Civil Aviation Bill

Debate between Lord Trefgarne and Lord Davies of Oldham

Wednesday 7th November 2012 Lords Chamber

[Lord Davies of Oldham]

My Lords, Amendment 2 seeks to amend the government amendment which the noble Earl, Lord Attlee, has commended to the House. I commend his work to the House, too, because he has responded to the pressure exerted in Committee about the failure of the Bill to address significantly the role of aviation and the regulated airports in relation to the environment. Environmental issues are high on the nation’s agenda and the contribution of aviation in this regard is of considerable concern. The Opposition have sought to work constructively to improve the Bill and I am grateful to the Minister for his attempts to do so.



I do not shy away from the fact that, were his amendments carried, they would represent an improvement to the Bill, but not significant enough an improvement for the issue concerned. After all, the Government constantly seek to bask in their green credentials, but in recent months, tensions have been exposed as they wrestle with the practicalities of the green agenda. The nation is conscious of the fact that a certain amount of backsliding has been going on. That showed itself in the support offered to home insulation and in the clash between Ministers in the Department of Energy and Climate Change when the Secretary of State was effectively forced to correct the position adopted by a junior Minister on the issue of wind farms.

Of course, on the issue of aviation, we are all too aware of dither and delay. We all know that the most significant issue of all facing the Government is the future of airports in the south-east and how they are meant to cope with the demand predictions of the future. This issue—I refer in particular to the graphic case of London Heathrow—has been kicked into the long grass of a post-election report. Sir Howard Davies is not to produce his analysis of what needs to be done until after the next general election.

The Bill had its origins under the previous Administration and under that Administration it was clearly indicated that there would be significant concern about aviation as regards the environment and that the Bill would set out to make provisions to meet the necessary responsibilities. We were to expect clarity in the Bill, yet we seem to have the same evasion in the Bill as we have seen with regard to other crucial areas of policy.

[Lord Trefgarne]

My Lords, my noble friend has moved Amendment 1 and the noble Lord, Lord Davies, has moved Amendment 2. Amendment 2 may have some merit to it but I am having some difficulty in connecting his speech to the amendment.

[Lord Davies of Oldham]

My Lords, I was coming to that. The noble Lord has anticipated my very next sentence. It was necessary to identify the context because that explains why, on a consensual Bill, on which we have sought to work with the Government to improve the Bill and on which we recognise the efforts of the Government represented in Amendment 1, there is still a crucial area of difference. The government amendment is expressed in terms of the desirability of each holder of a licence. Power does not seek to emphasise desirability; power seeks to define will: what the Government want to see happen, not what they would like to see happen, as if in some way they can rely on a general response of good will. Of course, in many areas they can, but this is an area of crucial aviation policy with regard to airports. Our amendment to the government amendment says that, in place of a fairly wishy-washy concept of desiring that things should happen, there should be an obligation.

That issue is clear enough, and important enough, for us to press this issue despite the good will of the Minister and the efforts to respond. The response is too mealy-mouthed to achieve the objectives that this Bill should achieve with regard to the protection and improvement of the environment. It will become clear during the proceedings today that on many aspects of the Bill we agree with a great deal of what the Government are doing. However, in this area, the government amendment does not stand the test. That is why I have tabled this amendment. I beg to move.

Civil Aviation Bill

Debate between Lord Trefgarne and Lord Davies of Oldham

Monday 9th July 2012 Grand Committee

[Lord Trefgarne]

My Lords, I have a good deal of sympathy for the amendment of my noble friend Lord Rotherwick. Might the Minister be a little clearer on what the process will be for the fixed penalty notices? I am ashamed to tell your Lordships that I am a veteran of the fixed penalty notice system as applied by Transport for London in relation to the congestion charge. I have on a couple of occasions had to appeal against an alleged violation only for my appeals to be dismissed instantly—no doubt, rightly. I discovered that if you insist on appealing and taking your lawyer with you to the tribunal in relation to your Transport for London penalty notice for alleged non-payment of the congestion charge, you are 90% likely to get off, but if you do not take your lawyer with you, you are not. It struck me as a rather shocking revelation. I do not suggest that there is anything wrong in the process, but amateurs who go on their own to appeal or simply send in a letter of appeal to Transport for London are likely to be dismissed out of hand. However, if you turn up on the day with your lawyer, you are likely to have your appeal allowed. I hope that there will be no such vagaries in the system to be employed by the Civil Aviation Authority. Who will hear appeals from fixed penalty notices issued by the Civil Aviation Authority? What will be the expertise of those who hear them? Can I be assured that the system will be a lot better than Transport for London’s?

[Lord Davies of Oldham]

My Lords, I have only one brief comment to make, one which I never thought I would make in Parliament or elsewhere. Oh the joys of Opposition for the Minister to reply.

[Earl Attlee]

My Lords, before turning to the detail of the points made, I must emphasise the importance of the clause that the amendment would alter. My noble friend Lord Trefgarne mentioned the congestion charge. I have been caught by it but I never dared to appeal. I just paid up. That might be because I knew that I was wrong.

The noble Lord talked about the higher success rate if you bring your lawyer. It may be that the appellant brings his lawyer because he is certain that he is right, so not surprisingly he wins his case. The noble Lord also asked about the appeal process. If someone who has been issued a fixed penalty notice is unhappy about that, he can take it to court in exactly the same way as a motorist can take a matter to court—like the McCaffrey case.

Civil Aviation Bill

Debate between Lord Trefgarne and Lord Davies of Oldham

Monday 2nd July 2012 Grand Committee

[Lord Davies of Oldham]

My Lords, the Minister made the best fist that he could of a fairly weak argument. Of course, I recognise the merits of the clauses, in that he made it clear that it is important to define the operator and to know whom we are talking about. Who could possibly gainsay that proposition?

In objecting to the clause, I am not objecting to the sense that lies behind the elements within the clause to which the Minister addressed some of his remarks. I indicated that in opposing the clause I recognised this to be a fairly blunderbuss approach and that we have not refined our opposition in amendments—something that we may do in due course, perhaps on Report. However, I say to the Minister that in this general debate anxieties have been expressed across the Committee, and he has not allayed those anxieties at all, apart from—

[Lord Trefgarne]

I am afraid that the noble Lord is mistaken. The Minister has very much allayed my anxieties about this matter. I see these clauses as facilitating competition between terminals at a particular airport. What is the matter with that? When the operator comes to choose the terminal from which he wishes to operate, he will select the one that offers him the best deal—maybe it has the best duty-free shops or is the cheapest—and these benefits will be passed on to the passengers. I am very much in favour of these clauses and I hope that the noble Lord will not press the question of whether they should stand part of the Bill.

[Lord Davies of Oldham]

I am delighted that the noble Lord had his anxieties allayed. They are obviously not as acute as those on this side of the Committee. In particular, if the noble Lord is all in favour of inter-terminal competition, perhaps he will ask the Minister to identify just where this is a raging success that we would want to encourage. The only specific example that we have so far is subject to considerable criticism. As the noble Lord indicated, airport operators are accurately defined in the legislation; I will not gainsay the necessity of that. None of them speaks well of future-proofing what they regard as a disadvantageous element of the Bill, which will introduce the possibility of inter-terminal competition. In particular, by putting it in the Bill in the way that they have, the Government limit parliamentary debate to secondary legislation. We know the limitations of that.

However, I seek to identify that this concept is a significant departure from how any British airport is run at present, and from how any successful airport is run elsewhere. Unless the Minister produces some evidence of how competition works to the benefit of the passenger—which he signally failed to do in his earlier contribution—the Committee will recognise that, far from my anxieties being allayed, they are more pronounced. Of course, I recognise that objecting to a clause standing part—or three clauses in this case, which is the first time that I have engaged in such an extensive operation—is something from which I shall have to resile fairly promptly. However, I do so to air a significant aspect of this debate. I say to the Minister that we are so dissatisfied with the response at this stage that he must assume that we will take this issue further on Report.

[Lord Davies of Oldham]

Of course, I recognise the role of the Competition Commission and we applaud a great deal of its work. However, when it makes recommendations, one must also consider the industry’s likely response to the proposal that is being put forward. All I say is that the noble Earl has not identified any aspect of British industry that considers this to be an intelligent and sensible development. Nor is he able to identify any example from elsewhere in the world where this form of competition has redounded to the benefit of the consumer.

[Lord Trefgarne]

With the noble Lord’s permission, I will cite an example. Many years ago, I landed my aeroplane at Miami International Airport. I had not chosen the terminal at which to land. I negotiated with three different terminals over the radio, found the cheapest and in I went—very good, too.

[Lord Davies of Oldham]

My Lords, that is a very good illustration. If the noble Lord had also indicated that hurricanes were raging at the time and he was able to put down with the help of the airport, I have no doubt that we would all regard that as an extreme benefit.

However, airports always adjust to emergencies, so if the noble Lord is saying that as the pilot of a private plane he can see stupendous advantages in inter-terminal competition, how many people do I have to count in order to introduce into legislation a very significant development? Is it is the number of people who own and fly private aircraft? Our consideration of government legislation ought to be undertaken on a wider perspective than that and the Government’s defence of it ought to be a jolly sight wider too. But, of course, I shall withdraw my opposition to the clause standing part.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Trefgarne]

My Lords, while I am sympathetic to the noble Lord’s wish to ensure that there is no corruption through people buying their way through the airport, there are some people whom I would wish to have preferential treatment—for example, members of the Royal Family and the heads of state of other nations. How does the noble Lord think they should be accommodated if the restrictions that he proposes are put in place?

[Lord Davies of Oldham]

My Lords, I do not think that the issue of payment is likely to arise with members of the Royal Family or diplomatic staff because the arrangements for how they should be treated are agreed with the airport authorities. That is very different from saying that you can enhance the value of your ticket with extra money to get through the queue quickly. That is the practice to which I object. I am not saying that the Royal Family fit into that category. I imagine that it is also not the case for diplomats. We also have control over the process of entry to the country for air crews, but we do not expect them to take their turn in the queue because we recognise that special arrangements should be made for them. I do not want to exclude some special arrangements; I object to a scheme that enables those who are wealthy enough to purchase privilege.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Trefgarne]

Perhaps the noble Lord will tell us how he proposes that disabled people should be handled. They often have special provision at airports, which is necessary and very proper.

[Lord Davies of Oldham]

On the latter category, we are shortly to debate the arrangements for the disabled, and I hope to provide reassurance. I accept what the noble Lord is saying; of course there are special arrangements for the disabled. We all know why it is necessary for the law to be strengthened in that area, and I shall be proposing an amendment to deal with that matter.

The situation that I have identified is not concerned with people going through different routes according to their ticket, but the question of how one goes through the state’s immigration controls. The contention that you are less of a security risk because you are wealthy is dubious. After all, I seem to remember Bin Laden did not come from a totally impecunious family. It is not the case that those who have a great deal of money are better security risks. Why on earth should everyone else, for the necessary security of the nation, be obliged to suffer some of the privations that occur from time to time? I fail to understand how one can market a package that guarantees that one is whisked through security.