Civil Aviation (Consumer Protection and Regulatory Reform) Bill [HL]

Baroness Bray of Coln Excerpts

2nd reading
Tuesday 2nd June 2026 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Bray of Coln (Con)]

My Lords, there is much in this civil aviation Bill that is sensible and worthy of support across the House. As we have been hearing, aviation remains vital to the United Kingdom, island nation that we are. It supports trade, tourism, investment and employment in every region of our country, it connects families and businesses, and it helps sustain Britain’s position as an outward-looking and internationally connected nation, serving passengers across the world.

When those passengers purchase a ticket, they are entitled to fairness, transparency and proper treatment when things go wrong. Consumers should know clearly what they are paying for, should receive timely information when delays or cancellations occur, and should not face endless obstacles when seeking compensation or redress. In that respect, measures to strengthen consumer protections and to improve clarity, by making aviation regulations clearer and less fragmented for consumers and industry, are welcome, provided that such reforms remain subject to proper scrutiny and ongoing review when necessary.

I recognise and support the case for fairer competition within aviation markets and for ensuring that access to airport capacity is not unduly dominated by entrenched, long-standing interests. At some of our major airports, incumbent airlines can become excessively dominant over time, which may reduce competition and ultimately work against the interests of passengers through reduced choice and weaker competitive pressure. However, reforms designed to improve operational efficiency must proceed with proper regard for the communities affected by likely increased aviation activity. At its best, good governance is about balance: balancing economic progress with accountability, transparency and public confidence. It is on that basis that parts of this Bill deserve closer scrutiny.

Too often, modern legislation comes before this House as a broad framework, while substantial powers are left to future regulations, ministerial direction or regulatory interpretation. That matters in this case, where changes presented as technical or operational may have significant consequences for communities far beyond airport boundaries. Parliament should always exercise caution before delegating wide discretionary powers without sufficient safeguards or scrutiny.

To be clear, this is not formally an airport expansion Bill, but it does involve changes to airspace management, operational arrangements and regulatory powers. Sometimes communities have been told that proposed changes are just technical adjustments, only for them to discover over time that the cumulative effect is a substantial increase in aviation intensity which subsequently places them under new or busier flight paths, sometimes far beyond airport boundaries.

For many residents, especially in rural and semi-rural Britain, this can be a serious development. It may well lead to the introduction of aircraft noise over towns and villages hitherto totally unused to it, or an increase for others. There are quite likely to be more runways and expanding regional terminals, along with increased traffic on local roads and pressure on local infrastructure, countryside and green spaces, and the gradual erosion of the quiet character of areas where people have chosen to live and which are all that some people have ever known. Once lost, it is rarely recovered. What does that do for local property values, by the way?

I am not opposed to aviation or economic growth. Britain needs both. However, public confidence depends upon assurance that change will proceed fairly, openly and with proper regard for those affected. This House must not only support economic activity but ensure that decisions command legitimacy and democratic consent. The countryside is not simply spare land awaiting development. Communities likely to be affected are not obstacles to be managed through consultation exercises of questionable sincerity. Quality of life—including quiet, landscape and environmental stability—has genuine public value, even when such things are hard to quantify economically.

While I support many of the broad objectives of the Bill, I hope that Ministers will listen carefully in Committee to concerns regarding parliamentary scrutiny, community consultation, and the cumulative impact of aviation expansion and airspace change. I hope that we can ensure that significant regulatory changes remain subject to proper parliamentary oversight, that communities likely to be affected are properly consulted before decisions are settled, and that environmental and countryside protections remain meaningful safeguards rather than procedural formalities.

If the Bill proceeds in that balanced spirit, supporting consumers and economic activity while respecting communities and democratic accountability, it will be considerably stronger legislation. Ultimately, that is the balance that I hope this House will seek to achieve.

King’s Speech

Baroness Bray of Coln Excerpts

Wednesday 20th May 2026 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Bray of Coln (Con)]

My Lords, it is a pleasure to follow the noble Lord, Lord Kakkar. The health measures outlined in the gracious Speech raise profound questions about the future direction of the National Health Service. Much of the focus of the proposed NHS modernisation Bill appears to centre on the abolition of NHS England and the transfer of its powers directly to the Department of Health and Social Care and, ultimately, to the Secretary of State. This is presented as a move to simplify decision-making and improve accountability. Ministers argue that, if the public are dissatisfied with the performance of the NHS, there should be no ambiguity about who is responsible. In theory, a more direct chain of command could reduce duplication and speed up reform.

But there are serious concerns that cannot be ignored. NHS England is not simply another layer of bureaucracy; it was created to provide a degree of operational independence from day-to-day political control and, importantly, to help ensure that the voice of patients remained central to how services were designed and delivered. There is also concern about the future of local Healthwatch organisations, which play an important role in representing patients and communities at a local level. If these bodies are weakened or removed along with NHS England, as is proposed in the Bill, there is a real risk that local accountability and patient representation will be diminished even further. Removing these structures risks concentrating too much power in the hands of Ministers while weakening independent advocacy for patients.

At a time when waiting lists remain long, staff morale is under strain and many patients struggle to access timely care, this reorganisation feels disconnected from the real pressures facing the NHS. Structural reform in itself does not shorten ambulance delays, increase GP appointments, recruit more nurses or improve social care provision. There is a danger that yet another major reorganisation consumes time, money and energy that should instead be directed towards improving front-line services.

The NHS has already undergone repeated restructurings over the past two decades. Each one has promised efficiency and better outcomes, yet the core challenges remain remarkably similar: workforce shortages, uneven access to care, rising demand, and chronic underinvestment in prevention and community services. Many people will therefore ask whether abolishing one organisation and transferring powers elsewhere is truly reform or simply rearrangement.

There is, however, one potentially positive proposal within these plans, which has been mentioned widely this evening: the ambition to create a single patient record across the NHS. If implemented properly, this could make a real difference. Too often, patients must repeat the same information to different parts of the system because records are fragmented and incompatible. A shared patient record could improve communication between hospitals, GPs, mental health services and social care, reducing delays and improving safety.

Equally important, giving patients direct access to their own records could empower people to take a greater role in managing their own health, but even here the detail matters enormously. Public trust will depend on strong safeguards around privacy, data security and consent. Patients must be confident that their information is protected and used appropriately. Technology should support care, not undermine confidence in it.

The key question is this: will these reforms genuinely improve patient outcomes? The NHS does not simply need another structural overhaul; it needs investment in staff, modernisation of services, stronger primary care, better integration with social care, and a relentless focus on performance, productivity and patient experience. Without that, changing organisational charts risks becoming a distraction from the urgent work that patients and healthcare professionals need most. The public judge the NHS not by who holds authority in Whitehall but by whether they can see a GP when they need one, whether ambulances arrive on time, and whether treatment is delivered safely and promptly. That is where the real test of these proposals will lie.

Harvey’s Law

Baroness Bray of Coln Excerpts

Monday 2nd March 2015 Westminster Hall

[Angie Bray (Ealing Central and Acton) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to take part in this debate under your chairmanship, Mr Rosindell. I congratulate the hon. Member for Halton (Derek Twigg) on securing the debate on this important issue.

I do not think that anyone—at least anyone with a heart—could fail to be moved by the sad story of Harvey. It is made only worse by the knowledge that what happened to Harvey happens far too often. For those of us who have brought pets into our homes and made them a part of the family—I am of course talking here about many of us—it is simply inconceivable that, in death, killed on a road, they can simply be chucked to one side because the Highways Agency cannot be bothered to do the decent thing and report that, as its guidelines currently require.

Now there are suggestions that the guidelines might get changed later this year so that it will no longer be necessary for the death of identifiable animals on the roads to be reported to owners. I certainly hope that those remain just suggestions. It is bad enough that the guidelines get ignored while they still exist, but it would be intolerable to turn that practice into the norm. Instead, I believe that the guidelines should be beefed up, so that the Highways Agency is obliged by law to do the right thing and ensure that deaths are reported to owners when and where the animal’s ownership can be identified.

I frequently get tweets from constituents whose pets have gone missing, asking me to retweet the pets’ photos and the details of where they were last seen. I am always happy to do so when I can, because I know just how painful and miserable it is to lose a pet and wonder what on earth has happened to it. Most people would prefer to know—

[Sir Tony Cunningham]

Will the hon. Lady give way?

[Angie Bray]

I will.

[Sir Tony Cunningham]

It is quite enough to lose a pet, but the real cruelty is in just not knowing.

[Angie Bray]

Indeed. The hon. Gentleman caught me mid-sentence, just about to make that point. I was about to say that most people would prefer to know the worst, so at least they could come to terms with that, rather than worrying, with the most appalling imaginings, about what might have happened.

I remember when my dog went missing in Hyde park. I called her Tuppence after I rescued her from Battersea dogs home. She went to the park every day with a friend who looked after her while I worked at LBC radio. Only one day when I came home she was not there. Instead there was a tearful message on my voicemail to say she had run off as soon as the cannons were fired in the park to practise for a forthcoming royal birthday celebration. I went straight back out with a friend to drive round where I could in Hyde park to no avail. I then spent a truly horrendous night worrying about where she might be and what was happening to her. I worried that she was miserable, cold, wet and frightened; then, worse, that she was being teased and tortured by a gang of youths who had found her somewhere. I did not sleep a wink.

Eventually, late the next afternoon, my friend rang to say that she had been found. I will not go into the complicated story—believe me, it is quite complicated—but it seems that a family who had found her and rather wanted to keep her had decided to take her for a check-over at their local vet who also happened to be Tuppence’s local vet. He said, “Ah, you’ve brought Tuppence Bray in. We’ve been looking for her.” I was lucky, as was Tuppence, but the point I wanted to make was that the agony of not knowing was truly awful and there would have been a point when I would rather have been told that she had been found dead than never to know at all what happened to her. That would have stayed with me and continued to haunt me.

It must be borne in mind that those who choose to share our family life with a pet are making a pretty big investment. Obviously, there is the financial cost of food, heating, vet fees and perhaps insurance, but there is also a major emotional investment for most of us, too, just as there is in all family members. I always assumed that that investment was properly recognised, which is why it has always been considered incumbent on organisations such as the Highways Agency to do the decent thing and report a pet’s death to its owner, wherever possible. Not to do so is not only a poor indication of the attitude of officialdom towards us all, but it smacks of carelessness and diminishes the quality of service that we should be able to rely on. Moreover, we should not forget that there is already a legal obligation on us all, as citizens: if we unfortunately kill a dog on the road, we should report that to the police so that they can inform the owner where identification is possible. We must not loosen that requirement—often traumatic but, nevertheless, essential—on ourselves either. We must all play our part.

There is even less excuse now for failing to inform owners than there has been in the past. As many hon. Members have said, we are all being encouraged, and in some cases required, to take advantage of technology and to microchip our pets—certainly our dogs—so that they and their owners can be more readily identified. I thoroughly support that, but when we are using modern technology to make identification easier, it would seem strange to decide that we cannot be bothered to use it for the most basic civility. We most certainly should expect publicly funded agencies such as the police and the Highways Agency to do what is right.

Some people regard us animal lovers as a bit strange, and doubtless some people do go a bit overboard about their beloved pets. I have always believed, however, that the ability to love animals, empathise with them and give them a happy and secure life is an important part of building our kinder, gentler nature. That should be respected, as should all our other relationships. When our pets are tragically killed on our roads, our agencies—in this instance, the Highways Agency—absolutely should show proper respect by having the decency to inform us. There should be no avoiding that, if identification can be made. I can hardly believe that there should be attempts to wriggle out of that public duty, but if there are, I would support making it a legal obligation.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Hayes]

The right hon. Gentleman is an experienced Member of the House. He will know that a mandatory contract is what it says it is: mandatory. We must act immediately; I want no further delay. As the shadow Minister said, there is no need for a protracted review. The matter is straightforward, and the last thing I want is to have to wait for a legislative vehicle so that we can amend the law. We have an election coming and would have to wait for the Queen’s Speech; the right hon. Member for Knowsley will know, as will other experienced Members, that that business could become protracted, even for such a relatively straightforward measure. I just want to get on with it. The shadow Minister asked, perfectly properly, whether the changes would be mandatory, and the answer is yes.

[Mr Philip Hollobone in the Chair]

[Angie Bray]

It is a pleasure to hear my right hon. Friend the Minister responding so positively to everything that has been said this afternoon. He will be aware that some of us who represent London constituencies might have to discuss the issue with City Hall, because, rather than the Highways Agency, Transport for London is responsible for some of the main roads that go through the capital. Has my right hon. Friend had any discussions with Transport for London? Are there useful discussions to be had about the Government’s approach to the issue? What does he recommend that those of us who represent London constituencies do to ensure that pets and owners are treated with the respect that they deserve?

[Mr Hayes]

With her usual perspicacity, my hon. Friend anticipates the final commitment that I wish to offer. The Highways Agency is of course responsible for large roads—the key arterial routes—but it is my estimation that the majority of fatalities among cats and dogs are on local roads. The Highways Agency looks after our motorways and major trunk roads, but I believe that we can go further. Following this debate, I intend not only to communicate with Transport for London but to write to all local highways authorities throughout the country to draw their attention to the Government’s position and invite them to reflect on their own local policy. That would not only take us back to where we were in respect of the mandatory obligation to collect, record and notify owners; it would take us further than we have ever been if we were able to bring about a circumstance whereby we were doing the right thing on roads throughout the country.

I was describing Dickens’ claim that there is no greater love than the love of a cat or dog, which brings me, finally, to Hemingway. He is not one of my favourite writers—that might be for political reasons—but he did sum up what I said at the start of this debate about why animals have the effect on us that they do. He was speaking of cats, but he might well have been speaking of dogs too, when he said:

“A cat has absolute emotional honesty: human beings, for one reason or another, may hide their feelings, but a cat does not”,

and dogs do not either. Today, Members have not hidden their feelings, and neither should they have. I am a Minister who never hides my feelings.

Transport for London Bill [Lords]

Baroness Bray of Coln Excerpts

Tuesday 9th September 2014 Commons Chamber

[Bob Blackman]

I thank my hon. Friend for his suggestion. That would be a very radical move away from TfL’s existing capability and the arrangements that are made. I am sure the Mayor of London will be listening to the debate and will consider that suggestion appropriately, but it is beyond the scope of Second Reading, which is limited regarding proposed borrowing changes.

Transport for London’s subsidiary share of the profits generated by a partnership will be liable to tax in the same way as if a company were used instead of a limited partnership, thereby maintaining appropriate tax transparency. Several individuals, and particularly the National Union of Rail, Maritime and Transport Workers, have been concerned about whether the Secretary of State should give permission for such entities to be entered into. I understand that a written undertaking has been given to the hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington (John McDonnell) and the RMT on the basis that an amendment will be introduced in Committee that would require the Secretary of State’s permission for such an organisation to be permitted, which I hope answers one of the principal objections.

[Angie Bray (Ealing Central and Acton) (Con)]

Is there an awareness of concerns that some of my local residents will have about proposals for the increased use of the Acton depot? As my hon. Friend will know, there is a substantial residential community in that area, which will not welcome the further increase in pollution that I suspect some of these activities will lead to.

[Bob Blackman]

My hon. Friend is a doughty campaigner for her local residents, and she has been at the forefront of the campaign against environmental air pollution and suchlike in her area. One objection to the Bill comes from the hon. Member for Hammersmith (Mr Slaughter), whom we will hear from later, in relation to the Earls Court development. I understand that part of that process is to transfer the depot from the Earls Court area to Acton. Clearly, as sponsors TfL will have to ensure that air and noise pollution is reduced considerably to answer the objections that my hon. Friend has related to the House.

Clause 6 seeks to expand the type of entities through which TfL’s commercial activities must be undertaken. TfL is currently required to undertake profit-making activities through a company limited by shares that is either a subsidiary or a joint venture. The clause amends that restriction to give TfL the option of using any type of entity that it has the power to form. In addition to a company limited by shares, TfL would be able to use a company limited by guarantee, a limited liability partnership, or a limited partnership. Importantly, clause 6 preserves the policy that TfL must undertake commercial activities through a taxable entity by requiring that a TfL subsidiary be member of a limited liability partnership, or a partner in a limited partnership. A company limited by guarantee is itself liable to taxation. Clause 6 will enable TfL to conduct its affairs more flexibly and at the same time preserve tax transparency and ensure that the relevant amount of tax is paid to the Exchequer. That will mean that it can use the structure that best suits the opportunity, and net the maximum value for money from its assets in so doing.

Clause 7 amends TfL’s hedging power, responding to changes in the way financial institutions hedge risk away from specific commodity trading to trading by indices—for example, the use of an oil price index as opposed to a barrel of Brent crude oil—which protects the hedging power considerably. It also gives TfL the capacity to enter into derivative investment when exposed to risk by virtue of a contractual arrangement for the provision by others of public transport services. For example, movements in fuel prices, which obviously affect TfL’s costs, would be protected.

Currently, TfL’s hedging power may be applied only to risks to which a TfL body is directly exposed. Clause 7 clarifies that it may use its hedging powers in respect of its liability to any pension fund, for example. It is not proposed that TfL enter into any derivative investments on behalf of the TfL pension fund, so members of that fund will be protected. It is not inconceivable, however, that the fund might decide that a particular risk is acceptable, given that all its liabilities are long term and that TfL effectively underpins the risks through an obligation to increase its contributions, if necessary, and that TfL might believe that the risk needs to be mitigated. Clause 7 provides for that specific scenario only.

In summary, the Bill will assist TfL in securing the most cost-effective borrowing possible. It will give TfL greater flexibility over how it structures its affairs, while preserving the requirement that its profit-making activities be taxed appropriately in the UK. It will improve TfL’s hedging power by reflecting developments in the derivatives market and permitting the hedging of risks that arise through contractual exposure and as a consequence of its obligations to pension funds. It will allow TfL to maximise income and investment in its assets and to deliver better value for money for fare payers and taxpayers, which we, as London MPs, crave every day. I commend the Bill to the House.

High Speed Rail (London – West Midlands) Bill

Baroness Bray of Coln Excerpts

Monday 28th April 2014 Commons Chamber

[Angie Bray (Ealing Central and Acton) (Con)]

Since I last spoke on HS2, the project continues to be a source of considerable controversy, as we have heard this afternoon. Feelings are running high in parts of my constituency, for although we have been able to welcome the plans for additional tunnelling, which will make a big difference to parts of Ealing, there remain communities in east Acton that will be seriously affected by the construction works around Old Oak Common.

I should say straight away that I remain supportive of the principle of HS2. The country needs regular long-term planned infrastructure projects and this one is overdue. Parts of the current network are already over capacity and comparatively slow. It is also worth considering how factors such as modern transport networks affect our attractiveness to overseas business. Britain must continue—to borrow the phrase—to be open for business, and our trains have been under-invested in over the years.

I remain a committed opponent to a third runway at Heathrow and still believe that a modern rail network with increased capacity will reduce the reliance on air travel, especially on short domestic flights—although I should add that the unwelcome renewed speculation about expanding Heathrow does not help to reinforce that particular line of reasoning.

Broadly, I believe that HS2 is a timely investment in long-term planning for our transport network. I am, however, deeply disappointed about crucial aspects of the project as the details of the compensation arrangements become clearer and I must raise some serious concerns. The first is the lack of provision for the years of huge inconvenience to be suffered by residents near construction sites. In Acton, that would mean those living near Old Oak lane close by Old Oak Common. They face at least a decade of massive disruption and must be appropriately compensated. There are real concerns that some living in the area—already semi-cut off by railway lines—will be almost completely trapped by the huge construction works and will be unable easily to get out and about to shops, GPs, schools and the like due to heavy demands on the capacity of local roads. Alternatives, such as extra bus routes around the works, will have to be laid on and effective traffic management will be essential, but I suspect that even the best-laid alternative plans will not make up for the enormous upheaval to those living in the area.

I find it quite extraordinary that HS2 and its planners can take such a cavalier attitude towards those communities. My worries were hardly allayed by the company’s recent briefing on its compensation package proposals, which were actually made worse. There is no recognition of the problem. When asked at the meeting about those who are likely to suffer the worst impact in places such as east Acton and who need to move, HS2 claimed that the new transport links will make the properties in the area more desirable and valuable in future, so there will be no problem if the owners want to sell them on. If those properties make such desirable investments, I see no reason why they cannot be included in a voluntary purchase scheme. Also, I should point out that the area has a lot of elderly residents. For them it has been home for many years and they might not wish to move. The prospect of a vague increase in property value in around 15 years’ time as compensation for a decade of hardship is clearly not acceptable. For those who want to stick it out in intensely difficult circumstances, there should be recognition and recompense for the blight to their lives over a decade or more.

The second area where I feel the compensation proposals fall short is the difference between the urban and rural policies. I am sure that colleagues who represent urban constituencies will agree that we seem to be getting a comparatively bad deal. We need only look at the compensation briefing document to see how little there is on proposals for urban areas compared with the pages on the rural compensation proposals. That suggests an underlying assumption that, having chosen to live in a city, one becomes immune to noise and pollution and therefore less entitled to consideration for compensation. I accept that there are some different considerations, but this goes too far. One does not have to live in an area of outstanding natural beauty to be inconvenienced by a train depot appearing on one’s doorstep.

The omission from the scheme of some of my constituents who will so clearly be affected has caused me to question my support for the project. I am sure that I am not alone in feeling that we must get these details right before continuing. I will stay on side with the Government tonight, but I will need to see a change of heart on the compensation issues I have laid out if I am to stay on side during the Bill’s later stages.

Transport Infrastructure

Baroness Bray of Coln Excerpts

Tuesday 17th December 2013 Commons Chamber

[Mr McLoughlin]

I remind the hon. Gentleman that he fought the election on the basis of a manifesto saying that there would be a third runway at Heathrow airport. Before he gets on his high horse about what I am doing, perhaps he should consider what that manifesto said. As I have said, the simple fact is that we need to do everything we can to alleviate noise problems; we need to look carefully at the eventual recommendations of the final report. We do not yet have the final recommendations; the time to conduct this type of debate is when we get them.

[Angie Bray (Ealing Central and Acton) (Con)]

My first impression is “so far, so depressing”. I know that this is only an interim report, but my constituents will note that Heathrow is yet again emerging as the favoured option. I should also say that the two options for Heathrow that are flagged up in the report will both be particularly bad news for my constituents in Ealing, Chiswick and Acton. Let me ask my right hon. Friend: what on earth more do my constituents have to do to get their message across that any expansion of the noise, pollution and congestion that goes with Heathrow and blights the whole of west London would simply be intolerable?

[Mr McLoughlin]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend, and I understand the passion that she and other Members feel about this issue. It is right for us to try to look at and address these issues. We have to see what is happening with aviation noise and how it should be judged. That is why I am very interested in some of the commission’s interim proposals. It will take longer to take a view on that, but I hope to be able to come back in the spring to announce the way forward. This is a very difficult job because these issues have been around for some time. It is right to conduct a proper investigation and, I hope, come up with the right alternative at the end of the day.

Cycling

Baroness Bray of Coln Excerpts

Monday 2nd September 2013 Commons Chamber

[Dr Huppert]

The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right. Cycling can indeed be encouraged anywhere in the country; the area does not have to be flat and dry like Cambridge.

[Angie Bray (Ealing Central and Acton) (Con)]

Ealing has a very strong reputation as a cycling borough. Schools there are playing their part in training young people using travel plans. Eight schools in Ealing have travel plans that are considered outstanding. Does my hon. Friend agree that using travel plans is an imaginative way for schools to train youngsters in cycling?

[Dr Huppert]

Travel plans are critical and the hon. Lady is right to highlight the role of schools, because training in schools makes a big difference. The Government have protected Bikeability funding. I received my own Bikeability training during the summer from Outspoken! Cycle Training in Cambridge. I learned quite a lot from that and it would be good to see other people receive it.

High Speed Rail (Preparation) Bill

Baroness Bray of Coln Excerpts

Wednesday 26th June 2013 Commons Chamber

[Angie Bray (Ealing Central and Acton) (Con)]

As is the norm with any major infrastructure project in this country, HS2 has provoked a massive debate and has become something of a national drama. I think it fair to say that Ealing and Acton has not exactly been immune to the debate, and that the project has had a bumpy ride in my patch. With a border to the north more or less marked out by the railway lines pinpointed to be the arteries taking the new trains in and out of London after they have passed through Old Oak Common, it is undeniable that the proposal will have an impact on my constituency.

Residents in north Acton, living right on the boundary between Ealing and Brent where the new Old Oak Common station would be, will be particularly affected by an estimated eight years of construction works. Some will also find themselves potentially living alongside the railway where it comes out from the tunnel. Obviously, it is not easy to allay genuine and legitimate concerns, but, first and foremost, compensation for those whose properties border or lie close to the track must be as generous as it is possible to be.

Secondly, the onus will be on Ealing council and Transport for London to manage the arrangements in a way that keeps disruption to a minimum. I understand that some constituents fear that they will be almost completely trapped, and will be unable even to gain access to local shops or their doctors while the works proceed. That would be simply unacceptable. Alternatives such as extra bus routes around the works will have to be laid on, and effective traffic management will be essential.

Concerns about mayhem around the Hanger Lane gyratory system while the line is being constructed, along with anxieties about the impact of an overground HS2 through parts of north Ealing, prompted a vigorous campaign by local residents who have demanded, at the very least, a tunnel between Old Oak Common and Northolt. Last year I wrote to the Secretary of State supporting their campaign, and I am delighted to say that that option appears to have met with his favour. We look forward to final confirmation.

Nevertheless, as my constituents know—notwithstanding those local impacts and the opposition from campaigners further up the proposed line—I have long been a firm supporter of what I see as an ambitious and timely project. Given that I have campaigned loudly against a third runway at Heathrow and have used the “train not plane” argument, how could I not be? Central to this pledge was the logic that a new high-speed rail link improving north-south connections would dramatically reduce the need for the airlines to lay on so many short-haul domestic flights from some of our northern cities, which take up so much landing space at Heathrow. The HS2 concept, however, has always been more than just a buffer against the immediate third runway threat. It is a project for the future, and a rare example of a Government’s demonstrating genuine long-term vision—something that we should be encouraging.

We know that existing services will be full to bursting point by the mid 2020s. We know that the demand is there and that we need to ease the pressure, so why not plan now? Sooner or later we will need the extra capacity, and if we wait for 10 years we will just be doing what we have to do now in a rush. In any case, I have always believed that a country that can be ambitious should be ambitious, and should seek to update its infrastructure in a timely fashion.

High-speed rail makes sense, it will be needed in this country, and the proposals are achievable. I believe that as long as there is generous compensation—and I do mean generous—for all whose lives would be blighted, we should all get behind this project.

Select Committee Inquiry (Aviation Strategy)

Baroness Bray of Coln Excerpts

Thursday 13th September 2012 Commons Chamber

[Mrs Ellman]

I agree with my hon. Friend. Indeed, that is why the Transport Committee is about to launch its own inquiry.

[Angie Bray (Ealing Central and Acton) (Con)]

I, too, welcome the opportunities that come with this inquiry. Will the hon. Lady confirm that her inquiry will look seriously at the long-term best interests of London, which I suggest are not best served by a patch-and-mend attitude towards Heathrow, which, at best, will be able to squeeze in one more half-runway before it is completely out of room? We really need to look at the long-term best interests of London and the south-east.

[Mrs Ellman]

I hope the hon. Lady will note that the terms of reference of our inquiry make it very clear that the Committee will be interested in looking at all possibilities, so we look forward to hearing her thoughts on the issue.

Oral Answers to Questions

Baroness Bray of Coln Excerpts

Thursday 28th June 2012 Commons Chamber

[Norman Baker]

If I may say so, Mr Speaker, that question strays a long way from the tabled question about concessionary bus passes, and if I were the hon. Lady I would not have asked it, because the latest figures, out this week, show that bus passenger journeys in England increased by 0.6% between 2010-11 and 2011-12. They also show that bus fares outside London fell by 4% in real terms between March 2009 and March 2011. I think that, on this occasion, the Eagle has crash-landed.

[Angie Bray (Ealing Central and Acton) (Con)]

2. What recent assessment she has made of airport capacity in the south-east; and if she will make a statement.

[The Secretary of State for Transport (Justine Greening)]

It will be quite a job to follow the Minister’s last remark.

UK Aviation Forecasts 2011 provides an assessment of how demand for air travel in the UK is expected to change in the future. We will shortly launch a call for evidence to look at how we can tackle that challenge of emerging demand. Let us be clear, however: the coalition agreement stands. This Government cancelled the last Government’s plans for a third runway, and we will be sticking to that.

[Angie Bray]

I thank the Secretary of State for that answer, and I know my constituents will be grateful, too. Does she also agree that talk about expanding Heathrow so it becomes a competitive international hub is wildly misplaced? A third runway would fill up almost at once—and where would a fourth runway go, unless we were to look at possibly knocking down parts of Hounslow and Staines, which I am sure would be entirely unacceptable?

[Justine Greening]

My hon. Friend raises some of the very difficult issues we have already run up against with Heathrow as a hub airport. She also points out that these discussions and decisions matter massively to residents on the ground, and she is right that the question is not just about a third runway at Heathrow—about which we have been very clear—because expanding that airport further would pose significant challenges to local communities, which should be taken extremely seriously.