Aviation

Debate between Lord Deben and Lord Davies of Oldham

Thursday 13th October 2011 Lords Chamber

[Lord Davies of Oldham]

My Lords, I congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Rotherwick, on securing this debate. However, perhaps I may enter a little caveat about something that the noble Viscount, Lord Goschen, said. I am not so sure that this is an esoteric subject. We have been pressing the Government for an aviation policy for many months now, but we have been told in every answer that the Minister has so ably deployed that we must wait until the government policy is formulated and ready. This is an important debate which helps us to probe the Government, and perhaps also to prod them towards an early resolution of these issues, despite the fact that we all recognise that general aviation is a relatively minor part of aviation policy. That does not alter the fact—as has been amply demonstrated this afternoon—of the significant contribution that general aviation provides. The noble Lord, Lord Rotherwick, who is well qualified as a pilot, also emphasised general aviation’s role in developing the interest of young people in acquiring the skills to become a pilot. There is no doubt that this is a very important dimension of the contribution to our overall success, in circumstances where we must surely recognise our concern about aviation as a whole—a concern that one of the most successful sectors of our economy is, in the current government stance, somewhat being reined in.

I understand the political considerations that led the Government to take their stance on Heathrow—not least during an election campaign when marginal seats in west London were at stake. However, the Government have to face up to the fact that, at present, their record is one of negativity towards aviation. I expect the noble Earl, Lord Attlee, to indicate a somewhat more positive response than he has done in questions and debates.

[Lord Deben]

I am sorry to interrupt the noble Lord. However, does this mean that the Opposition are in favour of the extension of Heathrow? If so, it is a new policy about which many people will be very unhappy on the grounds of both air quality and the environment.

[Lord Davies of Oldham]

My Lords, as we indicated throughout the whole of the election campaign, there were severe risks to the expansion of our aviation industry as well as potential damage to our economy, particularly a lack of competitiveness against other European airports such as Schiphol, Madrid and Charles de Gaulle. As the noble Lord will recognise only too well, as matters have developed over the past 18 months of this Government’s management of the economy, we can ill afford negativity when it comes to an area where we have previously been conspicuously successful. I wanted to put aviation on the agenda, and general aviation into a context, because it is important. However, I was really responding to the noble Viscount, Lord Goschen, in seeking to emphasise that general aviation has its part to play in this important sector of the economy.

The noble Lord, Lord Rotherwick, went on to identify not only the very significant level of employment in general aviation but also the amount of resources that it develops. He also identified some real anxieties. The anxieties in this debate—expressed by the noble Lords, Lord Rotherwick and Lord Sharkey, and the noble Earl, Lord Stair—are about aspects of planning policy. We all have anxieties about planning policy, not least because the development of government strategy at this stage leaves unanswered as many questions as it answers. However, unless local considerations are assigned significance in planning while being balanced with national strategic requirements, the great danger is that the seed-corn of general aviation will be greatly reduced because, as noble Lords indicated today, some airfields could be closed to aviation and other forms of development. That is an important dimension, and I hope that the Minister will give us some assurances on this front.

The noble Lord, Lord Sharkey, made an important point when he identified the safety record of general aviation. We would be in some difficulties if we were arguing about this contribution to national welfare if the safety record was anything other than one of the best in the world, and it certainly compares well with the rest of Europe. That helps to support the argument about the importance of general aviation. While I accept the point made by the noble Lord that no one is looking for a subsidy for the industry at the present time—I am sure that the Government are not looking to give one in their present travails—we should nevertheless expect the Government to take an interest in this important contribution to the economy.

I hope, therefore, that the Minister will respond to the fact that general aviation is increasingly valued by the wider population. Only a relatively small number of people actually train to become pilots, and only a relatively small number are employed on airfields, but people are becoming increasingly aware of the benefit of air support for quite a number of our significant services. I mention the fact that only in recent years has there been an air ambulance service in Hertfordshire, where I live. I do not doubt that public subscription has contributed to it, and Hertfordshire is not the only county. What I do know is how much the air ambulance service is appreciated in the locality, and of course it depends upon the skills available and the opportunities provided.

I accept the point about the anxieties in certain areas of the country over threats to their airfields. There is no doubt that both Cornwall and Devon are two illustrations of the very real anxieties felt in recent years that the airfields they regard as significant to their local economies have been under threat. I hope that the Minister will give an indication of his concern that certain crucial regional airfields are in the mind of the Government in their consideration of their overall strategy.

This has been a most interesting debate. It has asked the Government to come clean on aviation policy. Admittedly it is a relatively narrow area, but it is one of great significance. I hope that the Minister will not be shy in making his points today, as on occasions in the past I have found he has been wont to be.

Energy Bill [HL]

Debate between Lord Deben and Lord Davies of Oldham

Tuesday 8th March 2011 Lords Chamber

[Lord Deben]

My Lords, having been rather critical of the national parks in the past, I support the comments of the noble Lord, Lord Judd. They should be accepted with one small caveat; namely, that the national parks ought in these circumstances to do everything in their power to make sure that others who are in the national parks should be able to play a part in this, and do things independently as well. My one concern is that the national parks should not feel that this is something only for them. It should be something for everyone who lives in the national parks, and when it is more suitable for other people to do something, I hope that they will be able to do it. Not all, but one or two national parks are inclined to believe that only what they do is acceptable. With that caveat, I hope that the Minister will help the House to agree with what the noble Lord, Lord Judd, seeks to do.

[Lord Davies of Oldham]

My Lords, I am grateful for that last contribution from the noble Lord, Lord Deben. He indicated that past experience of the national parks was not always entirely satisfactory. As we all recognise, what Minister ever finds that a group for which he is responsible is entirely satisfactory? However, the noble Lord indicated that he did not quite subscribe to the perspective that my noble friend Lord Judd proposes in his amendment, and I am very glad that today he has indicated that he supports the amendment, which is an important contribution to the Bill. I am sure that the Minister will look upon it favourably. The national parks will not be asking for anything outrageous, merely that they should play their part.

We all recognise the uniqueness of the national parks' ability to commit themselves to aspects of renewable energy. I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Deben. The national parks should not be able to operate in an exclusive manner; they must also look towards canalising within their areas others that can make this contribution. However, there is no doubt that providing an opportunity for the national parks to contribute to these renewable energy developments will be advantageous, and I hope that the Minister takes the same view.

Energy Bill [HL]

Debate between Lord Deben and Lord Davies of Oldham

Wednesday 2nd March 2011 Lords Chamber

[Lord Davies of Oldham]

My Lords, we discussed this issue in Committee, and the Minister gave, as ever, a constructive response, but to the wrong anxiety as far as we were concerned. He seemed to construe our concern as being about the Green Deal being forced upon someone. Consent is clearly the basis on which we seek to proceed, but there might be a tenant who comes under some degree of pressure, so the Minister’s response was to indicate that the Bill would have a framework of regulations that would give protection. I accept the Minister’s position on that without reservation, and I am very grateful to him for expressing that concern.

It might have been my fault in not making it explicit enough when speaking to the amendment, but my concern was almost entirely the other way round. The improver and the bill payer are two different people, and I envisaged that the improver might be involved in the improvement of a substantial number of properties, such as a block of flats which he owned. He might get improvements from 99 out of 100 tenants, but what if one objected and said he was not prepared to sign up to this deal and what if it is difficult for the work to go on without the issue being considered in its totality? We have to envisage that with certain kinds of improvements, the whole building has to be improved or nothing is effective. I was concerned to express the anxiety expressed in this amendment about what happens when an improver is bent upon improvements to the property that meet the objectives of the Green Deal, subscribe to all the benefits that the Bill contains and therefore fulfil the objectives of everyone in this House, but one person stands out against them.

I think that that is a genuine anxiety. I tried to raise the issue in Committee. As I have said, it may have been entirely my fault in that I was not explicit enough or that the amendment was not drafted as accurately as possible, but the response that I received was not directed at this specific problem. I want reassurance from the Minister that he has considered my anxieties and those that might be shared by other noble Lords, that this problem has been tackled satisfactorily in the provisions in the Bill, and that therefore we can see circumstances in which we all recognise that improvements will go ahead only through consensus. There has to be an understanding of that.

However, what about the minority position in extreme cases in which someone is excessively affected, not least because, as we all appreciate, for some individuals the benefits from the improvements to the property might look fairly limited? They know that they will get an increase in their bills pretty soon. The benefits might lie in the future and such individuals might consider that their personal circumstances, in a long-term perspective of that kind, are too long term for the pay-off. I am interested in where ordinary citizens, to say nothing of the awkward squad, might find themselves in a position in which they see no benefit but where they are a very small minority and all other tenants in the building see the advantages. I am interested in how the Bill copes with that issue. I beg to move.

[Lord Deben]

My Lords, I was very attracted to this proposal, but I should like to share with your Lordships why I do not think that it is sensible in the end. I am attracted to it because there are a lot of curmudgeonly people in this world—you do not even have to have an argument to say that people have a good reason to do something. There are curmudgeonly people who say, “I don’t want this. Why have I got to do this?”. I can quite see the argument. I also have a concern for those who think that other people might benefit and therefore have a slightly dog in the manger attitude.

I come back to the purpose of this Bill, part of which is to get advocates for what we are trying to do around the nation: that is, convincing and converting people to what we are trying to do. I find it difficult to imagine circumstances in which a discussion should go on among flat owners—perhaps there is a landlord, ground rent is paid or whatever—about improving the building. I do not like the idea that behind that is the threat. This is contrary to the way in which the Bill is supposed to operate.

The Minister has said again and again that if this does not work, there will have to be further regulations. The Bill is designed to make that possible, but in the first flush we should try to get a widespread range of people advocating the proposal and convincing their neighbours to go along with it. If we do not do that, one of the most important roles of this Bill will be interrupted.

I have been in both Houses over many years and one of the words that I most dislike is “reasonably”. The difficulty is that the definition of “shall not be reasonably withheld” is difficult in the case that we are talking about now, simply because most people object to something in a way that they consider to be reasonable. They might be very unreasonable people, but when they come to the argument they feel that they have put forward a reasonable argument.

I return to the purpose of the Bill. I am very concerned that we should start this whole process of the Green Deal with an understanding that this is the Government seeking—if I were a modernist I would say “reaching out”—to convince the population as a whole that they have created a framework within which, with consent, we are going to do a large amount to reduce the amount of energy that we use to improve the housing stock and to do all the things that we want to do.

I therefore hope that the Minister will resist this particular amendment, not because we might not be driven to it—indeed, the noble Lord, Lord Davies, might be right; we might be driven to it—but because I hope that at least we can start off with the intention of the missionary, to win converts to this, rather than with the intention of the mercenary, to force people to do what you want them to do. All my instincts about something I believe in strongly are to the former, but I have a belief in the end that the latter might well win more converts.