue of the extent of health effects and the associated with noise is an on-going area of research and the WHO report is an important contribution to our knowledge of the issue as I and Angus MacDonald, Gil Paterson and others have said the thresholds that have been established in the WHO report of 45 decibels by day and 40 decibels at night are obviously very informative. The WHO report does however cover a number of areas and it's worth it while just mentioning that it also, in addition to aircraft noise, also covers issues associated with road traffic, rail, wind turbines and indeed leisure noise. As well as the impact of different noise sources in isolation their interaction is also important at any given point individuals and indeed wider communities are likely to be exposed to noise from multiple sources simultaneously. Any efforts to mitigate the impact of noise should take this into account and as context for the issues of noise impacts which shall all turn to shortly. Jeremy Balfour alluded to this but we're also debating this issue in part due to the on-going success of Scotland's airports. Last week, Edinburgh Airport announced its busiest rep May on record and Glasgow Airport had its busiest every year in 2017. Scotland takes into account our climate change targets and actions to address climate change and I know that members are concerned to manage that impact. Scotland now has direct services to many parts of the world which we didn't have before including the Middle East to a range of destinations in North America and to numerous cities across Europe that we rely on for doing business and family on holiday. Edinburgh's newly launched service to Boston which the Scottish Government assisted in securing is further enhancing Scotland's route network and of course can eliminate unnecessary connecting flights to hub airports but that doesn't diminish the concern that I know members feel about the issue of noise and while, as I say, I recognise the need to place downward pressure on the environmental impacts of aircraft activities continuing success of Scotland's airports brings with it significant economic benefits and airports local area. It's wider region and to Scotland as a whole so we shouldn't lose sight of that. However, and I've been hearing listening closely to members today I very much respect the view of members and colleagues across the chamber who are concerned with emissions and I hope we can all agree that with the success that comes from growing airport activity there's a wider responsibility for airports to consider the communities around them and particularly those directly impacted by Gil Paterson, Rona Mackay, Neil Findlay, Jeremy Balfour and Mark Ruskell all members, I think, have mentioned this point that they expect airports to act responsibly and to take into account the impact in local community. And 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 in place measures to mitigate the impact of noise. The environmental noise, Scotland regulations 2006 require that major airports produce a strategic noise map and a noise action plan sitting out to mitigate the impact of noise from the airport. There's a requirement under the regulations for an airport to use all reasonable endeavours to take the action set out in their action plan. And it's important to stress that these action plans are themselves required to be updated at least every five years and Glasgow airport updated their plan last year to cover the period 2018 to 2023. As I understand it, Glasgow airport's plan was produced based on extensive feedback gathered during a 13-week public consultation between January and April of 2018 and this represented an opportunity for the public to have their say in what the airport is doing to specifically mitigate against noise. And it's worth highlighting that given Mr Paterson's and others concerns that Glasgow airport are taking further measures under their noise action plan to mitigate noise for residents. And this includes firstly developing a noise insulation policy to mitigate noise for residents most affected by aircraft noise and clearly the move by UK Government will aid those efforts. Finally incentivising the use of quieter aircraft through differential landing charges. Mr Finlay is right to indicate that in future electric planes we will play a role in helping to reduce aircraft noise and indeed they're already being trialled in Norway so they're not as far away as people may think from being used commercially. And encouraging aircraft thirdly to adopt continuous descent operations which involve aircraft maintaining a steady state of approach which reduces noise. And fourthly developing an airspace change proposal which will allow aircraft to fly more accurately along departure routes and minimising the number of people affected by aircraft noise. It should be noted though that the regulations do not just cover airports, they also cover major roads and railways as well as major urban areas. And this recognises the need to address as previously stated the fact that noise comes from multiple sources but colleagues are right that airports should take action where they can do so. Certainly it was touched upon by Mr Finlay and Mr Balfour in their exchange and indeed by Mr Ruskell as well that we're very much conscious that changes in flight paths can mean that while some communities can become less impacted by aircraft noise, others can see aircraft noise increase. And while airspace change is a reserved matter as has been said by a number of colleagues which is the responsibility of UK ministers and UK parliaments 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. That's a point that I think Mr Finlay was very much concerned to make sure that it happens and with sincerity that those consultations are genuine and that indeed the relation to their proposals and I make that point here again today that that is something we expect to see happen and at present large parts of our airspace are crowded and inefficient. This is bad for passengers clearly but it's bad for the environment and bad for the wider economy. So it's perhaps obvious but I should restate using our airspace more efficiently can lessen need for things like aircraft stacking thereby making journeys quicker using less fuel meaning a cut in emissions and hopefully less noise over those communities closest to the airports. However it's also important that necessary changes are made to the use of our airspace to accommodate future growth in a sustainable way. It's also essential however that airports effectively consult with local communities and take account of the responses to that consultation before deciding on which options to pursue as part of an airspace change process. Finally in conclusion 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 environmental noise Scotland regulations 2006 imposed requirements on airport operators to take action in relation to noise. I was greatly heartened to hear about the impact that individual measures can be taken and my colleague Kevin Stewart was keen to emphasise that he will be looking at the protection against noise in his review of building standards for what I will. Neil Findlay Does the minister believe that there is a contradiction and the view that you can have sustainability and exponential growth and aviation? Minister I would agree in the way that Mr Findlay has put it but I certainly recognise 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 to make sure that we manage the greenhouse gas emissions that arise from air traffic. Clearly with technology improving we can see more efficient engines, we can see quieter engines, we can see entirely new propulsion systems in terms of electric planes so it is not necessarily a given that the air travel has to be bad for the environment we can obviously try and design out those vulnerabilities in the future to reflect the impact of emissions in our annual statutory greenhouse gas emissions targets. I want to point to the fact that Mr Stewart was keen to emphasise that we will be looking at the issue that was raised by Mr Patterson of how we can make the most of energy efficiency investments to tackle noise impacts on residents in terms of the review of building standards and Mr Stewart before he had to leave asked me just to make that point so we obviously have worked to do in this respect but we believe that the requirements of these regulations are for now sufficient obviously augmented by the steps taken by UK Government and they do meet their intended purpose but there are no plans for arrangements to be changed at this time but I have certainly taken extensive notes of the points that were made by members and I will make sure that my colleague Mr Matheson is aware of the strength of feeling across the chamber and report that back but I must be brief. I am quite happy because there are just a few speakers. Will the Scottish Government consider taking back control, if you like, of Edinburgh Airport and designating it as an airport that is under the control of the Scottish ministers? Wouldn't that be the most strategic thing to do given that the Scottish Government has an abalanced interest in aviation? I hope that the member will forgive me as I am not the lead minister on that particular topic and I will lay that point to Mr Matheson and ask him to correspond with Mr Ruskell but I have certainly noted it, it is not within my side of the portfolio but I will certainly relate that to Mr Matheson and make sure that he is aware of Mr Ruskell's point. On that I conclude and thank you for your patience. Not at all, interesting debate. Thank you very much, that concludes the debate and I close this meeting of Parliament.