Civil Aviation Bill

Debate between Lord Clinton-Davis and Lord Soley

Wednesday 27th June 2012 Grand Committee

[Lord Clinton-Davis]

I am in entire agreement with what my noble friend said. The impression that might be given is that the unions involved in aviation and aviation interests are unmindful of the environmental situation. A great deal of work has been done on environmental progress, as I well know, having served as president of BALPA for 29 years. I recall meetings of BALPA over the years, and this issue predominates in its influence on events. I know that a great deal of work has been done by aircraft manufacturers, who are not unmindful of their ill effects on the environment and take them into account. The next generation of aircraft will improve the effects of aviation on the environment in future—and so it will go on. This ought to be taken into account in the amendments being moved.

It is right that some emphasis should be given to the work being done on the environment and that it should be included in the legislation. What I can say without any possibility of contradiction is that the use of the word “environment” is not simply a byplay on words but the sign of a real concern, which has been expressed by British Airways, in particular, but also by other aviation interests. It would not be sensible for any aviation interest, whether the companies concerned or the trade unions, to suggest that they are not mindful of the ill effects of aviation on the environment. They are, and it figures very largely in what they have to say on this issue.

[Lord Soley]

I am also sympathetic to these amendments. If I was asked to choose one particular amendment, it would be Amendment 6, because it links up the key organisations, the National Air Traffic Services, the Committee on Climate Change and the department. It is better if we pinpoint what we want the CAA to do and whom it should work with on this, so that we get an overall approach. I support what my noble friends Lady Worthington and Lord Clinton-Davis said; he has great and long experience in this regard.

The reality is that if you had asked the aviation industry 10 or 15 years ago, it would not have taken climate change anywhere near as seriously as it should have done. But it has woken up, and woken up fast. Because the aerospace industry is such an important scientific and technological driver, it has begun to leap ahead. So you now find, as the Minister will know from our several conversations when I have provided him with information on alternative fuels, most notably algae, that it and other drop-in fuels are actually good for the environment. There is real movement there. The new design of aircraft has made them much quieter and more powerful, so you get the A380, which requires a runway that is half the length of that required by the old 747, even though it was much smaller. It is quieter because it is quieter anyway and its fuel efficiency is particularly good. The effect of the emphasis by the aviation industry on improving has been great, and the airport operators have emphasised it too. I think I mentioned at Second Reading that when I spoke at the Airport Operators Association conference in about 2004, very few of them saw trying to reduce emissions from ground operations as a high priority. They now do, and they give it enormous importance. Look at what has been done at Heathrow with electric vehicles. They are all making efforts. However, I always put a cautionary note here because when we talk about electric propulsion, whether for trains, cars or any other operations, we have to remember that electricity in this country is predominantly produced from coal, oil and gas with some nuclear, so it is not as clean as we sometimes like to pretend it is.

Nor are we as good on noise. At Second Reading I mentioned the noise of the trains that went through my former constituency at 100 miles an hour, barely 50 or 100 feet from people’s front and back doors. That went on throughout the night 365 days a year. I have lived next to such railway lines, I have lived under the Heathrow flight path for over 30 years and I have lived by major roads in Glasgow, so I have experience of all of them. In many respects, aviation noise is a bit easier if it is reduced from time to time by runways and flights being switched.

Going back to the comment by my noble friend Lady Worthington on the emissions problem, some of the predictions that have been made about aviation in 50 years’ time are wildly wrong because they are based on the assumption that there will be no scientific development. If you take the scientific development that has been achieved now, leaving aside fuels and just looking at efficiency, you will get nowhere near the figures predicated in the horror scenarios. I say this as someone who has been worried about climate change for years—I wrote my first article on it in the early 1980s—but I have also seen how the green movement got things badly wrong on Brent Spar. It ignored the scientific advice on that and on nuclear power, which I saw as essential to get us out of the hole we were in.

I do not want to turn this into a long debate on the environment, but I want to say, as my noble friends Lady Worthington and Lord Clinton-Davis have said, that if we give the CAA a duty to work with NATS, the department and the Committee on Climate Change we are getting quite a good link-up. We all know about the problem of air traffic control centres in Europe— I mentioned this at Second Reading, so I shall not speak about it at great length—but we have 10 times more than North America for a similar amount of airspace. There is a great fight in Europe about who has to close an air traffic control centre. Believe it or not, no country wants to close one, so we end up flying in doglegs across Europe, which increases fuel use. There is some very encouraging work being done on this, but it would be useful to have in the Bill a requirement to work with the organisations, especially that contained in Amendment 6, which is the amendment I prefer on this.

Parliamentary Voting System and Constituencies Bill

Debate between Lord Clinton-Davis and Lord Soley

Monday 17th January 2011 Lords Chamber

[Lord Soley]

I am afraid that the only answer—this is the core of the problem that is making us do things such as debate this late at night when we could be doing other things with our lives—is, quite simply, that there is a political agreement between two parties, the Liberal Democrats and the Conservatives, to do this regardless of the consequences or of the Opposition. That is what they are doing.

I accept that the wording of my amendment is not perfect and that the Government would have to take it away and work on it, but there is no doubt in my mind that they could appoint an independent commission to look at this and come forward with some guidance on the basic issue of the numbers.

[Lord Clinton-Davis]

What is highly relevant is that this commission would be able to examine the evidence behind what my noble friend is proposing. Is that not very important?

[Lord Soley]

It is very important and it would also allow the commission to look at what is, for me, a critical point: the principle of a Government deciding the size of Parliament without the agreement of the parties within it. That is what is so dangerous and undesirable about this proposal.

I want to extend my comments a little on the implications of the payroll vote. As I said earlier when I referred to pulling a thread on a jumper, the trouble is that when you pull at the thread of the number of parliamentarians and change it, you change other things as well. If you reduce the number, you inevitably change the power of the House to challenge the Executive. You also inevitably, as Professor King points out, reduce the pool of people from which Ministers can be drawn. However, it is possible to provide answers to those problems, although this is why I say that reducing the number is not a nice, simple option. It is perfectly possible to say that we will reduce the payroll vote in the House of Commons. You could, if there were agreement, then increase the number of Peers in the House of Lords or you could take a really radical step and increase the number of Ministers who are drawn from outside Parliament but who have to be called before Parliament. You could pursue all sorts of very radical proposals if that was what you wanted to do. The Liberal Democrats have occasionally said that they want to do things such as that. They have said that they want Ministers from outside this place who can be called in and cross-examined on the way in which they run their departments. All those things are possible, but what is not possible—

Parliamentary Voting System and Constituencies Bill

Debate between Lord Clinton-Davis and Lord Soley

Monday 17th January 2011 Lords Chamber

[Lord Soley]

When I come to the next amendment, Amendment 59, I want to focus on how we decide the size of Parliament, which I think is a critical issue—more important than the numbers. One of the strands running through the debate is the question, “Why 600?”. The Government have not answered that, although they have a duty to do so.

I start from a position similar to that of my noble friend Lord Wills. I have argued before that there is a case for reducing the size of the House of Commons. The noble Lord, Lord Maples, expressed a similar view. Although I do not agree with all that the noble Lord said, there is a case for it. I seem to remember the noble Lord, Lord Baker, arguing the same thing when we were both in the House of Commons. No doubt he will correct me at some stage if I am wrong, as I may be on this, but I think that he argued at the time that the size ought to be agreed by all parties concerned. That is one of the important principles that we will come to.

The issue of the figure of 600 puzzled me, and I began to look at the background to this. The issue is not new; there has been a debate about the size of Parliament for years, as people have mentioned, but it became more intense in the early part of this century. One of the people who put it in perspective was the Conservative MP, Andrew Tyrie, who in 2004 wrote the Conservative Mainstream document called Pruning the Politicians. After the expenses scandal the phrase became “culling the politicians”, which says a lot about the strength of feeling on the issue. It bubbled away along the lines of the arguments in that document. In an article in the Independent in March 2008, Nick Clegg, the Deputy Prime Minister, argued that we should cut the figure by 150.

Andrew Tyrie’s document is well argued. I do not agree with a lot of the statistics in it, where I think he has left things out about the nature of how other countries represent people within their borders, but he makes a good case for reducing the size of Parliament. However, he does two things that are very important, and I hope we will cover them more fully in the following debate on my Amendment 59. First, while he does not say that there should be all-party agreement, he says that the changes should be agreed with the Labour Party; I would change that to “agreed with all parties”. Secondly, he says that if you reduce the size of Parliament, you must reduce the size of the payroll vote as well. That is very important but is not dealt with in the Bill.

My problem with the numbers issue is that, whatever number you choose, whether it is 600, 650, 550 or whatever, it is like pulling on a loose cord on a jumper—if you pull too hard, you suddenly find that you are wearing only the sleeves. The problem is that the number in your Parliament affects a whole range of other things in your constitution. That is why this issue is so important and is a constitutional matter, and it is why I would have liked the Government to have accepted the amendment of my noble friend Lord Wills, which was drawn up by someone who had the experience and knowledge of Government to do just that.

[Lord Clinton-Davis]

My objection to the present proposal is the evidence that the Government are relying on for the figure of 600; indeed, some people are suggesting a figure in excess of that. Should that not be tested by evidence? Is there not a clear case for an inquiry into this issue?

[Lord Soley]

I think that my noble friend is anticipating the debate on the next amendment, which stands in my name. A lot of the debate within the Conservative Party arises from the document written by Andrew Tyrie. It is a good document and worth reading, but the interesting point for me is that he argued that the number of MPs should be reduced by 120—that is, by 20 per cent—and that that reduction should be carried out over 10 years in two five-year periods. That is where the figure of 60 comes from—it was going to be the amount of the reduction in the first five years. I forget which noble Lord intervened to question whether this was a matter for the House of Lords, but one reason why it is a matter for the Lords is that there is a clear statement in Mr Tyrie’s document that the redundant MPs, as I think they were described, could be sent to the House of Lords. Of course, when you reduce the number of MPs, you have a big fight over who inherits the constituency and what the constituency boundaries are. The suggestion was that those who did not succeed in retaining a seat should be considered for a peerage. Therefore, there is some background to this matter.

The interesting point is that that figure of 120 was quoted quite frequently. I do not know where Nick Clegg got 150 from—he seems to have plucked it out of the air. However, the thing that troubles me most, and the reason why the number is important, as well as the way in which we decide these things—a matter that we shall come to when we deal with the next amendment—is that the figure of 60, mentioned in this document and in subsequent speeches by David Cameron when he was the leader of the Opposition, relates to the advantage to the Conservative Party in terms of winning more seats. It was not put like that directly. It was said that there was unfair representation and that the Labour Party had too many seats. The other reason given was finance.

However, for the moment let us focus on the fact that Andrew Tyrie based his conclusion on the number of electors in an area. He argued that a vote in one area was not worth as much as a vote in, say, a Labour constituency because of the number of electors in the constituency. However, as has been pointed out in many previous debates on this matter, everything hinges on voter registration and the socioeconomic factor of turnout. Those things matter, but the problem is that Andrew Tyrie does not take them into account. The Committee may be pleased to know that I am not going to go into great detail about MPs’ constituency work but, as we know, there is a difference in a constituency where, regardless of who represents it, registration is much lower. In many cases, the MP will be representing people who are not on the register.

Perhaps I may refer briefly to my own experience of this matter. Very few research projects have been carried out on MPs’ constituencies. One such project was carried out on my constituency over a period of a year and it threw up two things that are relevant to this debate. One was that an awful lot of people would say, “I supported you”, but, when you looked at the electoral register, they were not on it. In other words, what they really meant was, “I supported Labour”, or, if it was a Conservative MP, they would have said that they supported the Conservatives. However, that did not necessarily mean that they voted, because often they were not on the register. At times, that situation applied to 50 per cent of the people who turned up at my advice surgeries.

Another thing troubled me, and this is why I think that there is a case for looking at how MPs do their job and the numbers involved. Whenever anyone came with a council problem—my noble friend Lord Martin referred to this—we asked why they had not gone to see to their elected councillor first. Almost invariably, the answer was, “I thought I’d go to the top”. In other words, people view political power as a sort of pyramid. They think, “The MP’s at the top, so I’ll go and see him”. I have always been troubled by this problem of undermining local authorities. It is one reason why I began to question whether there are too many MPs. If you take cases away from elected councillors, you are in effect saying to them, “You don’t have to do your job. I’ll do it for you”. That is undesirable. However, if you go down the road of saying that MPs should not take council cases or Scottish Assembly cases or whatever and you enhance devolved power—something that I greatly support—you then have to ask: who does the MP represent?

One reason why I have been tempted to go for a smaller number of MPs is that, particularly over the past 40-odd years, MPs have largely become councillors and social workers, and that is not desirable. At the same time, MPs have paid less attention than they might have done had they had more time to the national and international issues with which our Parliament is rightly concerned. Therefore, there is an imbalance.