Railways: Reliability

Baroness Randerson Excerpts

Tuesday 31st October 2017 Lords Chamber

Asked by

[Baroness Randerson]

To ask Her Majesty’s Government what measures they intend to take to improve the reliability of railway services.

[Baroness Randerson (LD)]

My Lords, with perfect timing, the Rail Delivery Group published a report yesterday that seeks to address all the key issues that I had in mind when tabling this topic for debate. Our railways are under severe pressure but I do not support the renationalisation of the railways. They say that if you can remember the 1960s, then you were not there. Well, if you think the answer to the problems of our rail system is to bring back British Rail, you probably did not use it when it existed.

There has been enormous change in our rail system in the years since the introduction of franchises in the mid-1990s, when passenger numbers and revenue were falling. The number of people travelling by rail has effectively doubled. We have the most rapidly expanding railways in the world, while elsewhere in Europe railways are in decline. Anyway, we already own most of the rail system via Network Rail. The Government also set the terms and conditions for franchise operators and regulate the fare structure.

However,passenger satisfaction is falling—down to 81% last autumn, especially among commuters. Poor perceptions deter people from using the railways despite intense congestion on the roads. Recently passenger numbers have fallen back slightly, which is possibly a sign of a crisis of trust among passengers, too many of whom are plain angry. A network built in the 19th century, and neglected and partially dismantled in the latter half of the 20th, is now creaking at the seams. It needs modernisation, much better maintenance and expansion. All these problems affect reliability and punctuality, which is down from 91% to 89% in the last four years, and the Government are not proving good at tackling any of these factors.

Even the easy bits to modernise within the current system, such as the franchise model, the ticketing system and the complaints system, have not been energetically tackled. The headline measures of passenger satisfaction and performance used by the rail industry do not reflect real-life experience and underestimate punctuality and reliability problems. For instance, a long-distance train can arrive almost 10 minutes late and still not be considered to be delayed, so definitions of “on time” are, at the least, generous. I was pleased to see that yesterday’s report attempted to tackle that in future plans, but currently the system positively encourages train operators to skip stations in order to make up time and avoid a late arrival at the final destination.

Then there is the process of applying for compensation. The system remains too complex. In the last two weeks I have made eight separate railway journeys and, sadly, only two of them have been without delay, disruption or cancellation. Okay, I have hit a bad patch, but it took me an hour and five phone calls to make one compensation claim—and I think I understand the system. Why is it that six out of 17 railway companies will accept compensation claims via third-party apps but the rest refuse to do so? This would make it simpler for passengers wishing to claim. We need a single standardised form, leaflets available at the gate on arrival and on the train, and announcements on the train to make all passengers aware of their rights. Is it any wonder that at the moment, only one-third of eligible passengers claim compensation, and £100 million a year goes unclaimed?

The ticketing system needs modernising and simplifying. When I put my usual journey into the website each week it comes up with nine options, and that is at one point in time and for a specific timetable slot. Factor in advance-tickets and those people savvy enough to artificially divide their journey by buying two tickets for a single trip, and you have an unfriendly and, frankly, ridiculous system—all the more unacceptable because it is the most expensive in Europe.

I read yesterday’s report very carefully. Although the rail industry says it can create a simpler structure, it puts the ball very firmly in the Government’s court. Next January, passengers who are already under strain because wages have not kept pace with rising inflation will face above-inflation fare rises. The Government should step in, as they have done year after year with the fuel duty escalator, and freeze rail fares this year while the system is reformed. The modernisation of the ticketing system was promised a long time ago, but very little progress has been made so far with electronic and smart ticketing. I welcome the commitment in yesterday’s report to tackle this issue, but we are still talking about limited improvement.

Too frequently trains are desperately overcrowded, a victim of their own success. This discourages passengers and reduces punctuality. Add to this the fact that many of our existing lines are full and there are simply no more slots available. We need more consumer-friendly franchises and more emphasis on things that passengers value most highly, such as flexibility. Devolution seems to be popular with DfT and Network Rail. I strongly support that but, for the concept to be meaningful, local authorities should be able to bid for franchises designed around the needs of their citizens and the local economy.

Yesterday, the rail industry pledged major improvements to the network, with extra services and new carriages. But there is a big gap between the investment needed—on the east coast main line and the trans-Pennine routes, for example—and what the Government have committed to.

We on these Benches support HS2 because existing lines are full, but it will not be ready until the mid-2030s, so what about the upgrades and repairs needed now to the existing lines serving those cities? They are desperately in need of maintenance and repair.

The Government’s approach to electrification is confused and incoherent. Cardiff to Swansea, Oxenholme to Windermere and midland main line are all cancelled. I agree that Network Rail has to improve its performance, but instead of taking action to deal with that, the Government simply seem to have given it less to do. I fear that we will end up with a patchwork approach of bi-mode trains switching mid-journey from electric to diesel. They cost more to buy, and it is obviously less fuel efficient to carry a spare diesel engine around. It will soon be unacceptable to run diesel engines on city centre roads, so why is it okay to be planning to have diesel trains in the future?

Despite recent promises of increased government funds and private investment, there is still a shortfall at the end of this control period. The industry needs an end to the feast-and-famine approach to investment cycles, with more certainty and a longer term view. Without this, our overstretched rail infrastructure will fail increasingly frequently.

In the economic uncertainty we now face as a country, the railways are a core part of joining up our country once again. So we need ambitious investment, particularly in the parts of the country that have been neglected for too long. Are the Government far-sighted enough to do it? So far, we have seen little sign of it. I welcome this evening the Minister to her new role and I look forward to her response.

Air Travel Organisers' Licensing Bill

Baroness Randerson Excerpts

Report stage (Hansard): House of Lords
Wednesday 25th October 2017 Lords Chamber

[Lord Rosser (Lab)]

My Lords, in the Government’s Oral Statement on Monarch Airlines of 9 October, the Secretary of State said that,

“right now our efforts are rightly focused on getting employees into new jobs and getting passengers home. After that, our effort will turn to working through any reforms necessary to ensure that passengers do not find themselves in this position again. We need to look at all the options—not just ATOL, but whether it is possible to enable airlines to wind down in an orderly manner and look after their customers themselves, without the need for the Government to step in. We will be putting a lot of effort into that in the months ahead”.—[Official Report, 9/10/17; Commons, cols. 27-28.]

The demise of Monarch Airlines, along with the Secretary of State’s Statement, has raised questions about the current UK financial protection regime generally for air travellers. The ATOL scheme is intended to ensure that those who purchase ATOL-protected flights and holidays are flown home at no extra cost if an ATOL company fails. However, the scheme does not offer that protection to customers who buy airline seats from airlines which are not within the ATOL scheme.

The Government have estimated that the proportion of Monarch Airlines passengers affected who were covered by the ATOL scheme and ATOL protection amounted to some 10% to 15%. As we know, the Government decided to step in and repatriate Monarch’s passengers regardless of whether they were among the small minority who were protected by the ATOL scheme, a decision which would appear at least to raise questions about the current scheme and arrangements.

While this Bill will update existing powers to enable different and separate arrangements to be established to align with new practices, such as linked travel arrangements, there remains a gap in consumer protection for flight-only seats sold by airlines, despite—I understand, perhaps incorrectly—the industry and the CAA’s previous calls for such a protection regime. The Bill does nothing to address that gap.

The amendment, whose intention has the support of ABTA, would through its proposed deletions to the 1982 Act provide an opportunity for the Government to say how they intend to review and update the existing arrangements and regulations, particularly in respect of flight-only travel under the Civil Aviation Act 1982, to ensure the protection of passengers in the event of a future airline failure—which as I understand it from the Secretary of State’s Statement of 9 October is, at least in part, what the Government intend and want to do.

It is really a matter for the Government, in consultation with the industry and consumers, to determine the precise framework and model for delivering any new protection regime. The Government appear to be looking for a new arrangement which would ensure that passengers in any subsequent Monarch situation are flown home at no extra cost but at the lowest possible cost to the taxpayer and, presumably, to the airlines in particular and the travel industry in general.

A substantial proportion of the failure costs incurred in the ATOL scheme over the years has related to airline failures: Clarksons with Court Line; Laker and Arrowsmith Holidays with Laker Airways; ILG with Air Europe; XL Leisure Group with XL Airways; and now Monarch Travel Group with Monarch Airlines. These failures have also led to significant costs being incurred either by customers not protected under the ATOL scheme or by the taxpayer. Travel companies are also affected by the failure of an airline as they are liable for all aspects of a package holiday under the package travel regulations. While the exclusion of airlines from a scheme of protection means that their customers are not protected against financial loss, in practice those passengers—both British and those in other European countries such as Italy and Germany—have been repatriated at a cost to taxpayers and other industry participants. This surely adds to confusion when failure occurs, particularly around what is and what is not protected under the ATOL scheme. There is also a lack of clarity around the meaning of the ATOL-protected branding and ABTA has consistently called for it to be made much clearer that ATOL protection applies only to a particular set of holiday arrangements rather than the company as a whole.

The amendment is designed to provide the Government with the opportunity to say how they will end the area of exposure to the Government, passengers and taxpayers caused by unprotected airline seat-only sales, and to consider what a new regulatory framework might look like in the event of insolvency. In so doing, it would also enable the Government to fulfil the Secretary of State’s commitment of 9 October to,

“look at all the options”,

and,

“ensure passengers do not find themselves in this position again”.

The Government have said they are going to consult and look at all the options as part of the process of,

“working through the reforms necessary to ensure passengers do not find themselves in this position again”.

Indeed, the Government said in their 9 October Statement that they would be putting a lot of effort into this,

“in the weeks and months ahead”.

More than two weeks since that Statement, have the Government made official approaches to the industry and consumers with a view to commencing consultation about the sorts of mechanisms beyond ATOL which could be implemented to address the issue and consequences to passengers of future airline insolvency? What will be the timespan of such consultation? Which organisations, companies and bodies do the Government intend to consult, and who from beyond and outside the industry do they also intend to approach? Finally, by when do the Government expect to reach conclusions about the actions and changes they intend to make to deliver on the Secretary of State’s promise following the demise of Monarch airlines that,

“passengers do not find themselves in this position again”?

Presumably that commitment was not made without at least some idea of the possible ways of achieving that particular goal.

We certainly cannot continue with a situation where nobody is sure whether the Government will or will not fly people back home in future at no extra cost in the event of another airline failure, and where there is also an apparent lack of clarity for many passengers and potential passengers under the existing arrangements and ATOL scheme about their rights or lack of rights and their protections or lack of protections. In moving my amendment, I express the hope that the Minister will be able to give some answers to the points and questions I have made and asked in the light of the specific commitments given by the Secretary of State on future objectives and intentions in his Statement of 9 October. I beg to move.

[Baroness Randerson (LD)]

My Lords, I have added my name to this amendment because I felt that it raised some important issues for the Government to look at. I also felt it would be genuinely useful if the views of the Government on the progress made so far were put on record.

At the time of the failure of Monarch Airlines the Minister, in his Statement to the House, emphasised that it was the largest repatriation since D-day. But I put in contrast what the airline industry said in my discussions with it: that Monarch was a small airline and that the problems would arise if a big airline were to fail. Of course, those I spoke to believe that their whole industry is in robust health and that Monarch is definitely not an example of its state generally. The point is that, as the noble Lord, Lord Rosser, has just said, airlines have failed before and undoubtedly, at some point in future, something like this will happen again.

We are looking here at whether the Government have set some kind of precedent by bringing everyone back, for understandable and excellent reasons. I think everyone supports the way that was done and the reasons for doing it. But the point is that if and when it happens again people will expect a similar response and, for that to be possible, there needs to be a scheme. The consumer understands that there is a need for a scheme and understands the ATOL scheme. What the Monarch passengers probably did not understand was why some of them were covered by something and others were not. In the end, the Government need to look at the new ways of working—the new ways in which travel is offered—and present a new scheme which covers them. In the days when the ATOL scheme was devised, package holidays covered a huge percentage of the market. That is very much less the case now.

It is also important to look not just at the passengers who are affected by this. One airline’s failure can often adversely affect a number of package holiday operators. If one airline fails, several package holiday operators will find their business seriously affected. There is a serious knock-on effect within the industry from this and it needs to be addressed. I shall listen to the Minister’s answer with interest.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Transport (Lord Callanan) (Con)]

I thank the noble Lord, Lord Rosser, and the noble Baroness, Lady Randerson, for their contributions and for the constructive way that they have approached the Bill. I am extremely grateful to them and I recognise the purpose of Amendment 1 —to ensure that ATOL protection covers flight-only bookings made through airlines—but the simple fact is that the proposed amendment would not achieve that aim.

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Baroness Randerson]

2: After Clause 2, insert the following new Clause—
“Ensuring transparency of consumer protections
(1) Section 71 of the Civil Aviation Act 1982 (regulation of provision of accommodation in aircraft) is amended as follows. (2) After subsection (1D) insert—“(1E) The Secretary of State must, within the period of 12 months beginning with the day on which the Air Travel Organisers’ Licensing Act 2017 is passed, make regulations to ensure that consumers are informed of their protections when purchasing flights, package holidays and linked travel arrangements.(1F) Such regulations must provide that before the sale of any flight, package holiday or linked travel arrangement is completed, the retailer must make the consumer aware of what protections, if any, apply to their purchase in the event that the retailer, or the provider of the flights or accommodation, ceases trading.(1G) In this section—(a) “retailer” means a provider of flights or overnight accommodation, either directly or as a third party;(b) “protection” means any scheme available to the consumer in the case that the retailer ceases trading;(c) schemes referred to in paragraph (b) may result from the retailer or providers holding a licence under this section, the consumer completing the purchase with a credit card, or any other means that the retailer is aware of.””

[Baroness Randerson]

My Lords, I have taken the opportunity in this amendment to press the Minister further on the information to be supplied to consumers. The key question is how “linked travel arrangements” would work in practice. I believe the EU directive refers to facilitating a purchase and am interested in the definition of how one website might facilitate a purchase of something from another website. For example, is advertising facilitation or does there have to be a closer link? If there does, how does that get translated into information on the screen that is clear to consumers? My interest is in consumers being able to know the difference.

In the last few days I have done a significant amount of research of a very practical nature. I have been on a lot of websites and booked notional holidays aplenty. My inbox is now of course alive with the reaction of the internet to my searches, and I shall definitely regret this research in due time. I have been trying to tie down those offers I receive online to what would be called a linked travel arrangement: flights here being offered possibly with a hotel there, and the two being financially dependent on each other in one way or another, rather than just a chance advert. There are adverts that come into your inbox because Google knows what you are doing. I have gone on to an airline website, and Google knows I have done that, so it sends an advert telling me that there are wonderful offers for hotels or car hire, the usual two options—it might send you an email or it might be an advert that comes at some point on the screen. Rather disconcertingly, you can be looking for a book on a website and suddenly find you are being offered a hotel there that relates to your previous search. It happens to us all the time now. Yesterday I saw, in the middle of flight information on the screen, an advert for a hotel. Clearly, the advert for the flight had been designed to accommodate the hotel. Is that a linked travel arrangement? The point I am making is that if I cannot work it out, I dare say a lot of consumers will not be able to either.

It is essential that consumers are given clear information—in large print, not small. ATOL-protected holidays are admirably and clearly stated to be so. I am seeking from the Minister information on how we might get similar wording for any future designation.

[Lord Spicer (Con)]

What the noble Baroness is saying is very worthy, but is it not a bit academic in the light of the Government’s statement yesterday that five London airports will be completely full up by the 2030s and that there is very little chance of rectifying that, despite some of us warning of this for the last four or five years?

[Baroness Randerson]

The Minister has already referred to the importance of an airport strategy, and the Government are working on that. As the noble Lord states, there is clearly an interrelationship between the availability of flights and the availability of package holidays.

We need clear wording akin to the words used in the ATOL protection. That phrase “ATOL protection” works because over many years the consumer has come to understand what it means, partly through government advertising, partly through the work of consumer groups and, sadly, partly through the hard lesson of the failure of holiday companies. We need similar clear wording for any new scheme, and I fear that “linked travel arrangements” is not a phrase that trips off the tongue or that will be instantly understood by the holiday-buying public.

I turn to an issue that I have raised before: the variation in protection between credit cards, debit cards and PayPal. We might want to pay for a flight by debit card because in many cases, using a credit card costs additional money—a fee for the privilege of using it. However, it is important that at the point where consumers choose how to pay, they are warned that if they pay by debit card they will not get the same protection as if they pay by credit card. It is important that we modernise the system. I am not sure that this Bill is the place to do that, but it is important that the Government take the point away and look at it.

[Lord Rosser]

My Lords, I add our support to the amendment moved by the noble Baroness, Lady Randerson. I do not intend to go through all the points she has so ably made, but I share her view that there seems to be a lack of clarity over the rights and protections—or lack of them—available, as the amendment says, to those,

“purchasing flights, package holidays and linked travel arrangements”.

Certainly, in some adverts, to which the noble Baroness, Lady Randerson, has already referred, the situation is not made clear. So we agree with the objective of the amendment, which is designed to make much clearer for people, when booking flights, package holidays or other travel arrangements, exactly what their rights are and are not, and what protections are and are not available.

[Lord Callanan]

Before I turn to the subject of the noble Baroness’s amendment, which is about information to consumers, let me go through again the business of linked travel arrangements, which I know is causing some confusion—not least to us in the department. As I said to her when we discussed this privately, it was inserted into the directive and a lot of work is going on to work out what it actually is.

The package travel directive has broadened the scope of a package, so it is now clear that protection should apply when customers book customised combinations of travel online. As the noble Baroness outlined in her speech, it is not at all clear what a linked travel arrangement actually is. It is obvious if there is a direct advertisement on a flight website for a linked hotel and that hotel is promoted by the airline directly and is on the same web page. That, it seems to me, is an obvious linked travel arrangement. However, as we know, and as the noble Baroness has discovered in her meticulous research, on the internet, many adverts on webpages have no connection whatsoever with the originator of the webpage. They are placed by advertising companies, principally Google, among others, and the originator of the page has no idea what adverts are appearing on their page. So if you click on an associated advert, that would not necessarily be a linked travel arrangement, but how is the consumer supposed to differentiate between those two things?

Those are the issues we are grappling with at the moment: trying to come up with a definition of a linked travel arrangement and to implement it in regulations. As the noble Baroness said, the directive introduces information provisions to ensure that consumers have a good awareness of the kind of product they are buying, and we are consulting extensively with the industry to try to ensure that that is the case.

Turning to the subject of the amendment, I recognise the purpose of the proposed new clause and the need to ensure that consumers are better informed about consumer protection when they make a booking. This is well-intentioned and entirely in keeping with the Government’s wish that passengers should have a robust level of protection, and that their rights should be communicated to them in a timely and clear way.

However, I do not think that this is the right approach at this time. Let me explain why. First, we need to be mindful that package holidays and linked travel arrangements often do not involve a flight. They could involve a journey by road, rail or sea, so the Civil Aviation Act 1982 is not the most appropriate place for such an obligation. The UK already has regulations in place through the package travel regulations, which cover package holidays across all modes. We are in the process of updating these regulations alongside the Bill to extend them to cover linked travel arrangements, in line with the EU package travel directive.

This brings me to my second point. The new clause would unnecessarily duplicate the new information requirements in the EU package travel directive. The directive has introduced new information provisions which are designed to improve information for consumers. This sets out the specific information that must be provided to consumers about the type of product they are buying and the corresponding level of protection. This must be provided to the consumer both before and after they buy a package or a linked travel arrangement. We have recently completed a consultation on the directive, which proposed that the information provisions will be brought into force in 2018, through changes to the package travel regulations. We are also planning to retain the ATOL certificate alongside these new requirements to help reinforce awareness of consumer protection.

Finally, I fully accept the need to understand the lessons learnt from the Monarch failure, which I outlined earlier to the noble Lord, Lord Rosser, and to respond in the right way. We have to understand the issues that need to be addressed and whether we can make sensible changes to the laws. That is why we are undertaking an internal review, so that we can bring forward solutions that are feasible and have been assessed as being practically enforceable. As the Secretary of State said in his Statement in the other place,

“I do not want us to rush into doing something without doing the ground work properly. We need to look carefully at what has happened, learn the lessons and make any modifications necessary. I assure the House that that is what we will do”.—[Official Report, Commons, 9/10/17; col. 40.]

It is quite possible, of course, that additional information requirements will follow from that review, but it is important that we consider the options and ensure that the steps we take are the right ones and that they both work in the UK and are compatible with EU law.

I therefore believe that an amendment to introduce legislation of this nature—however well-intentioned the noble Baroness is—is premature. So, in summary, if her concern is that the Government are not taking steps to ensure that consumers are informed about consumer protection when they book a trip, I hope she can take comfort that we are ready to make provision through the package travel regulations and the ATOL certificates to do just what she has asked for. In addition, we will of course also consider consumer awareness as we review the lessons learnt from Monarch and, as I said earlier, as we develop our aviation strategy. Therefore, in the light of the assurances I have been able to give her, I hope the noble Baroness will withdraw the amendment.

[Baroness Randerson]

I thank the Minister for his response. I will certainly watch carefully as the Government respond; I am sure that they are working hard on this. My concern is largely with the consumer, but it is also with travel operators, because it is important that they be able to succeed as much as possible. Consumer confidence is an essential part of that. A simple sentence on a website saying that it is a particular type of arrangement is cheap, easy to organise and involves minimal effort for the companies concerned. It is an easy way to provide additional confidence for consumers. Having said that, I am happy to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment 2 withdrawn.

Space Industry Bill [HL]

Baroness Randerson Excerpts

Committee: 3rd sitting (Hansard): House of Lords
Monday 23rd October 2017 Lords Chamber

Moved by

[Baroness Randerson]

43: Clause 66, page 42, line 9, at end insert—
“( ) Regulations under this section may not—(a) amend or repeal an Act of the Scottish Parliament without the agreement of the Scottish Parliament;(b) amend or repeal an Act or Measure of the National Assembly for Wales without the agreement of the National Assembly for Wales; or(c) amend or repeal Northern Ireland legislation without the agreement of the Northern Ireland Assembly.”

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Randerson (LD)]

My Lords, I am sure noble Lords will have noted that this amendment has support from the Labour Benches. That is significant. We are still on Clause 66—not the most popular clause in the Bill. As the Bill stands, the Secretary of State could make “minor and consequential amendments”—that phrase again—to an Act of the Scottish Parliament, an Act or Measure of the Welsh Assembly or any Northern Ireland legislation, without the consent of the relevant national legislature. This amendment would require its consent if any regulations created under this section would amend legislation it had passed.

I set out the arguments for the need for specific reference to the powers of the devolved legislatures in debate last week, so I will not detain the House by going into detail on that aspect again—save to say that a spaceport would have a major impact on its surrounding area, so conflicting views on access to land, rights of way and so forth could well arise. It is therefore essential that there is no possibility that the UK Government have the power to override the legislation put in place by the devolved Administrations. I will give an example. Planning law in Wales has diverged quite considerably from that in England and could be applied in relation to spaceport building in a very different way from the way the UK Government might expect it to be applied. Since the licensing process remains with the UK Government, the likelihood of conflict exists. It is simply not acceptable for the UK Government to have the power, if they find that a conflict exists, to be able to solve that conflict by amending devolved legislation without the specific agreement of the relevant legislature.

I noted the Minister’s definition of “minor and consequential”. The sort of situation I am thinking of would be covered by the term “consequential amendment”. I draw the attention of noble Lords to the comments of the House of Lords Constitution Committee, which stated:

“The Bill does not … make any provision for the devolved legislatures’ consent to be sought in respect of regulations amending or repealing devolved legislation. We noted a comparable issue in our scrutiny of the Wales Bill 2016-17. The House may wish to consider whether it would be more appropriate for the consent of the devolved legislatures to be required when this power is used to amend or repeal legislation enacted by them—as, for example, is the case for certain statutory instruments made under the Legislative and Regulatory Reform Act 2006 and the Public Bodies Act 2011”.


That paragraph means that, first, the Government have previous on this—they tried to do the same thing in what is the now the Wales Act and provoked a huge amount of controversy; and, secondly, that there are ways of doing it, and it was done satisfactorily in both the regulatory reform Act and the Public Bodies Act. I urge the Minister to take the amendment away and give it serious thought. There is cross-party support and the judgment of the House of Lords Constitution Committee is against this aspect of the Bill. Surely those two forces together should persuade the Government to think again. I beg to move.

[Lord Steel of Aikwood (LD)]

My Lords, I will speak very briefly in support of what my noble friend has just said. As a former Presiding Officer of the Scottish Parliament, I must admit that I know nothing about this particular Bill—but the principle she had enunciated is very important. Indeed, it seems to me that this clause, unamended, almost falls foul of the Scotland Act as we passed it in this House. So I hope that the Minister will take this issue away. I see no reason for having this in the Bill at all. It surely should be possible, as a matter of courtesy, simply to talk to the Scottish Parliament, the Welsh Assembly and the Northern Ireland Assembly—if it was recreated. I do not see the need for this issue to arise at all. It is a very dangerous principle and I am grateful to my noble friend for raising it.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Sugg (Con)]

My Lords, Amendment 43 raises the important matter of consulting the devolved Administrations of Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland during the development of the Bill. As the noble Baroness, Lady Randerson, mentioned, we discussed this last week in Committee. As my noble friend Lord Callanan said, the devolved Administrations have confirmed with us that they are content with the provisions of the Bill as drafted and that no legislative consent Motion is required.

Last week, the noble Baroness, Lady Randerson, raised the Bus Services Act 2017. I should like to say a few words about that comparison. Section 17 of that Act inserts new provisions into the Equality Act 2010, including powers to make regulations for the purposes of facilitating travel for disabled persons and for exempting certain vehicles from those regulations. The new sections in the Act require that the Secretary of State must consult Welsh and Scottish Ministers. In this case, we believe that is appropriate, although not strictly necessary, because the new regulation-making power was at the intersection of devolved and reserved matters. The operation of bus services is a devolved matter but equal opportunities is reserved in Scotland and Wales. Therefore, the Equality Act extends to the whole of Great Britain and so do the inserted provisions.

We believe Clause 66 should be treated differently as the whole subject matter of the Bill is reserved. Although some consequential changes to existing legislation required as a result of the Bill have been identified and made under Schedule 12, further changes may be needed, especially in an evolving technology market. As such, the power to make further changes through secondary legislation is necessary to ensure the UK has an effective enabling legislative framework for spaceflight activities.

Since the subject matter of the Bill is reserved, any consequential amendments made to legislation of the devolved legislatures under the Clause 66 power could only be consequential on a reserved matter. This means that any amendments to devolved legislation that could be made under this power would not require the consent of the devolved legislature if they were made by UK primary legislation. If included in Schedule 12, for example, they would not necessitate a legislative consent Motion. It would therefore be inconsistent to require the consent of the devolved legislature just because such amendments are made in regulations instead of in primary legislation.

As we have said, we have consulted extensively with the devolved Administrations on the Bill and I can assure noble Lords that we would consult the devolved Administrations on any consequential amendments that amend, repeal or revoke their legislation both at the policy development stage and on draft regulations themselves. This is in line with long-standing government policy set out in Devolution Guidance Notes 8, 9 and 10. We have heard the arguments from the noble Baroness and from all sides of the House and we will reflect on them. I therefore ask the noble Baroness to withdraw the amendment.

[Baroness Randerson]

I thank the Minister for her comments. I am grateful for the support across the House for this amendment. We have two forces at work in this clause. One is the Government’s tendency to seize as much power for themselves as possible—that is not unusual in Governments—but it is fatally linked with the desire of the Government to pad out their legislative programme with a series of apparently uncontroversial good ideas. The Bill has support across the House, but we are filling in time before the Brexit blunderbuss arrives. It worries me that we have not been able to see the regulations so we cannot see what the Minister is talking about and it is difficult to imagine exactly how that situation could apply in practice.

Nevertheless, I draw the Government’s attention to the Constitution Committee’s comments. I might be misreading the Bill but I very much doubt that the Constitution Committee could possibly be misreading the Bill, and if it is worried about it, there are serious grounds to be worried about it. The fact that the devolved Governments have not yet drawn attention to it does not necessarily mean that it will not cause a problem in the end. I have tried to explain that planning issues will be at the crux of the matter. It is simply not good enough to rely on the Sewel convention in this. In fact, this undermines the Sewel convention, which states that the Government will not normally legislate on behalf of the devolved Administrations.

When we have discussed in the past what “normally” means, people have imagined that there might be a state of national emergency, where there might be a need for haste that would involve instant legislation. However, this is not the kind of thing that you would think would be an exception to “normally”. I will take this away and read the record in Hansard, but I very much hope that the Government will take this away and look at it carefully. What would the harm be in including the usual provision about consulting the devolved Governments and legislatures? I see no harm in it. We are not going to be setting up spaceports as a matter of urgent emergency—it is something that will take months and years. There would be no delay involved in consulting them, and there is a great deal of good will to be had in committing to consult them. Having said that, I am happy to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment 43 withdrawn.

Space Industry Bill [HL]

Baroness Randerson Excerpts

Committee: 2nd sitting (Hansard): House of Lords
Wednesday 18th October 2017 Lords Chamber

[Lord Deben]

I beg my noble friend’s pardon. I hope that he is not laughing at that. First, the point I am trying to make is that if I think this measure is a serious incursion, he should doubly think that is the case.

Secondly, I want my noble friend to think again because there is no reason why we cannot include sensible protection in this power without in any way upsetting its balance. Thirdly, I do not think anybody who wants to start a space station would think that they had carte blanche in that regard so long as the Secretary of State thought that was expedient. Fourthly, if we turn this on its head, what happens if such a measure is necessary and the Secretary of State does not think that it is expedient? It seems to me that the Government have to be much more specific about what these provisions mean before this House should accept them. Lastly, this is a matter for this House, which is supposed to be very much the guardian of the constitution. Quite a lot of legislation will come in front of this House where, whatever our views are—we may be very much in favour of space, for example—we have to stand up for the rights of the citizenry. I think that we are going to talk about that a lot. Above all, we have to talk about the danger of handing to Ministers powers which are expedient and not considerably restricted to the purposes for which they are needed.

[Baroness Randerson (LD)]

My Lords, I associate myself enthusiastically with the comments made by the noble Lords, Lord Deben and Lord Tunnicliffe. I touched on these issues when we discussed Amendment 13 on Monday. They relate clearly to the similar issues I raised in relation to Shell Island. It seems to me that line 42 and onwards on page 27 are especially important. The Explanatory Notes state that it is envisaged that these powers will be used only “as a last resort” when commercial options have been exhausted. That chimes very well with the noble Lord’s comments. On Monday, I demonstrated in my comments on Shell Island how quickly you can exhaust commercial options.

The Explanatory Notes also use the phrase,

“land in the vicinity of the spaceport site”.

I have a detailed question for the Minister: what does the term,

“the vicinity of the spaceport site”,

actually mean? Is there a legal definition of that, because we are talking about long-range travel and we could be referring to a very large area around the spaceport site that would in effect be intruded upon in terms of its rights and its use as a result of this wording.

Clause 40 contains the power to restrict the use of land to secure safety. This may include preventing people entering a given area of land for the duration of a launch window. The nearest simile I can think of is people who live near MoD ranges. People in those areas are well aware of the intrusion that that imposes on their lives. This is a very intrusive power and it could extend over a wide area, for the reasons I have already referred to.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Callanan]

My Lords, I thank your Lordships for this short but sharp debate, which was so excellently introduced, as always, by the noble Lord, Lord Tunnicliffe. I shall endeavour for my response to be as splendid as he intimates some of my letters to him are.

I also thank my noble friend Lord Deben for his contribution. I would never accuse him of being a “pinko”—despite the pocket handkerchief that he is wearing today. We of course have some fairly profound policy differences, but I hope that I will be able to answer his concerns on the matter of land provisions in the Bill.

A number of noble Lords expressed concerns about these provisions, but I reassure them that the Government are taking a responsible and balanced approach. Powers are restricted to what we believe is strictly necessary and proportionate for securing safe spaceflight operations. Clause 38 allows for the creation of orders granting rights over land. Such orders may be necessary to ensure that utilities and other supporting infrastructure can be installed and maintained—for example, for radar or surveillance.

Spaceflight from the UK will be conducted on a commercial basis, and as such we expect operators to negotiate access in the vast majority of cases. Such an order would be created only as a last resort where negotiation with the landowner has failed to produce a mutually agreeable outcome. Schedule 6 sets out further provisions for such circumstances, including how notice for such orders should be given and how proposed orders can be objected to. Spaceflight is a new opportunity for the UK, and as technologies develop we want to ensure that any equipment necessary for safe spaceflight activity can be installed, maintained and removed as necessary.

I will say a few words about Clause 40 and then come back to some of the points that were made. Clause 40 continues the approach that the Government have taken of ensuring that safety is at the heart of the Bill. The clause allows the Secretary of State to restrict or prohibit the use of land or water around the times of launch and landing to protect the public. Any order made under the clause would be temporary. It is not our intention to unnecessarily restrict the actions of people who use these areas of land or water.

This power would be used only as a last resort in circumstances where operators had been unable to negotiate restriction arrangements with local landowners or users of affected land or water. Contravention of any order under this clause would be an offence. The safety of the general public is critical and therefore it is vital that the Secretary of State has sufficient power to enforce this vital safety measure.

I will now say a few words about the points that were made and answer some of the questions. I believe that it was the noble Baroness, Lady Randerson, who asked about a definition of “vicinity” and about what size area would be affected. Launch from the anticipated vertical-launch spaceport sites of course will be towards the sea. We therefore expect that only small areas of land will be affected by these orders. The regulator can also use licence conditions to ensure that spaceflight activities do not have a disproportionate impact on populated areas. Schedule 1 lists indicative licence conditions. These include conditions relating to trajectories and mission profiles as well as conditions imposing restrictions on areas where, and times when, spaceflight activities can take place. The exact type of launch and mission—

[Baroness Randerson]

I wonder whether, in further detail, the Minister could write to me explaining exactly what a “small area” of land is. I assume we have examples from across the world of the kind of size of area that has to be set aside during operations such as this, and it would be very useful to have some idea of how large the affected area will be.

[Lord Callanan]

I will come on to explain that—but, of course, if the noble Baroness is not satisfied I will be very happy to write her another letter, splendid or otherwise.

Horizontal-launch sites will be aerodromes and therefore subject to provisions similar to those in the Civil Aviation Act 1982 that apply to aerodromes. We therefore expect that the main use of this power, if it is needed at all, will be for vertical-launch spaceports. On vertical launch we will continue to learn from countries that have extensive experience of launch. One such example is the United States, where the Federal Aviation Administration has implemented a launch-site boundary with a radius of 2.2 kilometres from the launch point for small vertical-launch vehicles that are likely to be similar to those that will be launched from the UK. This is an area to which access is restricted during a launch window. The proposed sites are much further away from local towns than the area that is likely to be restricted under a Clause 40 order.

I turn to some of the points made by my noble friend Lord Deben. Interestingly, the power is based on similar powers in the Civil Aviation Act 1982. I do not know whether my noble friend was a Minister in another place when this Act was passed or a Member of Parliament during the debates, but the powers do not go as far as those in the Civil Aviation Act.

My noble friend Lord Deben also asked why we are doing it, if there will not be many launches. We believe that these powers are necessary in case a licence holder cannot, despite their best efforts, secure a deal for access to land or restriction of the use of land during launch and landing. Invoking the Secretary of State’s power would very much be a last resort.

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Baroness Randerson]

39: Clause 42, page 30, line 27, at end insert—
“( ) An order under section 38 or 40 cannot be made—(a) in relation to a spaceport or prospective spaceport in Scotland, without the consent of the relevant Minister in the Scottish Government;(b) in relation to a spaceport or prospective spaceport in Wales, without the consent of the relevant Minister in the Welsh Government; or (c) in relation to a spaceport or prospective spaceport in Northern Ireland, without the consent of the relevant Minister in the Northern Ireland Executive.”

[Baroness Randerson]

My Lords, Amendment 39 is on a similar theme. It relates to Clause 42 and the operation of orders in relation to the land to be used for a spaceport. A proposal to make an order, or an order itself, under Clauses 38 or 40 may not be challenged in any legal proceedings. Furthermore, such an order becomes operative within six weeks, which is a very short period of time.

On the face of it, these are sweeping powers for the Secretary of State to create rights over land and to restrict the use of land to secure safety. I find it quite difficult to square this clause with the comments of the Minister in relation to the previous debate, in which he assured the noble Lord, Lord Deben, of the legal right to challenge. That is because this clause states specifically that that cannot be done.

The powers referred to in the clause are essentially planning powers, which are normally devolved in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland, so this amendment is designed to probe how the powers in the Bill that are conferred on the Secretary of State will operate in tune with the powers of the devolved Administrations. We have heard on several occasions that the devolved Administrations are supportive of the spirit of this Bill, but I am surprised, given that it relates so strongly to devolved planning powers, that it makes no direct mention of the devolved Governments. Here I draw a parallel with the Bus Services Bill. That also dealt with devolved powers and referred to the rights of the devolved Administrations in that respect.

As well as planning issues, the Bill deals with the licensing process, which is to be managed at the UK Government level as a UK Government responsibility. I would suggest to noble Lords that there could well be friction between the two sets of powers and between the two levels of government; in fact, it is unlikely that there will not be friction at some point. It is also inevitable that security issues will have to be taken into account, and those powers lie at both the devolved and the UK levels. The point I want to make is that this is a complex picture, so the amendment seeks to formalise the relationship between the UK and devolved Governments and to ensure that they cannot be overlooked.

I have no doubt that those Governments are supportive of the Bill now, but they may not always be so in every case. Good law should seek to allow for every possibility. I beg to move.

[Lord Tunnicliffe]

My Lords, I shall speak to Amendment 39 and the Motion that Clause 42 should stand part. The points made by the noble Baroness, Lady Randerson, underline why we support devolution, so we would not want this Bill to reduce in any way the responsibilities of the devolved Governments—along with the devolved city state of Prestwick.

Our concern with Clause 42 as a whole is that we do not understand why orders made under what will be Sections 38 and 40 cannot be challenged, but it then refers to a schedule under which they can. We feel that the drafting could be much clearer so that it takes account of the devolved Administrations and does not reflect an apparent conflict between the schedule and the clauses.

--- Later in debate ---

With those assurances, I hope the noble Baroness is satisfied with my response and therefore feels able to withdraw Amendment 39.

[Baroness Randerson]

The Minister referred to the 1982 Act and similar powers there. I will of course go away and investigate that, but we cannot get by just by relying on the Sewel convention on something as big and significant as this. I am delighted to hear that the Government have consulted with the devolved Governments, but I still fail to understand why the Bill does not refer specifically to the powers of the devolved Governments in a similar way to the Bus Services Act. It might be a totally different set of powers, but the principle is exactly the same.

I would be very pleased if the Minister gave us more detail on how the Government have reached agreement with the devolved Governments on how powers are to be exercised. That might help provide a little clarity. This is a very complex, technical issue. I will read Hansard carefully and may come back to this general issue on Report if I need further clarity. I am happy to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment 39 withdrawn.

Space Industry Bill [HL]

Baroness Randerson Excerpts

Committee: 1st sitting (Hansard): House of Lords
Monday 16th October 2017 Lords Chamber

[Lord Rosser (Lab)]

I just add one or two brief comments to what the noble Lord, Lord McNally, quite rightly said, seeking to explore further what the impact of withdrawal from the European Union might or might not have.

At Second Reading, the Minister made reference to the issue and said:

“The Government’s policy to exit the EU does not affect the UK’s membership of the European Space Agency. The UK has a strong and healthy space economy with an international outlook. We have a long history of collaboration and participation in European space programmes and missions through the European Space Agency. The Government will continue to take an active role in European space programmes, supporting UK industry in its bids to win contracts overseas and developing our national capability to keep the UK competitive in the global market”—[Official Report, 12/7/17; cols. 1268-69.]


Those were clearly welcome statements, but I am not sure that they went to the heart of the question: namely, what impact could our withdrawal from the European Union have on spaceflight and the space industry in this country? Apparently, there has been talk in government circles of the possibility of leaving on the basis of no agreement at all being reached with the European Union on the terms. Can the Minister spell out what the consequences might be for the space industry and the level of co-operation that currently takes place if we ended up withdrawing from the European Union without any agreement? Perhaps he could also compare and contrast that with the situation whereby we left with what I think is known in the official jargon as a soft Brexit.

The noble Lord, Lord McNally, rightly made reference to the fact that the industry would like a degree of clarity and certainty for the future. Indeed, that was the Government’s argument for bringing forward the Bill at a time when we know nothing about the regulations, on which consultation will not take place until next year and which will not be produced until 2019. Presumably, if the Government are saying that the Bill is needed because the industry requires clarity, they will use this opportunity to offer the industry clarity on the impact of our leaving the European Union on the space industry and spaceflight in this country.

[Baroness Randerson (LD)]

My Lords, there are 38,000 jobs in the UK in the space sector, and they are top-quality, well-paid, highly skilled jobs. Brexit threatens the majority of those jobs, both directly and indirectly. Although the Bill is welcome and in itself uncontentious, it does nothing of any significance to plug the gaps that are threatening those jobs.

How and why does Brexit threaten those jobs? Two sets of work are ongoing on which we rely for a very large part of our jobs in this country relating to the space industry; they are funded by the Galileo and Copernicus projects. The UK Government have said that they want to remain part of those projects but they have failed to make a binding commitment to them. The problem is that talk of a no-deal Brexit seriously undermines the Government’s verbal assurances on this issue. They need to make it clear that they want to buy into those programmes in the future—beyond 2019. Clearly that could not happen in a no-deal scenario.

Let us be clear that we do very well out of EU space activity. In terms of what is technically called “geo return”, we put in 12.5% of funding and get back 14% of spend. We are talking about very large amounts of money. When applying for funds, companies now have to make it clear to the EU how they will ensure that after March 2019 they will still have a base in an EU country. This is a new requirement. The impact is that those companies with other EU sites are leading their bids from there, not from the UK. Those companies without another base are obviously thinking of moving to another EU country. Because there is such a long lead-in time in this industry, these decisions are being made now or in the very near future.

The second factor is the supply chain, a lot of which is foreign inward investment into the UK, and there is some current rethinking on that—so more good jobs in the UK are at risk. A major aspect of this problem is the free movement of people. The industry relies a lot on EU nationals, many of whom are already leaving. But British staff, working in the industry, are also looking abroad for opportunities and we cannot afford that brain drain. It is essential to the aerospace sector as a whole that there is free movement. The kind of visa for highly skilled workers that the Prime Minister has already talked about simply would not suit their needs. They need flexible, long-duration visas because they require staff to be so mobile and flexible. Their needs are very much like those for the rest of the aerospace sector.

For example, as many noble Lords will know, Airbus has plants in Toulouse, Broughton and a number of other places. A technician might arrive at work in Broughton one morning and be told that he is off to Toulouse by lunchtime and will be back tomorrow or the day after. Airbus, as a company, moved employees 80,000 times last year between the EU and the UK. It has its own jet shuttle between sites. The kind of visa that the Prime Minister talked about does not start to tackle that problem. The perception in Europe is that we have already left. So whatever the Government’s good intentions with this Bill, if you hollow out what we already have in our space industry in the way in which I have outlined, there is not much point in this Bill. We simply cannot afford to keep losing such high-value industries and high-quality jobs. It is important that the Government persuade us here today that they have already taken on board the key issues that we have raised in relation to Brexit and our relationship in the future with the EU.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Transport (Lord Callanan) (Con)]

My Lords, first, I thank the noble Lord, Lord McNally, very much for his initial comments and his general support. I understand that he will want to probe further and question us on the purposes and intent of the Bill, which of course I welcome—but I also thank him for his initial supportive comments.

The UK space industry is a global success story, leveraging our best talent to deliver highly innovative products and services every year. This Government want a UK space industry that captures 10% of the global market by 2030, creating 100,000 new jobs in the process. The Government are pursuing a range of measures to support this fast-growing sector. This Bill is one of those measures, and aims to put British businesses at the forefront of new space services. Another measure of our support to the UK space sector will be through our negotiations with the EU on future collaboration on the EU space programmes.

The UK has played a major part in developing the main EU space programmes, Galileo and Copernicus, which have supported the rapid growth of the UK space sector and contributed directly to our prosperity and security. We will work to ensure that we get the best deal with the EU to help support strong growth in the sector. I understand the link that noble Lords and the noble Baronesses have drawn between these two measures of support through this proposed amendment, but I do not consider that including provisions related to the EU negotiations will improve the purpose of the Bill or the support that the legislation will provide to our sector. This Bill is about regulation of UK space activities and sub-orbital activities and connected purposes.

As the noble Lord, Lord McNally, acknowledged, the European Space Agency is an international organisation, rather than an institution of the European Union. As I said at Second Reading, the UK’s membership of the European Space Agency will not be affected by the UK leaving the EU.

I was asked about the release of the studies on the impact that Brexit will have on the sector. Since the referendum, the Government have been undertaking rigorous and extensive analysis work to support our exit negotiations, define our future partnership with the EU and inform our understanding of how the EU exit will affect the UK’s domestic policies and frameworks. However, Parliament has voted repeatedly not to disclose material that could damage the UK’s position in the negotiations with the EU. I am sure that the Committee will agree with me that, in any negotiation, information on potential economic considerations was very important to the negotiating capital and to the negotiation position of all parties.

The noble Lord, Lord McNally, and the noble Baroness, Lady Randerson, asked about the effect of freedom of movement on the space sector. Of course, they are correct that when we leave the EU freedom of movement, as we know it, will end. However, we have been clear that there will be an implementation period after we leave the EU to avoid a cliff edge for businesses, and after we leave the EU we will have an immigration system that works in the best interests of the UK. Crucial to the development of this will be the views from a range of businesses, including from high-tech sectors, such as the space industry.

In the light of that information, I ask the noble Lord to withdraw his amendment.

--- Later in debate ---

I hope that when the Minister responds, he will be able to address all the concerns and points that I have raised. I beg to move.

[Baroness Randerson]

My Lords, as the noble Lord has said, there is very little mention in the Bill of the environment. I am going to address Amendments 13 and 14, in the name of the Liberal Democrats, which cover some of the same ground to that outlined just now.

Clearly, there will be environmental implications of launching space vehicles and, indeed, of bringing the rockets on to site. At the moment, the nearest thing to this we are familiar with is when an aircraft wing is moved along the motorway. We are talking here about developing in rural areas, where there will be an obvious change of pace of life for local people. According to industry stakeholders I have discussed this with, the Bill does not sufficiently address health and safety and environmental aspects related to, for example, on-site assembly, maintenance and refurbishment of the launch vehicle and its payload—that is, the satellite. Nor does it address the storage and transport of launch vehicles or the issues of solid boosters and engine and thruster propellants. All these activities involve the handling of dangerous and explosive materials.

Amendment 13 would ensure that the operator cannot be granted a licence unless they have considered and minimised the impact on the environment. The Minister has made it absolutely clear that both the Scottish and Welsh Governments are very supportive, as is Cornwall Council. These are the areas where the impact is likely to be, at least in the first instance. However, we are legislating for all possible future spaceports, and whatever the supportive nature of the devolved authorities and county councils, one has to think of the impact on local people. Just because it is exciting and being done in rural areas does not mean that we can ignore the impact on the environment. It is already clear that there will be controversy—make no mistake about it, as this is going to be intrusive.

Amendment 14 concerns specifically the impact that the required high levels of security will have in local areas. Obviously, spaceport activity will be subject to very high levels of security, and rightly so; we would demand that. Let me give noble Lords an example that was brought to my attention. In north Wales, the Llanbedr airfield, which is owned by the Welsh Government, is leased to an organisation that wishes to set up a spaceport. The neighbour to this airfield is Shell Island, an enormous holiday camp that was established in the middle of the last century. It has 80,000 happy campers a year and employs somewhere in the order of 100 people. That is a big business in north Wales. At high tide, the only access to the holiday camp for emergency vehicles is along a path across the airfield. This is a very well-established right of access, but now, for security reasons, there is the potential that Shell Island will be denied the right to that access. In other words, emergency vehicles will not be able to access the holiday camp. This is not only an issue of local discussion and so on but a well-documented problem. This dispute may well be settled satisfactorily, but it illustrates the potential for local clashes of interest and that security issues will be of paramount importance and intrusive.

Amendment 14 seeks to probe the extent to which the Government have discussed such issues with the emergency services, potential spaceport operators and the devolved Administrations. It would ensure that the operator of any spaceport must take all reasonably practicable steps to allow emergency access for neighbouring properties. The security aspects of establishing a spaceport are glossed over in the Bill and need to be taken seriously at this point in our discussions.

[Lord Callanan]

My Lords, under this Bill the number one priority for the regulator will be, quite rightly, to ensure the health and safety of the public and the safety of their property. There is clearly a moral case for ensuring public safety but also a compelling business case. Safe operations will be critical to the long-term sustainability of the UK spaceflight industry. There are, of course, other interests and requirements which the regulator must take into account in the exercise of its functions.

On Amendment 3, I thank the noble Lords for raising the issues of the impact on the environment and the interests of local communities in particular. These are important matters which the Government have considered in drafting the Bill. Under Clause 2(2)(e), the regulator is already required to take account of environmental objectives set by the Government when exercising its functions. Environmental objectives here mean both the policy objectives of the Government and the legislation and other forms of regulation which are used to realise those objectives. This places a wide-ranging duty on the regulator and ensures that proper consideration of environmental matters informs the carrying out of its functions.

Under Clause 2(2)(c), the regulator likewise must take account of the interests of persons not involved in spaceflight activities in relation to the use of land, sea and airspace. This will include the interests of local communities affected by spaceport and spaceflight activities. A further protection both to local communities and the environment will be afforded by local planning processes. I stress that the Bill does not impinge upon or override local planning decisions. This will take account of the concerns raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Randerson, about emergency access to a campsite, which we discussed in one of our previous meetings. I hope she is reassured by that.

As part of the planning application process for any spaceport, whether a new site or an existing aerodrome which undergoes development, an environmental impact assessment will be needed if it is required by the EIA directive. The local planning authority will therefore already be obliged to scrutinise the environmental impact under existing planning legislation where the EIA directive applies. An EIA would also be required as part of any airspace change.

On Amendment 13, for the reasons already set out, we can be assured that this matter is sufficiently addressed. However, should we require further environmental legislation as new technologies emerge, the regulation-making powers in Clauses 10(b) and 67 give us the flexibility necessary to develop appropriately detailed measures which would supplement existing legislation.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Tunnicliffe (Lab)]

My Lords, in moving Amendment 7, I shall speak also to Amendments 8, 11 and 12 in this group. The Bill requires, in Clause 9(4) on page 7:

“As regards risks to the health, safety and property of persons not within subsection (2)”—


subsection (2) is about individuals who take part—

“the applicant must have taken all reasonable steps to ensure that those risks are as low as reasonably practicable”,

and,

“the level of those risks must be acceptable”.

This set of amendments vests the responsibility for certificating that this level of risk has been achieved in the Health and Safety Executive.

I start by thanking the Minister for the time that he has given to talk to us about the Bill—therefore, I cannot pretend that this is a probing amendment. I for one, and the rest of our Front Bench to a degree, feel that the Bill is premature. The two-year gap envisaged between the Bill becoming and Act and the full emergence of the regulations suggests to us that introducing the Bill at a later time would have been more efficient and allowed fuller scrutiny on a more comprehensive Bill. That is particularly drawn out in the whole safety issue.

The bit of the Bill that I have read requires the concept of the risks to what I shall call uninvolved third parties to be reduced to “as low as reasonably practicable”. That is a very widely used concept in the safety world—a complex concept that weighs benefits against risks and costs.

I shall take a view of the benefits of the Bill. The Minister quoted the importance and value of the space industry to the United Kingdom, and I would not in any way demur from that, but we are not talking about creating it or not, or the space industry carrying on in future or not. We are talking about two capabilities. One is about inserting the satellites into orbit and the other is space tourism. I know that some other things are prayed in aid, but that as a generality covers what the Bill will provide.

There is no way in which we are going to be a first mover in inserting satellites into orbit. The Americans, Russians, French and Chinese are all in this business. The Minister suggested that there was a special European dimension, and there may be, but to a degree inserting satellites into orbit is likely to become a commodity, especially as satellites become smaller and less weighty. There is a benefit, but the benefit will have to be judged in the whole balance of achieving “as low as reasonably practicable”.

I find the concept of space tourism extremely difficult to grapple with in safety terms. The nearest thing we have had to sustained space tourism was the shuttle programme. There were 135 missions; two ended catastrophically and 14 people died. I doubt that there is genuinely much of a market for tourism which involves a one in 65 chance of dying. The Virgin Galactic programme has also been mentioned. This has so far resulted in one destroyed aircraft and one dead pilot. Broadly speaking, the Health and Safety at Work etc. Act requires that an activity where an employee runs a risk of more than one in 1,000 is unacceptable and should simply not happen. I find it difficult to believe that, with the risks apparent at the moment, space tourism would be certificated in this country in the near future.

Although the benefits of the industry as a whole are valid, it is less clear how great they are for this particular capability. They would also need to be balanced in meeting the requirements of the clause that protects the safety of uninvolved third parties, whose exposure is nicely brought out in annexe C to the letter which the Minister was good enough to write to me and some other noble Lords. It stated:

“The current UK aviation regulatory regime prioritises the safety of the aircraft and its occupants and does not directly regulate the safety of third parties on the ground ... If the level of safety for the aircraft and its occupants is sufficient then by default third parties can be considered appropriately protected”.


This approach is clearly not sufficient in this direction, either in its outcome or in its nature.

Generally speaking, there are two ways of developing a safety regime. There is the accident-led way: an enormous proportion of our safety law—fire law, building regulations et cetera—comes from accidents from which we learn. It may surprise noble Lords to learn that aviation safety essentially has the same basis. When I was involved in the industry in the 1960s, a British-registered jet aircraft crashed about every two years. When I entered the profession it was dangerous, with a chance of dying of about one in 2,000 per annum. Before civil aviation had its many crashes, the military was exploring the edges of the envelope and having similar numbers of them. The industry developed a high-quality investigation regime and slowly learned from these events. It then put them into regulations and co-operation emerged, both in the industry and internationally, which has refined itself into today’s civil aviation regime. I am not questioning its effectiveness, but one has to recognise its background. It is about experimenting, having events and then learning from them. That is my first point in arguing that the civil aviation approach is not suitable for this industry.

Secondly, the hybrid launch concept will not be certificatable within the normal civil aviation system. Basically, you cannot certificate aeroplanes to carry rockets. One has to realise that a rocket is merely a managed explosion. Those of us who remember the early days of spaceflight know that when rockets go wrong they turn into explosions. Carrying a rocket, these aircraft will be highly specialised and certainly will not fall naturally into any certification regime. As the Minister’s quotation illustrated, the consequences on the ground of an aircraft with a rocket on board crashing will have to be addressed. The presumption that the airplane and its occupants are safe will not be proven to the level by which one can disregard the impact of such a crash.

Thirdly, in a hybrid approach, not only do we have to look at the risks to aircraft used to launch rockets, we also have to look at rocket-propelled aircraft. One of the many ideas used to illustrate the potential value of spaceports are rocket-propelled aircraft, which will be an entirely new area of risk. The Bill allows for vertically launched rockets, and these will need to be assessed. Therefore, I argue that the aviation approach is not appropriate or called for by the Bill. It calls for an ALARP approach, which essentially, as I have already said, balances the benefits against the risks. It is a forward-looking approach and is used in nuclear, the railway environment and safety-critical industries. To meet this requirement one needs competence in the ALARP approach. Our amendments argue that that competence is held by the Health and Safety Executive.

However, as important as the requirement in connection with the body certifying that the level of risk has been reduced to as low as reasonably practicable is the requirement that from the beginning we have a single point of responsibility for safety. For most of my career I have been involved in safety-critical environments. It is almost impossible to stress the improvement in safety whereby an individual accountable to his board or organisation goes to bed knowing that if there is an incident in the area for which he or she is responsible, they cannot say, “That was their fault”, because, at least to some extent, it is that person’s responsibility. The most that person can do is join other parties in their responsibility. The responsibility lies with the individual and the organisation. Therefore, I believe that we need a single authority and an ALARP approach as an integrated whole that can look at the benefits and the risks posed by events and the consequences. We argue that only the Health and Safety Executive, with appropriate professional inputs, can meet that requirement and has the experience and skill to deliver this judgment. I beg to move.

[Baroness Randerson]

My Lords, I associate myself with the intention behind these amendments. In preparing for the Bill, I spoke to a wide range of individuals and organisations involved in the space industry. They undoubtedly take health and safety very seriously and are surprised at the low density of detail in the Bill in relation to those aspects. Noble Lords across the Chamber have said several times this afternoon how exciting and important this issue is. There is undoubtedly lots of enthusiasm but, looked at dispassionately, this is a dangerous activity for those involved in it and others who are not involved but who live in the surrounding area or, indeed, almost anywhere in the UK. The noble Lord, Lord Moynihan, pointed out the potential for space tourism without people even leaving the ground as there will be viewing platforms and so on. All these things have to be considered from the health and safety standpoint. I have become increasingly concerned about the clutter in our skies. We are all familiar with planes but we are increasingly concerned about drones, and now we are taking into account space activity. Our skies are crowded and it is important that the Government set out a comprehensive, co-ordinated and truly effective approach to these issues.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord McNally]

Unfortunately, the noble Lord, Lord Dykes, was not here for my first amendment, which would have given him a good hour to go on about Brexit. But I am sure it is noted. I beg to move.

[Baroness Randerson]

My Lords, as the Bill stands, there is no obligation to get down what you have put up into space. As my noble friend outlined, it is becoming increasingly cluttered.

In my mind there are parallels with, for example, Everest or the Arctic, where historically as a human race we have dumped what we no longer need because we are in difficult circumstances and we cannot retrieve it easily. Of course, the difference with space is that it is floating around. When we worry nowadays about drones—I saw a report only today about a near-miss involving a drone—we are increasingly aware of things that are in space, in the skies, which are not accounted for and not under any kind of official control or pathway. Clearly, there is a risk to other spacecraft and to earth itself. We take fly-tipping seriously here on earth, so why not out there in space? Amendment 17 would make it a condition of a licence that the operator has to take reasonable steps to dispose of a payload, as my noble friend said.

It is important that we recognise that the international group that regulates space debris is not an international organisation but an advisory body. Amendment 21 amends conditions that may be included in licences to refer to advisory bodies as well as to international organisations. Those in the industry are concerned that groups that advise on space debris mitigation have too few members or lack formal decision-making powers to be recognised in law as international organisations. We are interested in whether the Minister has had legal advice that these bodies would be recognised as international bodies rather than having to be separately specified as advisory bodies. The amendment would allow operators to take account of advisory groups, such as the Inter-Agency Space Debris Coordination Committee and ISO’s orbital debris co-ordination working group. We are seeking certainty that they would be covered by the term “international organisations”.

[Lord Willetts]

There is indeed a problem with space debris. The aim is not to bring it back to earth—although I love the Liberal Democrat imagery of pavement politics and everything being recycled—but to knock it out of its orbit so that it burns up in the atmosphere and therefore disappears. We should take some pride in the fact that Fylingdales is where a lot of this debris is tracked. We have fantastic expertise there. It has always proved very difficult to get international agreement in this area, but the UK has a strong capability in disabling debris, and I very much hope that we will hear from the Minister that this is something that the Government continue to support. However, the prospects of any kind of international agreement in this area are, sadly, remote, not least because some of the technologies that are used for moving stuff out of orbit and disabling it are dual-use technology which can also be used in a very different way, so it has been very hard to reach any international agreement on the circumstances in which it would be used.

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Baroness Randerson]

23: Clause 15, page 11, line 18, at end insert—
“( ) Before regulations are made under this section, the Secretary of State must lay before Parliament a report outlining—(a) the functions the regulations will confer on the appointed person;(b) the appointed person’s capacity to undertake the proposed functions;(c) whether additional funds should be made available to ensure the appointed person can undertake the proposed functions; and (d) whether the Government is intending to confer in the near future any other functions, separate to those relating to this Act, that may affect the appointed person’s capacity to exercise the functions proposed in the regulations.”

[Baroness Randerson]

This amendment relates to the capacity and resourcing of the regulator. One assumes that it is to be the CAA because the Explanatory Notes indicate it will be, but they allow a fallback position where another body could be created. I invite the Minister to confirm that the Government have the CAA in mind.

My concern is that the CAA seems to be increasingly the maid of all work, which will undoubtedly have capacity and resourcing implications for that body. After Brexit, the duties of the CAA in relation to what one might call mainstream aviation will undoubtedly increase. The issue of drones will add to its duties. A couple of weeks ago, the failure of Monarch Airlines reminded us that the CAA has a very important role relating to such emergencies. One day we envisage the CAA bringing people back from their holidays in Portugal and the next day, or indeed the very same day, it is concerned about trips in outer space. So the body is large, flexible and very broad in its involvement. For that reason, if the Government plan to pass most if not all of the regulatory functions in the Bill to the Civil Aviation Authority, then we are concerned about whether they also plan to add to its capacity and expertise. This is very much a probing amendment to ask the Government whether their assessment is that the CAA currently has the breadth of expertise required and will simply need additional resources, or whether there will be a need to recast the body and take a comprehensive look at its role in future.

[Lord Callanan]

I thank the noble Baroness for her amendment. It is quite right to seek clarity on who will regulate this new spaceflight market and their capacity and resources to do so. Commercial spaceflight from the UK is in its very early stages and we want to be able to draw on relevant regulatory expertise across the UK for this new burgeoning sector. The Secretary of State is the default regulatory authority under the Bill. It is our intention that the UK Space Agency perform regulatory functions on behalf of the Secretary of State. The UK Space Agency already licenses the procurement of satellite launches from other countries as well as satellite operations from the UK. We intend that the UK Space Agency will regulate all the vertically launched rockets covered by the Bill and other space activities, including the launch and operation of satellites into space orbit. The UK Space Agency will also license and regulate associated vertical-launch spaceports and range-control services for launch to orbit.

In answer to the noble Baroness, Lady Randerson, it is our intention to use Clause 15 to appoint the Civil Aviation Authority to regulate suborbital activities and horizontal-launch spaceports. These are likely to take place from specially adapted existing airports, and that will enable us to draw on the CAA’s rich heritage and expertise. The CAA and the UK Space Agency are proven regulators in their respective fields. I assure the House that both organisations are building on this heritage and developing their spaceflight expertise, including learning from existing spaceflight regulators in other countries. Clause 61 enables both organisations to put in place charging regimes to cover their regulatory costs—for example, for assessing and issuing licences, ongoing monitoring and providing advice and assistance. I hope that answers the noble Baroness’s question about the appropriate resources.

I am confident in our planned assignment of regulatory functions to the UK Space Agency and the CAA, and that both will have the resources to fulfil their regulatory functions following the enactment of the Bill and regulations made under it. I am confident in our planned assignment of UK regulatory functions to the UK Space Agency and the Civil Aviation Authority and that both will have resources to fulfil their regulatory functions following enactment of the Bill and regulations made under it.

[Lord Callanan]

We are confident that the expertise in and knowledge of regulating aviation in the CAA is sufficient for this purpose. The CAA has a worldwide reputation for the comprehensiveness of its approach and expertise, so it will be able to fulfil these functions very well and there is no need to go elsewhere.

I shall directly answer the noble Baroness’s question: if we know that we are going to appoint the CAA to do this, why do we not specify it in the Bill? We believe that it is more appropriate to set out functions of appointed persons in delegated legislation, as the necessary limitations and conditions would be too lengthy to include in primary legislation. Further, as the industry evolves, the Government may choose to adapt the regulatory approach. The current approach allows this flexibility while ensuring that the appropriate level of oversight is maintained by the Secretary of State. With those assurances, I hope that the noble Baroness will feel able to withdraw her amendment.

[Baroness Randerson]

I thank the Minister for his response. I will read Hansard carefully, because I think that there is still an issue about the level of resources. It may be that capacity in terms of breadth of expertise is established, but I remain to be convinced about the level of resources that the Government are willing to commit to allow the CAA to do its job effectively. It was absolutely clear in the past few weeks that the CAA is working extraordinarily hard and at the limits of its current capacity, so if we are adding responsibilities to it, we need to be reassured that it can do this job well. With those words, I am happy to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment 23 withdrawn.

--- Later in debate ---

I apologise for not having given notice to my noble friend. I know that there are one or two further speeches to come, so I am sure that his fine group of experts assisting him will be able to give him a precise answer to that very simple question. In the event that it is unlikely or not projected that legislation on drones will be introduced before the first licences are issued, it is appropriate for us at a later stage of this Bill to make sure that it contains measures enabling determined action against those who irresponsibly fly drones around spaceports. I hope the Committee will support that, if indeed the Government are not going to introduce legislation in the foreseeable future and certainly not before 2019 or 2020. With that one simple question to the Minister, I beg to move the amendment standing in my name.

[Baroness Randerson]

I rise to say briefly how pleased I am that the noble Lord has raised this issue. I have already referred to drones several times this afternoon. The Minister probably thinks that I think of little else in transport terms, because I raise it frequently. In the previous Parliament the Government said they were thinking about what to do about drones. At the beginning of that Parliament, we were told they would be doing something along with the rest of the EU. Now, of course, it is something on which we have to take the initiative ourselves. The Government now say they have consulted on the issue, so I too would greatly value the clarification that the noble Lord, Lord Moynihan, has asked for—exactly the timescale the Government are working to. There is a real urgency about this. Thousands of drones are being sold every month, and there is little control over how they are sold and virtually none over how they are flown. Day by day, it is becoming increasingly urgent that something be done. I will listen carefully to the Minister’s response.

[Lord Balfe (Con)]

My Lords, I begin by reminding the Committee that I am the vice president of the British Airline Pilots Association, as declared in the register. I thank the noble Lord, Lord Moynihan, for tabling this amendment, which has enabled us to mention this subject. Like him, I was advised that it was not appropriate to table an amendment to the Bill. He has been more ingenious than me because he has found a way of at least debating the subject as part of the Bill, and I thank and congratulate him for that.

I shall try not to duplicate what the noble Lord said. The Minister and I have now met on two occasions—once last week in the general consultation and once in a private meeting—to talk about this issue. Like other noble Lords, I am seeking something quite specific in this debate on where we will go in the legislative process. Since the last time I spoke on this subject, we have received the report by Department for Transport, the British Airline Pilots Association and the Military Aviation Authority on drones and the mid-air collision survey. Probably the most important thing to come out of it is the threat to helicopters from drones. Obviously, any mid-air collision is not a good thing, but the report clearly showed that there is a specific danger to helicopters, at a time when literally hundreds of flights are going back and forth across the North Sea every day. This issue is of concern not only to pilots but to the Scottish Government and the wider aviation industry.

The Government followed up with a news story press release saying that drones were to be registered and users were to sit safety tests under new government rules. That was on 22 July, so I am sure the Minister will understand why, in the middle of October, we are seeking assurances about how far we will progress and at what speed. Since the last debate, we have had the tragedy of Grenfell Tower. Of course, if there were a tragic accident, people would be looking very carefully at the Minister, his department and others, saying, “You had warnings. You had a report. What is going to be done, and when?”. It is an urgent matter.

Two issues need to be dealt with. One is the police authorities and enforcement, which I understand needs primary legislation. When is that likely to happen? How will the rest of the changes be implemented? Will they be by statutory instrument or under powers the Minister has already delegated to the department? What will be done and when? If it is not being dealt with urgently, why not? In other words, how long do we have to wait to get this very important matter dealt with? A rogue drone could bring down a helicopter and cause tragedy and great unhappiness for families. The Minister is well aware of this. He is not a hard-hearted person saying that there is no need for legislation. What I am aiming for, like my noble friend Lord Moynihan, is for this debate to at least be in Hansard, our parliamentary record, showing a clear demand, and giving the Minister the opportunity to respond in, I hope, an extremely positive manner.

Air Travel Organisers’ Licensing Bill

Baroness Randerson Excerpts

Committee: 1st sitting (Hansard): House of Lords
Wednesday 11th October 2017 Grand Committee

[Lord Rosser (Lab)]

I apologise for my late arrival; I had to be on the Front Bench for the Home Office Private Notice Question in the Chamber. I do apologise for the delay I have caused.

I will be brief in speaking to the amendments. Their purpose is to raise the issue of linked travel and flight-only arrangements in relation to ATOL protection. In respect of linked travel arrangements, the Minister said that the Bill would extend protection to consumers making these less formal holiday arrangements. Can he say which clause or subsection says this specifically, or is this a matter that the Government intend to address in regulations? If it is the latter and the Government intend to address it in regulations, why not include the extension of the protection to linked travel arrangements on the face of the Bill, as provided for in my Amendment 2? I take it that linked travel arrangements will be quite significant. Will the Minister let me know, either now or later, what proportion of what I would describe as ATOL sales the Government think linked travel arrangements will make up? Are they contemplating a new separate air travel trust for linked travel arrangements, in view of later clauses?

Turning to flight-only arrangements, one issue that surfaced during the debate on the Monarch Airlines Statement on Monday was the very low percentage of Monarch passengers covered by the existing ATOL provisions. I think the Minister said it was likely to be some 10% to 15%, and that this percentage was unlikely to have been much higher even under the provisions of the revised EU directive and the Bill. As I understand it, that is because nearly all Monarch Airlines passengers were flight-only. The Government decided, particularly because of the numbers involved, to provide flights back home for those Monarch passengers stranded abroad. This is a power the Government have but as I understand it, it is entirely up to them when and if they use it. Surely that can only create a degree of uncertainty, which is not a desirable state of affairs, certainly not for stranded airline passengers.

I put it to the Minister that the Government should consider setting out clear criteria against which they will determine whether to provide flights back home for stranded flight-only passengers whose airline has become insolvent or, alternatively, consider extending the ATOL protection scheme to flight-only passengers, who made up the vast majority left stranded by the demise of Monarch Airlines. Perhaps in that regard, the Minister could give an estimate of the cost to travel organisations of extending the ATOL protection scheme in this way.

Can the Minister expand on the paragraph in the Government’s Statement on Monarch Airlines on Monday? It reads:

“But then our efforts will turn to working through any reforms necessary to ensure that passengers do not find themselves in this position again. We need to look at all the options, not just ATOL, but also whether it is possible for airlines to be able to wind down in an orderly manner and look after their customers themselves without the need for the Government to step in. We will be putting a lot of effort into this in the weeks and months ahead”.—[Official Report, 9/10/17; col. 46.]


What do the Government include in “look at all the options”? Can I take it that this will include flight-only passengers not ending up being stranded abroad with no automatic provision available to fly them back home at no additional cost? I beg to move.

[Baroness Randerson (LD)]

I thank the noble Lord for his remarks, which have provided a useful introduction to his thinking. Clause 1(3) inserts new subsection (1E) into Section 71 the 1982 Act to clarify that the Secretary of State can make regulations to exempt any form of flight-only arrangement from ATOL. As the noble Lord, Lord Rosser, said, most of the passengers in the Monarch situation were not covered by ATOL arrangements, but it inevitably leads one to reconsider the situation and what needs to be done—we will refer to this later on. The key question is whether it is desirable for flights-only to be covered by some kind of scheme of the ATOL type. That would inevitably mean an addition to the cost of flights. In the case of low-cost airlines, it would be a significant addition to the cost of a short-haul flight. In a situation of what I think the Minister will agree is brutal price competition, I suspect, although I do not know, that the airlines would not welcome any additional costs of this nature.

On Monday, the Minister emphasised the massive scale of the repatriation that the Government, via the CAA, have undertaken, and it has been a very effective way of dealing with the problem. However, Monarch was a small airline. It might have been, as the headlines said, the biggest repatriation since D-Day, but it was a small airline that went bust. When one combines the size and complexity of that situation with the issue of linked travel arrangements and the possible development of such a concept, we have to consider what sort of compensation should be available to people throughout the market. We are in a rapidly changing market and just because airlines seem to be in robust health at the moment, it does not mean, in the uncertain future we face, that this will necessarily continue in the decades ahead. I would welcome the Minister’s comments on what forms of compensation the Government are considering for those in situations where airlines go into liquidation, and by contrast what compensation should be considered for those who still stick to the old-style package holiday arrangements—if I can call them that.

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Baroness Randerson]

3: After Clause 1, insert the following new Clause—
“Potential impact of leaving the European Union on consumer protection under the ATOL scheme
(1) The Secretary of State must carry out an assessment of the potential impact that leaving the European Union will have on consumer protection in the United Kingdom under the Air Travel Organisers’ Licence scheme.(2) The Secretary of State must lay a report of the assessment before Parliament within the period of 12 months beginning with the day on which this Act is passed.”

[Baroness Randerson]

My Lords, Amendment 3 would insert a new clause to deal with the potential impact of leaving the EU on consumer protection under the ATOL scheme. It asks the Secretary of State to carry out an assessment and to lay a report before Parliament within 12 months of this Act passing. The key question is whether consumer rights and protection in this respect will be reduced on leaving the EU. The Minister made much of the fact that the UK was ahead of the game many years ago when it set up the ATOL scheme. He said that in some respects the rest of the EU was catching up with us with the 2015 EU package travel directive.

The Bill is designed to bring us in line with the rest of the EU—an organisation we are about to leave. It is obviously of considerable importance that we understand the potential impact of the various stages of the Brexit process. As I understand it, the Government are no longer suggesting that we can get everything sorted by March 2019, so I assume there will be a transition period. But we will not be members of the EU at that stage, according to statements made by several Ministers. Instead, we will be mirroring EU membership to a greater or lesser extent. Since so much of the legislative structure surrounding aviation and the relevant international agreements are not specifically part of EU membership—but we are nevertheless signed up as members of the EU—there seems to be a particular danger that the aviation sector will be at the sharp edge of decision-making. Certainly, the sector feels that it is important that it is at the leading edge of decision-making. There is uncertainty associated with that, of course.

If the worst happens—not the scenario I have just outlined but the worst—and we crash out of the EU without a deal, what will happen to the additional rights and safeguards conferred by the Bill? I expect that the Minister will say that they will remain as they will be enshrined in UK law. However, if we crash out without a deal, all bets are off. We will no longer be obliged to mirror EU consumer protections. Some Ministers have spoken in terms which suggest that the more bargain-basement approach to international trade might be the preferred option.

As marketing methods and IT develop, this is an increasingly complex area. Today’s discussion has already reflected that. The Monarch case illustrates that complexity, with only about 14% of people covered by ATOL. People can sit next to each other on the same plane and stay at the same hotel but be entitled to different compensation or no compensation, according to their method of payment. Did they pay for it as a package holiday—a single entity? Did they pay for it as separate parts? Did they pay by credit card or PayPal, in which case they would get protection? In some ways, I gather, this can be enhanced protection. If they paid by debit card, they would not get that protection—they would not get compensation. It is worth noting that there is often a superficial financial incentive to pay by debit card because many websites now charge for paying by credit card.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Callanan]

I start by saying that I fully endorse the purpose of the proposed new clause. In the coming years we will be embarking on major changes in our relationship with Europe, and it is very difficult to predict where the negotiations will end up. Therefore, it is important to begin by offering assurances that the Government would want UK consumers to continue to enjoy strong protections and an effective consumer regime, whether inside or outside the EU. I am sure that is something that all parts of the Committee can agree on. The UK has always been a leader when it comes to providing protection for holidaymakers. After all, as the noble Baroness said, we set up the ATOL scheme in UK legislation several years before the original package travel directive was agreed in Europe. That is a significant point. It means that the ATOL legislation is not dependent on the package travel directive. This Bill will harmonise ATOL with the package travel directive in the immediate term. However, the ATOL legislation and the protection will still exist and remain in place as we leave the EU.

Notwithstanding this, I fully understand why this amendment has been proposed in order that we consider the ongoing impact on consumer protection as we leave the European Union. However, this is catered for in the legal and policy framework already in place. There is already a legal duty on the Government to review under the Small Business, Enterprise and Employment Act 2015. This places an obligation on us to undertake a post-implementation review within five years of passing legislation.

Furthermore, we already have an independent review body in place to provide an ongoing review of the financial protection available for air travellers. The Air Travel Insolvency Protection Advisory Committee— or ATIPAC, the snappy acronym by which it is more commonly known—was set up by the Labour Government in 2000. Its purpose is to provide advice to the Civil Aviation Authority, the Air Travel Trust and the Secretary of State for Transport on policies that should be pursued to protect consumers. The committee consists of representatives of industry, consumers, the CAA and Trading Standards. This means that it is very well placed to provide an informed and independent view on policies. The committee already submits a substantial report to the Secretary of State every year, which is also published on the CAA and ATIPAC websites. This report should draw to the Secretary of State’s attention any concerns on which, in ATIPAC’s view, further action is necessary to maintain strong consumer protection. This includes advice on changes in the market and, where appropriate, their potential impact on consumers and the financial protection arrangements.

I am sure that the committee is already minded to keep a close eye on consumer protection, both before and after we leave the EU. In fact, my colleague the Minister of State for Transport in the other place, the right honourable John Hayes MP, has already asked the committee’s chair, John Cox, to consider this precise point in the ATIPAC 2017-18 annual report. These reports will be submitted to the Secretary of State within four months of the end of each financial year and will, as I said, be published on the CAA and ATIPAC websites at the same time.

I turn now to the specific questions posed by the noble Baroness, Lady Randerson. How do consumers know what is or is not a linked travel arrangement? The package travel directive specifies that businesses must inform the consumer whether or not they are purchasing an LTA before they make the purchase. Given the complications that I referred to in my previous answer, the way this will be done in practice will be considered in the consultation that we will publish later this year.

The noble Baroness also asked what will happen to this Bill if we leave the EU with no deal. ATOL will continue, as the amendment states, and this House will decide on any changes that are to be made, deal or no deal. The Government remain committed to strong consumer protection and will continue to be so after Brexit.

In the light of those answers, I hope the noble Baroness will withdraw her amendment.

[Baroness Randerson]

I thank the Minister for that answer. The Air Travel Insolvency Protection Advisory Committee—a name which does not trip off the tongue of everyone in the pub at the weekend—reports to the Secretary of State. Is that report published? Has that report ever been debated in Parliament? If it has, what is the process to enable a debate about the annual report from ATIPAC?

I am very pleased to hear that there will be consultation. Can the Minister assure us that when the regulations are eventually produced they will reflect the need not just to follow the letter of the law but to give clear and prominent information to consumers about what they are purchasing and that there will be a way of ensuring that people are made much more aware of the difference between using PayPal and credit cards on one side and debit cards on the other?

I fear that we all get used to clicking on terms and conditions. We gave up reading the small print many years ago because it is carefully designed to deter all but the most obsessive and leisurely person. We need some kind of widely recognised industry standard that is easily understandable to people who do not devote their lives to consumer protection issues so that they know the difference between one sort of package of measures they are buying and another. I wonder whether the Minister is able to give some reassurance on that.

[Lord Callanan]

I think I am able to provide the reassurance that the noble Baroness is looking for. ATIPAC reports are published on the CAA and ATIPAC websites, but if the noble Baroness would find it helpful I would be happy to place a copy in the Library of the House to make them more widely available. I am not sure that many people would want to read them, but I am happy to do that if the noble Baroness would find it useful. I am not aware that the report has ever been debated in this House or the other place, but time is made available for general debates and Opposition day debates and I am sure that through discussions among the usual channels time could probably be made available for a debate on the topic. I cannot give a commitment on behalf of the House authorities, but if the noble Baroness wishes for such a debate, I am sure her party leadership could pursue those discussions.

The noble Baroness made a very good point about information provision. Consumers need to be kept fully informed about the differences—whether it is a linked travel arrangement or a package that they are purchasing—and the relevant levels of protection that will apply. That is something that we want to explore in the consultation. As I said, the linked travel arrangement is a new concept, introduced by the directive. It is not entirely clear exactly what one would comprise at the moment. In the consultation that we will be issuing on the draft regulations, we will want to explore how consumers could be made aware of and kept informed about the difference in levels of protection. We are adding an additional level of complication into what is currently a relatively simple, well-understood scheme. The information provisions exist in the directive and we will be looking to implement those through secondary legislation in the public consultation that we will hold. I hope that answers the noble Baroness’s question.

[Baroness Randerson]

I thank the Minister for his answer. I am happy to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment 3 withdrawn.

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Baroness Randerson]

5: Clause 2, page 1, line 22, at end insert—
“(6A) Any amendments to the definition of “Air Travel Trust” in subsection (5) may not be laid before Parliament until the Secretary of State has published a full impact assessment and undertaken a consultation on the proposed amendments.”

[Baroness Randerson]

Amendment 5—it seems that Amendment 6 is very similar—addresses Clause 2, in which the Government are asking us to give them a power to set up a separate trust for linked travel arrangements. It is a very open-ended power which runs counter to the Government’s actions of the week before last. When Monarch failed, the Government decided, very sensibly, to organise repatriation for all customers of Monarch regardless of whether they had bought package holidays or simply a flight. In essence, the Government were setting aside the special status of package holiday customers, for which they had each paid £2.50. The Government’s action might have been sensible, but it rather undermines the Minister’s argument at Second Reading that it might not be appropriate for one group of more cautious customers to have to subsidise, perhaps indirectly, compensation for other customers who chose a more risky option.

The Monarch case has also illustrated the sheer size and impact of such a failure. The current ATOL trust struggled for some years with more calls on its funds than it could cope with, and it had to be subsidised by the Government. It has been in good health recently, but that history is there. Any fund like this succeeds because it agglomerates many small sums of money into one large total. If you start setting up several funds, you are disaggregating the total money available, and that undermines the principle.

The Minister has been absolutely clear by indicating that currently the Government have no intention of setting up a new trust fund but just want the power to do so if they choose to in the future. This is a dangerous principle which is increasingly creeping into government legislation whereby the Government are gathering up “just in case” powers, giving no clear indication of how they intend to use them. I would argue that they have to do better than that in order to justify including this power in the legislation. We need a more detailed justification, a consultation and an impact assessment before this additional wide power can be considered acceptable. We oppose the power in principle as well as being concerned about the practical impact if it is used. I beg to move.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Callanan]

As we said in the Statement, we will be looking at the feasibility of extending the ATOL scheme. I referred earlier to some of the difficulties involved in that. We have also said that we will look at the insolvency regime, but that does not necessarily provide an easy answer. We are looking at the circumstances. We are still in the middle of the repatriation operation, but we will look at the circumstances and see whether there is anything we can do that would obviate the need for government to step in in future.

I have given reasons why these amendments are unnecessary, along with assurances, particularly with regard to full consultation and providing impact assessments. The Government have a good record in this area, which I have already outlined. We have consulted on these and all previous changes and have produced impact assessments, so I hope that the noble Baroness will withdraw her amendment and the noble Lord, Lord Rosser, will not move his amendment.

[Baroness Randerson]

I thank the Minister for his detailed answer. I entirely understand that the Monarch situation was unusual, but every situation is in its way unique. I appreciate the dilemma the Government found themselves in. I was simply exploring the basic principles on which the compensation system is based. I will read the record carefully, but I am still to be fully convinced by the Minister’s response in relation to the need for additional trust funds. If he is able to give us any further information about the Government’s plans in relation to that, not this afternoon, but in writing, it would be helpful.

I am grateful for the Minister’s confirmation that there will be an impact assessment, but I wonder whether he can confirm now in one or two words what he means when he says that the Government will shortly launch a consultation on detailed regulations associated with this Bill. What does “shortly” mean?

[Lord Callanan]

I cannot say it in two words, but would “before the end of the year” help clarify what I mean?

[Baroness Randerson]

That is very helpful. As ever, the House of Lords has been able to deal with this important issue with more brevity than the House of Commons, and I am happy to beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment 5 withdrawn.

Monarch Airlines

Baroness Randerson Excerpts

Monday 9th October 2017 Lords Chamber

[Lord Rosser (Lab)]

I thank the Minister for repeating the Statement made earlier in the Commons by the Secretary of State. I also appreciate that the Minister has himself been directly involved in these issues as the Aviation Minister.

The demise of Monarch Airlines has caused a great many problems and much distress for both passengers and certainly some 2,000 staff who have lost their jobs. Could the Minister say how many Monarch staff have so far either found alternative employment or, perhaps more realistically at this stage, been offered alternative employment?

The government Statement said that the CAA had essentially set up one of the UK’s largest airlines to conduct this operation. I agree that this is a very good example of how a state-run enterprise can deliver effectively and efficiently. Those involved in bringing home Monarch customers left stranded by its demise are to be congratulated, not least the staff of the Civil Aviation Authority. There are, though, a few questions I would like to raise.

First, how long before the demise of Monarch Airlines did the CAA start to organise aircraft to bring stranded passengers home, since concerns have been expressed about the reality that Monarch Airlines was still selling flights a few hours before it ceased trading? If the CAA knew that Monarch Airlines was on the verge of failing, and it must have done otherwise there would not have been the issue over renewing the licence, why did it not warn the public of the potential adverse consequences of continuing to purchase Monarch flights? Is this part of a general issue that the Government are looking at in the light of the comment in the penultimate paragraph of the Statement that they intend to look at all the options for ensuring that passengers do not find themselves in this situation again?

Secondly, the organisation that took over Monarch in 2014, Greybull Capital, a private investment firm, frankly has form when it comes to the collapse of companies—My Local convenience stores and Comet, for example. Bearing in mind that the taxpayer is having to pick up at least part of the price tag of Monarch’s failure, do the Government intend to consider what role they should play in future when companies are being taken over in situations where the taxpayer is likely to have to pick up a not insignificant part of the bill if the company that has been taken over then fails?

Thirdly, I understand that KPMG was appointed to seek buyers for Monarch’s short-haul business prior to the airline’s collapse, and was actively doing so. If that is correct, is it also correct that KPMG is now acting as Monarch’s administrator, and, if so, does that not raise questions about at least potential conflicts of interest?

Fourthly, I understand that that there was a report in yesterday’s Sunday Times suggesting that the £165 million rescue package to Monarch last year was largely funded by Boeing as part of a cut-price deal for an order for aircraft. Is that suggestion correct or incorrect? It has also been claimed that Monarch had £50 million in the bank. Is that correct and, if so, who will get that money, and indeed the money from the value of Monarch’s landing slots, claimed to be £60 million?

Fifthly, the Statement says that the Government are currently engaged in discussions with the relevant credit and debit card providers with a view to recouping from them some of the cost to taxpayers of what the Government describe as repatriation flights. What is the current cost to taxpayers of these flights? What is the likely final cost before any money is recouped? What is the legal position of credit and debit card providers, and indeed the other travel providers with which the Government have said they are in discussions, when it comes to paying the cost of those government repatriation flights?

Sixthly, and finally, the government Statement says that the CAA’s responsibility for bringing passengers back extends only to customers whose trips are covered by ATOL, but that the Government instructed the CAA to ensure that all those currently abroad were offered an alternative flight home, although I understand this does not apply to those returning after next Sunday. Perhaps the Government could say if, and if so why, this latter point is the situation. In the light of the penultimate paragraph of the Government’s Statement, which referred to looking at the options and trying to prevent passengers being, to put it mildly, inconvenienced in this way again, there appear to be issues about the Government’s future intentions, to be pursued perhaps more appropriately during the Committee stage of the ATOL Bill on Wednesday.

[Baroness Randerson (LD)]

My Lords, I start by thanking the Minister for repeating the Statement and for having provided the opportunity to talk to him about this issue following the failure of Monarch.

Clearly, this is a massive task and our thanks must go to those who are engaged in bringing people back to Britain. This is probably the first failure of a major UK company that can be directly ascribed to the impact of the falling pound caused by the Brexit vote. I fear that it will not be the last such failure and that the Government will have to intervene to alleviate the impact of Brexit-induced failure on numerous occasions in the future.

It is true that other factors, such as increased costs of security, were involved in this situation, but the falling value of the pound increased the costs of fuel, handling charges and lease payments in a way that proved fatal for this company. So, despite a 14% growth in the number of passengers travelling with Monarch, the company was not viable any more and nearly 1,900 Monarch employees have lost their jobs. Our sympathy must go to those who have been made redundant. It also needs to go to those customers who experienced distress and will face considerable financial loss, as many are not covered by the ATOL scheme.

My questions to the Minister are as follows. First, rumours about the financial instability of Monarch had been swirling around for weeks, yet it continued trading. I received an email a couple of days before the company collapsed tempting me to buy one of hundreds of thousands of holidays on offer. Why was the company allowed to continue not just to provide holidays to those who had already booked but to entice new customers at a time of such instability?

Secondly, it appears to have been revealed that credit card firms withheld from the airline an estimated £30 million from ticket sales because they feared that it would go under. Is the Minister satisfied that this practice was legal and that it did not contribute to tipping Monarch over the edge? Do the Government intend to investigate this situation and to ensure that in future cases of a similar nature there is no knock-on effect from action of this sort by credit card companies?

Thirdly, what percentage of customers are not covered by the ATOL scheme? I appreciate that the Minister may not be able to give us a precise figure at this stage but some indication would be helpful. In what respect will the ATOL Bill, which is before this House at the moment and will be discussed in Grand Committee on Wednesday, improve the situation in the future? Will he undertake to re-examine that Bill in the light of these events to see whether more could or should be done to protect customers buying flights as part of a holiday in the new online arrangements that the vast majority of us now participate in?

Finally, how much will the repatriation cost? How far do the Government believe that they will be able to recover that cost and what steps will they take to do so?

This collapse of a company nearly 50 years old and the sheer number of customers involved emphasises how much we travel abroad these days and how important it is that the Government grapple urgently with the challenges that the transport industry faces in relation to many aspects of Brexit.

[Lord Callanan]

My Lords, let me first thank the noble Lord, Lord Rosser, and the noble Baroness, Lady Randerson, for their complimentary statements about the Civil Aviation Authority, with which I completely concur. It has done a fantastic job in very difficult circumstances, and—if I can perhaps concede something to the Labour Party—it demonstrates that the Government can organise things relatively well, sometimes, although I continue to believe that the airline industry is best carried out in the private sector.

The noble Lord, Lord Rosser, asked what percentage of staff have found alternative employment. I am afraid that I do not know that yet. It was only last Monday that this unfortunate collapse occurred, but as soon as we have some available figures I will be sure to share them with him.

How long in advance were we aware? Clearly, we had advance information that this was a possibility—indeed, it nearly happened a year ago—and contingency arrangements were put in place. It is right and proper that, when we received information a few days in advance that this was a possibility, we of course put in place contingency arrangements. I am sure that noble Lords would have been on their feet criticising me if we had not done that.

It is the case that flights were sold a few hours before the collapse, but the situation is very difficult for any airline because as soon as they stop selling flights, they will automatically collapse. Why did the CAA not inform passengers, or indeed the Department for Transport? The same argument applies. If we came out and made a statement, the one thing that that would guarantee is that the airline would then collapse. Rumours of the health of this airline have been around for a long time, as the noble Baroness, Lady Randerson, indicated. The CAA works closely with airlines and, for those that are UK based, issues them operating and ATOL licences. Part of those checks involves studying the airline’s financial health and the airline would not have received the licence 12 months ago if the CAA was not satisfied that it was in robust health. I am told that, at the time, there was a long period during which the licence was extended temporarily until further financing was received.

I am afraid that I cannot comment on the role of KPMG. It is the court-appointed administrator and will fulfil its statutory duties, part of which is to report to government within three months on the actions of the directors of the business. The noble Lord can be assured that we will take robust action if any malfeasance is proved.

In response to questions on the Boeing bailout or financing last year, I am aware of the press reports. However, as to where the money in the bank goes, there is a set process under the administration Act for how that money is allocated.

The value of the slots is an extremely complicated legal conundrum that many lawyers are currently grappling with. It is not clear at all whether it will be able to sell the slots, because the slots have to be owned by a viable licensed airline before they can be sold. Intense legal discussion is going on about whether the value of those slots can be realised. That is a matter for the CAA, the slots administrator and the administrators of the company to work out between them.

The legal position with regard to credit cards is regulated under the Consumer Credit Act, and for anybody who paid with a credit card, the credit card company is liable for the refund of their flight home and any incidental costs incurred. Similarly, with debit cards there is a charge-back arrangement. It does not provide quite the same protection as under the Consumer Credit Act but, nevertheless, customers and passengers are still protected.

Of those returning after next Sunday, we estimate that only about 5% of passengers will remain abroad. There will then be plenty of capacity in the commercial market. The reason we felt the need to step in on this occasion—as indeed the last Labour Government did in the case of XL Airways in 2008—is that there just was not enough capacity available in the commercial market to repatriate so many people. Even if you had had the money, travel insurance and ATOL protection, you would not have been able to purchase a commercial flight in the market—the capacity was just not there—and therefore people would have been stranded abroad.

Moving on to the questions from the noble Baroness, Lady Randerson, I am afraid that I just do not agree that this was the impact of Brexit. I know that she wants to attribute everything that goes wrong at the moment to Brexit, but on this occasion she is just wrong. Monarch Airlines was carrying 14% more passengers this year than last year. The issue is that because of intense competition, particularly on the Mediterranean routes, prices dropped to such a level that the airline was not able to make money on them. Nevertheless, other airlines are making substantial profits—they have been announced in recent weeks—and they are doing well. There is competition in the market. Some routes, such as Sharm el-Sheikh and Tunisia, have had to be dropped for understandable security reasons. That has concentrated all of the market in the eastern Mediterranean. Many other airlines are setting up other routes and businesses as we speak in airports across the country in order to serve those markets. If noble Lords look on those websites they will see just how cheaply tickets are available. This was because of competition in the market. Of course, the value of the pound dropping also played a small role, but that applied to all the other airlines as well.

With regard to the rumours that were circulating, I have studied them in great detail. There were a lot of rumours in the media beforehand but, again, as a responsible Government we cannot comment on the financial health of companies; we can only act on definite information and decisions when they are made. I assure the noble Baroness that we will look at the implications of this, and I am sure that there will be studies from this House’s committees and possibly committees in the other place to look at all of the circumstances. We will take any appropriate action that falls from that. I can give the noble Baroness an estimate of the number covered by at ATOL. We estimate that, roughly, 10% to 15% will be covered by ATOL protection.

The noble Baroness asked about the ATOL Bill. Actually, the Bill would have had very little effect on this. Most of the people were flying as normal airline passengers under normal airline conditions and the ATOL Bill would not affect them. A very small proportion—10% to 15%—are covered by the existing ATOL provisions, but even with the extension to other operations that we are currently discussing in the ATOL Bill, I do not believe that many of the Monarch passengers would have been affected if that Bill had been in effect.

The noble Baroness asked about the costs. We estimate that the total cost will be roughly £60 million. We will get the final bills when the operation has finished. I can confirm that the Secretary of State and I are in active discussions with the credit and debit card companies and with the travel agents to attempt to secure as much of those funds for the taxpayer as possible. When I have more precise financial information, I will update the House.

Roads: Congestion

Baroness Randerson Excerpts

Tuesday 5th September 2017 Lords Chamber

[Lord Callanan]

As the noble Lord is aware, we are undertaking the largest programme of investment in railways since the Victorian era, so I am proud of our record of improving the railways. Of course, there is always more to be done, but we are having a pretty good stab at it so far.

[Baroness Randerson (LD)]

My Lords, increased congestion has led to a halving of average city traffic speeds. That in turn means increased emissions and a reduction in the efficiency of bus services, which leads to a decline in the number of passengers travelling on them. Will the Minister outline what the Government are doing to assist bus services and to ensure that people are encouraged and enabled to use them?

[Lord Callanan]

The noble Baroness makes an important point. Again, we are investing enormously in expanding the bus network. Many local authorities are dedicating sections of the highway to bus-only networks, funded by grants from the Department for Transport. The bus network is improving massively in many of our great cities and rural areas, and we should be proud of that.

Air Travel Organisers’ Licensing Bill

Baroness Randerson Excerpts

2nd reading (Hansard): House of Lords
Tuesday 5th September 2017 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Randerson (LD)]

My Lords, this Bill is uncontroversial in its principles and most of its details. I express my gratitude to the Minister for the briefing that he provided earlier today, which was very helpful.

This is the sort of Bill that in normal political times would pass through this place very swiftly indeed. However, we are not, of course, in normal political times and I fear that the Government are keen to distract us from the big issue with something on which we can all agree. I think that we will agree across party that this is a worthwhile, useful and important updating of current legislation. Any controversy associated with the Bill lies in what it does not contain as these measures started life as part of the Vehicle Technology and Aviation Bill. I regret that this Bill is now so narrow in scope that we cannot talk about other important aspects associated with transport and aviation such as the danger posed by drones and lasers, which we could have talked about under the other Bill. After all, we have few enough opportunities to discuss transport issues in this House.

We should, of course, also discuss the impact of Brexit on our aviation industry, but this Bill does not provide that opportunity in full either. It is rather ironic that the first piece of legislation discussed in the other place following the general election was this Bill, which is designed to improve our links with the rest of the EU and the single market. This Bill makes it easier for UK holiday companies to attract customers living in other EU countries by allowing companies to operate within UK law rather than have to adopt 28 different sets of regulations. The Government’s intention to leave the single market means therefore that a great chunk of this legislation will probably become irrelevant within two years and life will again become difficult for travel companies wanting to trade with the rest of Europe. Package holiday companies face a period of intense uncertainty. What regulations will they have to follow after 2018 when operating abroad? We must remember that this is an industry which, by its nature, plans and books seats and accommodation years in advance. Indeed, many customers book their holidays at least one year in advance, and sometimes two, so the operators have to plan even further in advance. They need to know now what will happen in 2019; yet here we are, well over a year on from the referendum, and the Government are still arguing about the rules of the game, having wasted months on an unnecessary general election and now on internal squabbles.

In fact, this modest little Bill is a parable for the Government’s, and our country’s, problems with Brexit. The Bill updates the rules on compensation for consumers originally set down, as the Minister said, in the Civil Aviation Act 1982. It is needed because the world has changed since 1982. Vastly more of us travel abroad— 20 million holidaymakers per year are protected by ATOL. Most people no longer go into a travel agent, with more than 80% of us buying online. We travel across borders from one country to another almost without noticing—indeed, if you are travelling between the Schengen zone countries there is effectively no border to notice. We buy packages of travel much more flexibly, mixing and matching to suit ourselves. All of this reflects modern life, and any attempt to put the clock back will cause serious dislocation to the travel industry and serious inconvenience to the travelling public. But that is, in fact, what the Government intend to try to do. A decision to leave the single market and to go for hard Brexit means that we are trying to recreate the Britain of yesteryear, trying to reimpose those hard borders and the much more difficult decisions that we had to make in those days.

On the detail of the Bill, the Government rightly wish to ensure that we remain compliant with the updated EU package travel directive. We welcome the mutual recognition incorporated in Clause 1 which extends the scope of ATOL to provide protection to customers in the EEA who have bought package holidays from UK companies. This simplifies regulations for UK businesses and will make it easier for them to gain customers abroad, a fundamental principle of the single market.

Clause 2 allows the Government to create different protection schemes for different types of package holidays, to either extend ATOL or create a new scheme for customers purchasing linked travel arrangements. LTAs simply did not exist in 1982; they are essentially a creation of the internet. We welcome the principle that LTAs will be covered, but we question whether a separate scheme is needed; we fear that it could provide inferior rights and compensation than those provided to purchasers of full packages. We will be exploring this point in Committee.

The travel industry does not seem convinced that a separate scheme is needed, and the Government are hazy about what it should encompass or, indeed, whether it is needed. The Bill simply gives the Government the power to create the scheme, and I want a bit more certainty about this. I am reluctant to give the Government any more powers to do anything of this nature because of the mess they have made of so many of the powers they already have. I fear that a second protection scheme will simply encourage companies to restructure their offer to take the most advantageous position for them. I would welcome assurances from the Minister that the Government have given serious consideration to that point so that companies will not be enabled to play the market in that way to the disadvantage of consumers. After all, consumers do not necessarily know whether they are buying a full package or a linked travel arrangement. People do not speak in those terms when they discuss their summer holidays.

The power of a trust fund lies in the accumulated total which comes from many small individual receipts—in this case, £2.50 per traveller. I fear that it could be undermined if the concept is splintered, as the Government think they might decide to do. I am sure that the Minister will confirm that there have been times in the past when the existing ATOL scheme has been under financial pressure. I fear that splintering it into two different funds could intensify pressure.

By modernising the system and harmonising our rules with the rest of the EU, the Bill will help our aviation sector to flourish. We have the third largest aviation sector in the world and the largest in Europe. After all, 49% of passengers from the UK head to the EU, as do 54% of scheduled flights. Our tourism industry supports half a million jobs, and aviation is in a unique position legally. EU rules mean that any EU airline can operate freely within and between EU countries—a point I have previously raised here on several occasions. The EU has also negotiated other agreements across the world, of which we are part by virtue of our EU membership. The Government need to develop a sense of urgency about all this. The current aviation agreements need replacing before we leave the EU, otherwise, as Michael O’Leary said recently, our aviation industry will simply be grounded. If that happens, of course not only our holidays will be messed up. Hundreds of thousands of tourism and aviation jobs will be at risk, and it will fundamentally undermine our whole trade sector, because 40% of our trade goes by air.

Therefore, the Bill is an important step forward for consumers, as well as for the holiday industry—although people also get linked travel arrangements for business purposes. However, it is only one part of the massive jigsaw the Government face to keep our aviation sector flying and flourishing in the future.

Transport: Remote Island Communities in England

Baroness Randerson Excerpts

Thursday 20th July 2017 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Randerson (LD)]

My Lords, in case anyone thinks I have popped up at the wrong point in the debate, the list of speakers is in the wrong order. For a moment, I thought the Liberal Democrat group had been promoted in our proceedings, but it was an error. I thank the noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, for bringing the excellent topic of this debate to our attention.

I am conscious we are all sitting here vaguely thinking about our summer holidays with some sense of anticipation, so I want to tell the House about my summer holiday last year—do not worry, I am not going to pass around the holiday snaps. Late last summer, I spent a wonderful, magical holiday on the Scilly Isles—on this occasion, on Tresco. I do not pretend to have the depth of knowledge of the noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, but I have visited the Scillies on several occasions. My links go back not to 1747 but to 1970. Over the years, I have travelled there on the famous “Scillonian”, which has been mentioned so much today. I attest to the fact that it requires a very strong stomach because the journey lasts for nearly three hours. When I went on the “Scillonian”, there was a joke going around the passengers that the new captain of the ship, who had sailed the world over, had been sea-sick when he first took over the “Scillonian”, which tells you about the sort of voyage you have, even on a fairly calm day.

Many noble Lords have mentioned that the “Scillonian” operates only for seven months of the year. It is the cheapest option for getting to the islands but is, nevertheless, very expensive, especially compared with, for example, the ferries to the Scottish islands. In the past I went to the Scillies by helicopter—and I regretted very much when it ceased to operate—but last year I went from Land’s End by fixed-wing plane. Rather predictably, the flight was delayed due to fog, so I had the interesting experience of observing them trying to catch up once it had cleared. It is a very difficult process because the plane is so small. There is not much capacity for cramming in additional passengers.

During my holiday, I experienced a potentially serious problem with my eyes and required to see an optometrist urgently. Some people may be surprised to hear that there is no optometrist on the islands and so I had to go to the mainland. To me, that is the definition of a lifeline service. It puts into perspective the points we have heard today about the importance of transport links. Of course, I was a tourist and for me it was a minor inconvenience, but put yourself in the position of a resident of the Scillies in the middle of winter and you immediately face immense issues of time and cost.

As has already been said, the Scillies have a lower GVA per head than even Cornwall. Cornwall is one of the poorest areas of the EU in that it has been designated as being below 75% of the EU average. The Scillies’ GVA is 80% of that of Cornwall as a whole. They also rely greatly on tourism, and tourism relies on reasonable costs. I talked to a large number of people whose reaction to my holiday on the Scillies was, “I’d love to go, but it is so expensive”. For residents, the issue is frequency and cost, especially in the winter months.

I was very pleased when the noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, possibly rather predictably, mentioned freight. It is very easy to spend our time talking about passengers, when actually freight is of equal importance because the complexities of getting it to the islands adds considerably to the living costs of local people. Drawing on the previous speaker’s theme, there is a need to improve the ports at both St Mary’s and Penzance in order to make the islands more accessible.

The way in which the Scillies are treated compared with the Scottish islands—regarding frequency of service, the cost and all-year-round availability—is very stark. The Scottish islands benefit from public service obligation-supported flights. They benefit from the special islands need allowance and additional funding based on sparsity and lower GVA per head. It is important to recognise that the Scillies are in a vicious circle. The issues tend to deter the number of tourists that the islands would wish to accommodate, and there is hence a knock-on effect on the prosperity of the islanders as a whole. It also deters people from remaining as long-term residents. Those who can move away often do and cite cost of living and difficulty of access as key issues.

The crux of the problem, as has been said across the House today, is that ferry services to the islands operate on a commercial basis, unlike in Scotland—indeed, unlike for many other remote islands in Europe. Reduced winter fares for the Skybus service are useful but totally inadequate compensation to local residents because the weather so often interrupts the service.

Why is there no air service to the island that benefits from a public service obligation? There are 22 air services in the UK that benefit from PSO designation. They have enjoyed that definition as a lifeline service. All but three of those 22 services involve Scotland at least at one end of the journey. It is important that we have a clear answer to why it is reasonable to designate as a PSO service the Cardiff to Anglesey route or the Dundee to Stansted route but not, let us say, Newquay to St Mary’s or perhaps Land’s End to St Mary’s. Why is it not possible to do that?

The attempts to delay the reintroduction of the helicopter service, highlighted by several speakers today, reveal the true situation of the ferry service—it is an attempt to maintain an effective monopoly. Ferry services to the island are not a true competitive market by any economic analysis. Obviously another operator could enter the market, but the fact that no one has tried is a sure sign of the difficulties they would face. The noble Lord outlined the highly specialised nature of the “Scillonian”, the flat-bottomed boat. The huge cost of replacing the current “Scillonian”—the “Scillonian III” —is another factor that has to be addressed, I believe, by the Government. We cannot allow the residents of the Scillies in the 21st century to be cast adrift like this. Many people describe the Scillies as like going back into the 1950s. That is part of their charm, but there is absolutely no reason why their residents should have to endure a 1950s standard of living.

The Government need to accept that the 2,000 residents of the Isles of Scilly deserve better. There is not a fully competitive market for transport to the Scilly Isles. I ask myself continually why is it that, if you live in central London, it is acceptable for a great deal of public money to be used to subsidise transport. The reason often given is, in part, that it supports a very lucrative tourism industry. Why is it possible to subsidise transport for Londoners but not for people who live on the Scilly Isles? Why is it not possible to look at this in the round from the point of view of the importance of the tourism industry to the Isles of Scilly? The Government need to examine their current approach. It is unfair, short-sighted and, I believe, economically and socially self-defeating.