Commercial Air Routes: United Kingdom and East Africa

Lord Popat Excerpts
Wednesday 13th February 2019

(5 years, 9 months ago)

Lords Chamber
Read Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Asked by
Lord Popat Portrait Lord Popat
- Hansard - -

To ask Her Majesty’s Government what steps they are taking to ensure that new commercial air routes between the United Kingdom and East Africa are allocated sufficient and convenient departure slots at either Heathrow or Gatwick airports.

Baroness Sugg Portrait The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Transport (Baroness Sugg) (Con)
- Hansard - - - Excerpts

My Lords, UK airport slot allocation is based on worldwide guidelines from the International Air Transport Association—IATA. These guidelines provide for slots to be allocated independently of government in a non-discriminatory way. The Government recognise the difficulty of obtaining slots at highly constrained UK airports, and the much-needed additional capacity from Heathrow expansion will ease that constraint, enabling us to maintain and develop long-haul connectivity, including to developing economies such as Rwanda and Uganda.

Lord Popat Portrait Lord Popat (Con)
- Hansard - -

I thank the Minister for that helpful response. Almost two years ago, I helped RwandAir launch direct flights between London and Kigali, but I found that securing convenient landing and departures slots was practically impossible at Gatwick or Heathrow. The problem is that the biggest airlines, including budget airlines, have a monopoly over peak-time slots through grandfathering rights, meaning that newer airlines are squeezed out. Does the Minister agree that, given our country’s need to build commercial bridges with Africa post Brexit, we need a better and fairer system to ensure adequate access to those markets? Will she assure us that the Government will look urgently into reforming the allocation system?

Baroness Sugg Portrait Baroness Sugg
- Hansard - - - Excerpts

My Lords, I thank my noble friend for his continued efforts as a trade envoy to Rwanda and Uganda and particularly for his support for UK businesses involved in building Kigali airport. The Government believe that there is a case for changes in slot allocation where there is significant new capacity. Our aviation strategy, Aviation 2050, consults on a wide range of policy proposals designed to increase competition and connectivity both domestically and abroad. That includes looking at existing slot regulations to see how we can promote competition and ensure new long-haul routes, such as those to east Africa, can be delivered.

Railways: East Coast Main Line

Lord Popat Excerpts
Tuesday 13th March 2018

(6 years, 8 months ago)

Lords Chamber
Read Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Sugg Portrait Baroness Sugg
- Hansard - - - Excerpts

My Lords, the timetable is not dependent on the decision made between the two options. I understand there has been a delay to the timetable, for which I apologise. The operator and Network Rail are working through the options and are looking to publish it as soon as they possibly can.

Lord Popat Portrait Lord Popat (Con)
- Hansard - -

My Lords, will the Minister please tell us what will happen to the premium payments from future operators of the east coast franchise?

Baroness Sugg Portrait Baroness Sugg
- Hansard - - - Excerpts

My Lords, whichever option for running the franchise to 2020 is chosen, the Government will continue to receive premium payments. As I have said, from 2020 there will be a new public/private partnership on the east coast. That will be subject to a competitive process and will include appropriate contributions paid by the private partner to the Government. The Government will continue to receive premium payments but I am afraid I am not able to give an exact figure at this time. It is important to reiterate that this is a successful and profitable line, and it will continue to deliver revenue to the Government.

Aviation

Lord Popat Excerpts
Monday 26th June 2017

(7 years, 4 months ago)

Lords Chamber
Read Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Callanan Portrait Lord Callanan
- Hansard - - - Excerpts

Vast though my responsibilities are, they do not yet include aircraft carriers.

Lord Popat Portrait Lord Popat (Con)
- Hansard - -

My Lords, I welcome the fact that the Government’s strategy on new aviation policy is coming very soon, but I guess we are 20 years behind. I say this as the Prime Minister’s trade envoy to Rwanda and Uganda. We recently sold two airplanes to the Rwandan Government, and for the first time, some four weeks ago, there was a direct flight from Kigali to Gatwick. We managed to get only three slots. We wanted seven slots. No slots were available at Heathrow either. Post-Brexit, for us to be a genuinely outward-looking country, we need direct flights and we need more slots. Most African countries, which are a growth area, need flights. The Ugandan Government want one, Tanzania wants one, Zambia wants one, but there are no slots available at Heathrow or Gatwick. Can we speed up the process of the third runway, and maybe even a second runway at Gatwick?

Lord Callanan Portrait Lord Callanan
- Hansard - - - Excerpts

I take my noble friend’s concerns on board. Many airlines want access to the south-east of England. As we proceed with Brexit, aviation will be a critical component of our engagement with the rest of the world. More people will need to visit this country; more people will need to travel abroad for a new UK sector. Of course, the expansion of Heathrow, if it proceeds, will provide extra slots and we will look at the context of slots at regional airports in the aviation strategy.

Infrastructure Bill [HL]

Lord Popat Excerpts
Monday 9th February 2015

(9 years, 9 months ago)

Lords Chamber
Read Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Moved by
Lord Popat Portrait Lord Popat
- Hansard - -



That this House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments 15 to 19.

15: Clause 38, page 45, line 23, leave out subsection (5)
--- Later in debate ---
19: Clause 43, page 48, line 46, leave out from beginning to end of line 47
Lord Popat Portrait Lord Popat (Con)
- Hansard - -

My Lords, in the absence of my noble friend Lady Verma, I beg to move that this House agrees with the Commons in their Amendments 15 to 19. I will also speak to Amendments 29, 31, 33 and 33A.

Following discussions here and in the other place, the Government have tabled these amendments to remove Scotland from the scope of the provisions concerning the right to use deep-level land. Noble Lords will be aware that, as a result of the Smith commission’s recommendations and the Command Paper that has been published, it is planned that responsibility for mineral access rights for underground onshore extraction of oil and gas will be devolved to the Scottish Parliament in the next Parliament.

These amendments ensure that the provisions in the Infrastructure Bill do not change the current system that applies for granting access rights in Scotland. The Scottish Government and Scottish Parliament already have substantial control of onshore oil, gas and geothermal activities through their own existing planning procedures and environmental regulations, which are devolved. I hope that these amendments will be welcomed.

Motion agreed.

Infrastructure Bill [HL]

Lord Popat Excerpts
Tuesday 15th July 2014

(10 years, 4 months ago)

Grand Committee
Read Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Clause 24 agreed.
Lord Popat Portrait Lord Popat (Con)
- Hansard - -

My Lords, I think that this may be a convenient time for the Committee to adjourn.

Committee adjourned at 5.54 pm.

Railways: High Speed 2

Lord Popat Excerpts
Monday 24th March 2014

(10 years, 8 months ago)

Lords Chamber
Read Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Popat Portrait Lord Popat (Con)
- Hansard - -

Order, please. I think it is my noble friend Lord Jenkin, then it will be the noble Lord’s turn.

None Portrait Noble Lords
- Hansard -

No! This side!

Lord Popat Portrait Lord Popat
- Hansard - -

Okay, I will accept that.

Lord Snape Portrait Lord Snape
- Hansard - - - Excerpts

My Lords, I am grateful that the normal procedures of the House are being abided by. I strike a discordant note, as a supporter of this project, to say how disappointed I am—as I am sure many people in the Midlands and north will be—at the abandonment of the link between HS1 and HS2. Thirty years ago, during the passage of the Channel Tunnel Act, we were told that there would be through trains from Paris, Brussels and other continental cities to our great cities of the Midlands and the north. This was, at least, a chance for those through trains to run between those cities. How does the Minister suggest that a businessperson coming from the continent to the Midlands or the north gets between Euston and St Pancras? Do they take the Victoria or the Northern line? Or will they pull their luggage along Euston Road? Will the Minister accept from me that there will be a great deal of disquiet in many parts of the country about the abandonment of this link?

High Speed 2

Lord Popat Excerpts
Thursday 24th October 2013

(11 years ago)

Lords Chamber
Read Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Popat Portrait Lord Popat (Con)
- Hansard - -

My Lords, I remind the House that this is a time-limited debate of six minutes maximum without any interruptions.

Enterprise Act 2002 (Part 8 Domestic Infringements) Order 2013

Lord Popat Excerpts
Wednesday 6th February 2013

(11 years, 9 months ago)

Grand Committee
Read Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Moved By
Lord Popat Portrait Lord Popat
- Hansard - -



That the Grand Committee do report to the House that it has considered the Enterprise Act 2002 (Part 8 Domestic Infringements) Order 2013,

Relevant document: 15th Report from the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments

Lord Popat Portrait Lord Popat
- Hansard - -

My Lords, this is a short but not insignificant order that will enable the effective enforcement of the Consumer Protection (Payment Surcharges) Regulations 2012. The regulations implement into UK law Article 19 of the European Union consumer rights directive. They prohibit traders from charging consumers above-cost payment surcharges. The Government have had concerns about the level of card surcharges that exceed the real costs in several sectors of the economy. Such surcharges are typically employed as a form of drip pricing, whereby the consumer does not see the final transaction cost until after completing several forms. That can make it more difficult for consumers to shop around. Under the regulations, surcharges for using a particular form of payment will become cost-reflective.

The provisions of the directive need to be implemented in UK legislation by December 2013 and brought fully into force by June 2014. Given the concerns that have been raised about these practices—notably by Which? and in a report by the Office of Fair Trading—the Government have decided to implement this part of the directive early. The payment surcharges regulations were made and laid before Parliament on 19 December last year under the negative resolution procedure. As with this order, they come into force on 6 April 2013. They are not of course the subject of the Motion today but they are directly related.

Article 2 of the order provides for the enforcement framework in Part 8 of the Enterprise Act 2002 to apply in relation to the regulations. This enables the relevant enforcement bodies to apply to the courts for enforcement orders against traders that have engaged, are engaging or are likely to engage in conduct that breaches the regulations, if that conduct harms the collective interests of consumers in the United Kingdom. Taken together, the regulations and this order will provide an effective enforcement regime in fulfilment of the directive’s requirements that adequate and effective means exist in national law to ensure compliance with the provisions of the directive and that penalties laid down for breaches of the directive are effective, proportionate and dissuasive.

Although the payment surcharges regulations implement an EU directive, Article 2 of the order specifies them as a domestic infringement rather than a community infringement for the purposes of the 2002 Act. This is because the obligations in the regulations take effect from April 2013, whereas the EU directive requires them to take effect only from June 2014. The order does not therefore strictly relate to infringements of EU law in the period up to June 2014. For this reason, and unlike the regulations, the order is subject to approval by both Houses of Parliament. I beg to move.

Lord Stevenson of Balmacara Portrait Lord Stevenson of Balmacara
- Hansard - - - Excerpts

Did the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, wish to speak?

--- Later in debate ---
Lord Kennedy of Southwark Portrait Lord Kennedy of Southwark
- Hansard - - - Excerpts

My Lords, I thank my noble friend for that. I should have jumped in before him, so I apologise for not getting this right. I wanted to ask one question about the impact assessment and the opt-out for small businesses. I do not believe in extra burdens and regulation for businesses, but it seems odd to me that we seem to be saying that, by allowing business with fewer than 20 people to opt out, they can carry on overcharging customers. It seems odd and unfair that they will still be able to make these charges, but generally I think that this is a great order and I am delighted that it is being brought in.

Lord Popat Portrait Lord Popat
- Hansard - -

I thank the noble Lord. He is quite correct that this order will prohibit traders from charging consumers above-cost payments; in other words, the charges will not exceed the real cost of the goods or services bought from the trader. We are implementing this in December 2013, largely due to our own research and that of Which? magazine, which brought this to our attention. The European directive will be enforced in 2014, so it will be good for consumers. The European Commission is looking at the payment separately under the financial services regulations. We will obviously get this information in due course. It is our policy to exempt microbusinesses from the new regulations until 2014. They are small businesses that employ probably fewer than 10 people, but they are crucial for growth and we have to support and encourage them. That is my response to the questions about small businesses.

Lord Kennedy of Southwark Portrait Lord Kennedy of Southwark
- Hansard - - - Excerpts

May I push the Minister a little further on that? It just seems very odd to me; I want to see small businesses and the economy grow, but if I am running a small business, I do not see why I should overcharge my customers. That does not seem like good practice and we should not allow it because it is not fair. I hope he will explain the point he is making. Why should small businesses be able to overcharge when big businesses cannot?

Lord Popat Portrait Lord Popat
- Hansard - -

As I said earlier, microbusinesses are crucial to growth. As a small businessman myself, I want to give value for money to my customers and do not want to make them pay any unnecessary charges, because I want to make sure that I get my repeat business. It is our policy is to exclude microbusinesses. The regulations will apply from June 2014 and not from December 2013.

Motion agreed.

Marine Navigation (No. 2) Bill

Lord Popat Excerpts
Friday 1st February 2013

(11 years, 9 months ago)

Lords Chamber
Read Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Amendment 1 withdrawn.
Lord Popat Portrait Lord Popat
- Hansard - -

My Lords, the Companion tells us, at paragraph 301:

“The House usually sits for public business on Mondays and Tuesdays at 2.30 p.m., on Wednesdays at 3 p.m. and on Thursdays at 11 a.m. The House also sits on Fridays at 10 a.m. when pressure of business makes it necessary. It is a firm convention that the House normally rises by about 10 p.m. on Mondays to Wednesdays, by about 7 p.m. on Thursdays, and by about 3 p.m. on Fridays”.

It is my duty as a Whip today to move that the House do now resume.

House resumed.

House adjourned at 3.04 pm.