Railways (Kettering)

Theresa Villiers Excerpts

Wednesday 13th June 2012 Westminster Hall

[The Minister of State, Department for Transport (Mrs Theresa Villiers)]

I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Kettering (Mr Hollobone) on securing the debate, and on his very detailed and well-informed analysis. It is also good to see my hon. Friend the Member for Loughborough (Nicky Morgan) in her place. Both my hon. Friends have played a leading role in the campaign for the electrification of the midland main line.

I understand the importance of the issue not only to my hon. Friends’ constituents, but to many communities in the east midlands and south Yorkshire that are served by the midland main line. I am also aware of the wide-ranging coalition of MPs, local authorities, businesses and other stakeholders, many of whom were mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Kettering, who are all campaigning for improvements to the line and, in particular, electrification. The Government’s response to the campaign will depend on what is affordable within budgets that are constrained by the pressing need to deal with the deficit we inherited from Labour. Despite the deficit, we have already embarked on a major programme of rail improvement that is bigger in scale than anything attempted for 100 years. Improving our transport networks is a key part of our strategy for growth, and rail electrification is playing an important role in those efforts to improve our transport system and to boost our economy.

This is a timely opportunity to consider and debate electrification of the midland main line. Electrification can support our carbon reduction goals, as well as contribute to economic growth and the benefits outlined by my hon. Friend. In the longer term, some electrification schemes can also help us to achieve our goal of cutting the cost of running the railways; it is essential that the cost come down, because that is the only way to see an end to above-inflation fare increases. A more financially sustainable railway will also help us to deliver the sort of improvements called for by my hon. Friend today, and by other hon. Members day in, day out, in this Parliament.

Where the business case is strong and funding is available, the Government support progressive electrification of the rail network. As my hon. Friend said, electric trains are cheaper to run and maintain than their diesel equivalents. They emit less carbon and are quieter and lighter, which saves wear and tear on the track. Our committed programme of electrification includes the great western line to Oxford, Newbury, Bristol and Cardiff, and a significant programme in the north-west, including Liverpool to Manchester and Blackpool to Manchester. In his autumn statement, the Chancellor added the route from Manchester to Leeds and York to our electrification proposals, subject to confirmation of the business case.

The action taken by the coalition on electrification is in marked contrast to the approach of the previous Government. Their 30-year strategy for the railways, published in 2007, paid almost no regard to electrification and set out no sensible plans for it. In their 13 years in power, they managed to electrify less than 10 route miles of track on our network.

The midland main line has received some important investment in recent years. New stations have been built at Corby and East Midlands Parkway. Major station improvements have been delivered at Loughborough, Derby and Sheffield, and St Pancras has been transformed with the arrival of High Speed 1. Further improvements are in the pipeline.

[Paul Blomfield]

Will the Minister acknowledge, contrary to her previous point, that they were actually achieved under a Labour Government?

[Mrs Villiers]

I was not saying that the previous Government did not do anything; I am saying that they did almost nothing in relation to electrification.

By 2014, £69 million will have been invested by Network Rail to cut journey times for passengers between London and Sheffield by eight minutes. In the longer term, the second phase of High Speed 2 will slash journey time to the east midlands and Yorkshire. As I have said on a number of occasions, both in the House and outside it, the Government recognise that the business case for the electrification of the midland main line is strong—a point emphasised by my hon. Friend the Member for Kettering and a number of hon. Members. Useful supporting evidence has been provided by the report commissioned by East Midlands Councils and the South Yorkshire passenger transport executive, “The Case for Upgrading and Electrifying the Midland Main Line”.

The report highlights the significant potential economic, environmental and financial benefits that would come with electrification and other improvements, a number of which were outlined by my hon. Friend. He is right to focus on significant passenger growth on the line in recent years. It is important to take on board the points he made about projected population growth, the wider economic benefits that could be generated by improvements to the midland main line, and the potential for running- cost reductions—always an important concern—of electrification. I also note the points he made very strongly about the scope of electrification to provide capacity expansion. It is important for the Government to consider all those matters when making a decision on which schemes can receive funding.

The Government recognise that electrification of the midland main line could help to spread the benefits of high-speed rail, because it would enable through-running of services between the new high-speed network and the midland main line. That is something we will consider as we prepare our response to HS2 Ltd’s advice on phase 2 of the project to complete the Y network to Manchester and Leeds.

My hon. Friend the Member for Loughborough rightly highlighted the importance of considering the impact on freight of improvements to the midland main line, and we will do so carefully. We will also consider carefully the proposals for the range of improvements stakeholders are calling for in relation to the midland main line. I acknowledge that there is an aspiration to go beyond electrification and combine it with addressing some of the pinch points referred to by my hon. Friend the Member for Kettering. I note his analysis of the potential that a sixth train per hour might be able to deliver in terms of reconfiguring services and benefiting his constituents.

The hon. Member for Sheffield Central (Paul Blomfield) compared the prospects for the midland main line with the resources spent on the west coast main line. Yes, it is important to consider the relative levels of support for different parts of the country. Network Rail learnt many lessons from the west coast main line. Obviously, that project cost far in excess of what was originally envisaged. We hope that whatever schemes go ahead in future, whether midland main line improvements or others, Network Rail is able to avoid some of the mistakes made in relation to the west coast.

Electrification of the midland main line and a number of other upgrades are included in Network Rail’s initial industry plan, which sets out the rail industry’s view of options for inclusion in the next HLOS—high-level output specification—statement, for delivery in the period between 2014 and 2019. That plan is playing an important role in our deliberations on which projects can be funded in that five-year control period.

Although the case for electrification looks good, it is a major undertaking with a significant price tag. Just electrifying the line is expected to cost more than £530 million. The further upgrades that many campaigners are asking for could add more than £100 million to that figure. The Government already have commitments to improve the rail network in the period up to 2019, amounting to some £5 billion.

[Mr Hollobone]

I have listened carefully to the Minister. Is she impressed that the annual £60 million saving in running costs means that the electrification would effectively pay back within 10 years, which is almost unheard of for an infrastructure project of that sort?

[Mrs Villiers]

It is rare for an infrastructure project to pay for itself. Yes, that point will be important for us to consider when we take our decisions. My hon. Friend has made that point clearly and we are aware of it. However, even with the importance placed on transport by the coalition and with the positive business case for improving the midland main line, we will still need to make choices between competing priorities, because, of course, colleagues from throughout the country have priorities in their own areas.

We need to strike a balance between the aspirations of many communities for improved rail services and the need to ensure that the Government’s finances are not overstretched in these difficult times. The scale of what can be delivered to improve the midland main line depends on what is affordable and on a careful, fair assessment of competing priorities elsewhere on the rail network. The points that my hon. Friend made about the running-cost savings that could be delivered by electrification will be at the forefront of our minds when we take our decisions. However, we have not taken those decisions yet. I assure my hon. Friend that we are aware of the strength of the business case and of the support for going ahead with electrification.

Not all the projects that will take place in control period 5 will be expressly mentioned in the HLOS statement that we will publish. Some of the bigger ticket items may be expressly listed, but for projects that are not on such a big scale we are more likely to specify an outcome to be achieved on a route or into a certain city, such as increased capacity or faster journey times, and then it will be left to the industry, overseen by the regulator, to decide how best to deliver those improvements for passengers. Some improvements that campaigners have asked for over and above electrification would be more likely to fall into that category. If they were to go forward in CP5, they would therefore be subject to the industry HLOS process—an assessment by the rail industry and the Office of the Rail Regulator on how best to deliver them. I thought it might be useful to give that procedural clarification of what hon. Members can expect in terms of the type of scheme that would be headlined in the statement and those that might still be delivered during the CP5 period, but would be subject to further work by the rail industry.

[Nicky Morgan]

Briefly, since the Minister is dealing with procedural aspects, will she give us an update on timing? I have been told that we should expect some announcement in July. Is that still the timetable?

[Mrs Villiers]

Yes, the announcement will be made some time before the end of July, but we have not set a date.

The case for electrifying the midland main line continues to be made impressively by my hon. Friend the Member for Kettering and many others. Debates such as this provide important, timely input to the process of deciding which rail improvements can be funded in the five-year period up to 2019. I will ensure that all the points made today are carefully considered when the decisions on the HLOS statement are made.

Rail Infrastructure (Merseyside)

Theresa Villiers Excerpts

Tuesday 12th June 2012 Westminster Hall

[The Minister of State, Department for Transport (Mrs Theresa Villiers)]

I am pleased to be able to respond to this important debate and congratulate the hon. Member for Wirral South (Alison McGovern) on securing it. I concur with her that Liverpool’s real place in railway history is as the home of the first passenger railway. On the railway’s opening day, an MP got run over, which was a little unfortunate, but I will try to avoid such an incident in the future. Today, the city of Liverpool has one of the most intensive and busiest suburban networks outside London. A number of rail improvements have been delivered or are due to be delivered in the coming years and I will discuss them in a moment, but first I will address some the hon. Lady’s general points.

The coalition fully agrees that investment in our transport network is crucial. It can help to generate growth and improve competitiveness, which is why, despite the difficult public finances relating to the deficit, we have prioritised investment in our road and rail network. Our programme of rail improvements is bigger than any since the Victorian era. I agree that providing opportunities for employment, as well as widening labour pools and access to jobs and employment, is one of the key benefits of rail improvement schemes.

The hon. Lady was kind enough to refer to the previous Conservative Government’s activities in electrifying lines in the 1980s. The coalition Government also recognise the benefits of electrification, which is why we have a programme to roll it out in the north-west and on the Great Western line. We will also consider what more can be done. The hon. Lady asked about rolling stock cascade. Network Rail is programmed to deliver the electrification in the north-west and on the Great Western line that will start to deliver that cascade. The work is going well and is on schedule. We are also making progress on the Thameslink procurement, which is a key trigger for making available rolling stock to be cascaded elsewhere in the country, potentially to Merseyside.

The hon. Lady mentioned the aspiration to electrify the Wrexham to Bidston line. I am, of course, aware of the scheme and have discussed it with Merseytravel. I acknowledge its potential in relation to the economies of Wirral and Deeside, and she is right to mention the potential benefits of better links between north Wales and Merseyside. She will probably be aware that, a few years ago, Merseytravel and the Welsh Government asked Network Rail to undertake a study outlining the costs of the electrification proposal, and the figure produced was £207 million, so it is quite a high-cost scheme, which makes delivery a challenge. There was little follow-up on the study, and it must be recognised that, although we support electrification, if schemes are to go ahead they need to demonstrate value for money and be affordable.

[Alison McGovern]

Does the Minister agree that although railways are not cheap, compared with the billions that have been provided for Thameslink, which will have a great impact on London, the proposed investment is modest; that what matters is the resulting cost-benefit ratio; and that we need to clarify exactly what those benefits will be?

[Mrs Villiers]

I agree that we need to assess carefully the value for money of every scheme, but we also need to look at overall affordability. I am afraid that even when one is talking about Government spending, £200 million is a significant amount. I am impressed with the work that Network Rail is doing, for example, on how to get the costs of delivering electrification down. I hope that there is scope to see whether there might be a more affordable scheme in the future.

For a local line, we, like the previous Government, would normally look to the local authorities to seek out the funding to realise such a scheme. We know that such schemes are important to the local authorities and, if they attach a priority to them, we would expect them to consider their options for funding. That might include the major local scheme, which will reopen in 2015. That has funded some very important improvements, for example, at Kirkstall Forge and in Coventry. There are options open to Merseytravel and the Welsh Government. As we have done in the past, the Government are prepared to engage with them if they want to do further work.

We take broadly the same position on some of the other improvements mentioned in today’s debate. On proposals to upgrade the Halton curve, we recognise the potential local benefits and we would be happy to work with the local authorities on their aspirations. However, again, the local authorities need to identify the funding.

[Steve Rotheram]

I am sure that the right hon. Lady, like all Ministers, is used to special pleading and everyone thinking that their project is the most important, but is she aware of the huge increase in visitor numbers to Liverpool and the importance of the extra connectivity my hon. Friend the Member for Wirral South (Alison McGovern) talked about to the future of the city and to growing the local economy? That is what the Government keep telling us that they want to see in relation to rebalancing the economy.

[Mrs Villiers]

We fully agree that improving our rail network can help us to achieve our aspiration to rebalance the economy and close the prosperity gap between north and south. That is why we are investing in a major programme of rail improvements, a number of which will benefit Liverpool—I am about to come on to those—including the announcements we have already made about the northern hub.

It is very important that we consider how to get the maximum benefits from rail investment to help to provide the jobs and prosperity that I think everyone in this Chamber wants. I acknowledge that rail has been key to Liverpool’s success as a port. In recent years, there have been a number of measures to improve rail freight connectivity. Under the previous Government, the Olive Mount chord was reopened to facilitate better freight train access to the port. The upgrade of the west coast main line has cut journey times between London and Liverpool, and a total of 106 new Pendolino carriages will be in use on the line by December, amounting to a 20% uplift in capacity, which obviously benefits many people in Merseyside travelling between Liverpool and London.

A competition for the next west coast franchise is under way. We are emphasising the importance of raising passenger satisfaction and service quality and improving punctuality. However, I fully agree that it is not only north-south connections we need to focus on. It is vital that we improve connectivity between our great cities of the north of England, because that is another way we will achieve the goals, rightly set out by the hon. Member for Wirral South, of rebalancing the economy and boosting the economy of the north of England.

In our spending review, we confirmed the control period 4 programme of rail improvements, including line speed improvements between Liverpool, Manchester and Leeds. Electrification in the north-west, which was another programme we inherited from the previous Government, was also given the go-ahead. That includes electrification of the line to Wigan via St Helens, which will benefit commuter services in Merseyside. The Ordsall chord recently got the go-ahead, which is a key part of the northern hub scheme.

[Rosie Cooper]

Will the Minister give way?

[Mrs Villiers]

I am sorry, but I need to conclude now.

Although located in Manchester, that scheme will benefit Liverpool because it will deliver those faster journey times between Liverpool and Manchester that the hon. Member for Wirral South rightly identified as very important. The combination of that with the electrification of the north trans-Pennine line to York means that we will see improvements to journey times between Liverpool and Leeds. When those very important improvements are complete, journey times will decrease from around 109 minutes to 77 minutes.

In the meantime, TransPennine Express is consulting on a new timetable that could result in an additional service between Liverpool and Newcastle. We welcome that because it could increase capacity on the route and deliver some journey time savings early, in advance of those infrastructure upgrades that are also going ahead. As I have many times before, I assure hon. Members that we are considering all the remaining schemes in the northern hub, including increasing the capacity of the Chat Moss route. That is very relevant to Merseyside. We will assess what is affordable and what can be included in the high-level output specification that we will publish over the summer.

I will end by referring to some of the real successes we have seen on the Merseyrail Electrics network, which was devolved to Merseytravel and supported by a grant of around £70 million a year from the Government. Passenger satisfaction ratings have risen significantly to 93% in autumn 2011 and high levels of reliability have been achieved. All the trains have been refurbished and automatic ticket barriers have been introduced in many stations. All of Liverpool’s five underground stations are to receive a £40 million overhaul in the next few years, and £20 million is being spent on refurbishing Liverpool Central station, which forms a key hub of the Merseyrail network. Merseytravel is putting together plans to replace every train on the Merseyrail network. That is an ambitious programme and my Department is happy to provide advice on developing the case for replacement rolling stock.

That programme provides an illustration of what the devolution of transport decision making can achieve. We have consulted on our proposals to devolve the local major scheme to local transport bodies. Local authorities might like to consider the scheme I mentioned in relation to their aspirations to improve local rail services. We are also discussing a city deal with the Liverpool city region, which has identified improving connectivity as essential to its future economic growth.

Last but certainly not least, our HS2 plans will see classic compatible high-speed trains running off the new network on to the west coast line to serve Liverpool directly. That will provide improved connectivity to London and faster journey times and will further assist in achieving the goals, which I am sure the hon. Member for Wirral South and I share, of regenerating the economy around Merseyside, promoting growth in the north of England and rebalancing our economy. A high-quality rail network is one of the means we can use to achieve those objectives.

Question put and agreed to.

Civil Aviation Bill

Theresa Villiers Excerpts

Tuesday 22nd May 2012 Commons Chamber

[The Minister of State, Department for Transport (Mrs Theresa Villiers)]

I beg to move, That the Bill be now read the Third time.

Throughout the consideration of the Bill, the debate has been informed and constructive. I thank all Members who have taken part, including Opposition Front Benchers such as the hon. Member for Poplar and Limehouse (Jim Fitzpatrick), the shadow aviation Minister. We have also been assisted by the excellent report prepared by the Select Committee on Transport. I reiterate the thanks that I have given to the Committee and its Chair for their work on pre-legislative scrutiny.

The Bill has enjoyed considerable cross-party support at every stage in its passage through the House, and its key elements have been broadly welcomed by airports, airlines and a number of other stakeholders. That reflects the efforts made not just by this Government but by our predecessors in office to listen to the industry’s concerns and respond effectively to them to put together a balanced reform package.

In the year of the London Olympics and the diamond jubilee, we are reminded once again of the crucial role that the aviation industry plays in bringing millions of tourists to this country. That is just one element of its wider contribution to the UK economy. The Bill will modernise the framework for the economic regulation of airports, greatly improve transparency and accountability and put the passenger interest right at the heart of the new regulatory system. There is widespread agreement that the current one-size-fits-all regulatory regime is inflexible and outdated. The system proposed in the Bill will deliver more effective protection for passengers and a lower regulatory cost for industry.

At the heart of our proposals is a new primary duty to further the interests of passengers and freight owners. The Bill will also enable the Civil Aviation Authority to tailor measures to each individual airport, allowing it more flexibility to target intervention in the most proportionate way.

With a strong emphasis on the price control process, the current rules leave the CAA with very limited options if problems occur between five-yearly reviews. The new licence system in the Bill will allow for real-time regulation, empowering the CAA to act swiftly if an airport is failing its customers on, for example, service quality, winter resilience, volcanic ash or any challenges that it is not yet possible to foresee.

Clause 1(3) and (4) require the CAA to carry out its economic regulation functions in a transparent, accountable, proportionate and consistent way. To respond to points made in earlier debates, we are strengthening the scrutiny to which the CAA is subject by giving a new accounting direction to the regulator, requiring it to include an efficiency statement in its annual report, which will be subject to validation by its external auditors.

The primary duty to passengers, which is so pivotal to the Bill, will provide greater certainty and clarity for airport operators, which in turn will encourage long-term investment in the improved facilities that passengers want. A shift to more independent economic regulation also removes risks associated with political interference, which is why it is a common feature of modern regulatory regimes.

The Bill will also make the CAA’s decisions more accountable than they have ever been by introducing a new appeals process. The Government worked hard with both airlines and airports to come up with an appeals system that gives effective redress to airlines without turning the new regulatory regime into a two-tier system, which would have dragged the Competition Commission or the Competition Appeal Tribunal into everyday CAA decision making. The result of that work is that the Bill provides appeal rights to both airlines and airport operators that are significantly more effective than existing remedies. However, not just businesses benefit from greater transparency and clarity. The Government believe that providing the right information for consumers can sometimes achieve better results than traditional regulatory intervention, so the Bill will give the CAA new functions on collecting and publishing information on issues such as service quality to help consumers to make informed decisions on competing operators in the aviation sector.

The Bill contains important security provisions—keeping people safe and secure when they travel is paramount. The Secretary of State is responsible for aviation security policy and for giving security directions. That will not change under the new approach we are advocating, but the Government believe that giving the experts in aviation operations a greater say in how security is delivered will improve our ability to guard against the very real threats we face.

The CAA has valuable experience not just of regulation generally, but of safety management systems that ensure that risks are controlled as effectively and efficiently as possible. We believe that that track record on safety will assist the CAA in overseeing the delivery of the new security management systems, which are an important element of the move to an outcome-focused, risk-based approach to security, which has been debated extensively during the Bill’s passage through Parliament.

I am also convinced that vesting those regulatory functions for security in the CAA will benefit the aviation industry, because it will henceforth be able to deal with a single regulatory body rather than the current two bodies. Moreover, we expect that the complementary measure—the introduction of an outcomes-focused, risk-based approach to security—will enable security checks to be integrated more closely into the general business of the airport. That should open the way to more cost-effective and more passenger-friendly ways of delivering security outcomes.

Plans for the proposed move of responsibilities in relation to security regulation to the CAA are already being developed. The Department for Transport is in discussions with the Department’s staff who are likely to be affected and with their trade union representatives, because we are keen that as many employees as possible stay in post when their jobs transfer to the CAA, taking their skills and valuable experience with them.

[Julie Hilling (Bolton West) (Lab)]

The Minister said that the Department has had conversations with the staff and their representatives. Can she give us any more information about that, because—as she will be well aware—one of the concerns we raised during the passage of the Bill was about the loss of expertise if staff did not follow their jobs to the CAA?

[Mrs Villiers]

We are in discussions with both the CAA about the practicalities of the move and with those Department for Transport staff whose posts we expect to move. At the moment, we are not able to give them all the answers on all the issues, partly because the Bill has not passed as yet, but also because issues such as pensions are under review both in the civil service and in the context of the CAA. But we are very conscious of the need to try to provide as much visibility and information as possible, and we are working to do that, although it will take time to work through certain issues.

On environmental matters, the Opposition tabled an amendment on Report—it was extensively debated—that would have imposed a supplementary environmental duty in relation to the CAA’s airport economic regulation functions. I understand the motivation for such an amendment, as I said on Report and in Committee, but I believe that its aim is already provided for in the Bill, which already allows the CAA to approve reasonable investment in measures that mitigate environmental impact. No doubt the discussion on whether further clarification on that point is needed on the face of the Bill will continue in the other place in the same constructive and thoughtful way that it has in this House.

I must emphasise, however, that the Bill already includes important new information provisions to help us address the environmental impact of aviation. The Bill gives the CAA powers to collect and publish information about the environmental effects of civil aviation. Not only could that be used to give more information to communities affected by aircraft noise—hon. Members know how significant an issue that is for many people—but it will ensure that passengers have better information about the environmental impact of their travel choices than is currently available. We believe that improving transparency will help us to harness consumer power in pushing for progress towards cleaner and quieter planes.

Some have called for more on the environment to be included in the Bill, but to be effective, environmental measures need to be applied proportionately across the whole sector and not just focused on those airports that happen to be subject to economic regulation. So separately from our efforts contained in the Bill to reform economic regulation, a number of initiatives are under way to deliver cross-sectoral action on the environmental impact of aviation. Adding aviation to the European emissions trading system is expected to deliver carbon savings across Europe of some 480 million tonnes in the period to 2020. Both NATS and the CAA have a strong focus on reducing fuel burn and addressing noise in their work on improving airspace management, and the Government will soon publish a consultation on a sustainable framework for aviation. We are clear that aviation should be able to grow, but it must also play its part in delivering our environmental goals and protecting the quality of life of local communities affected by aircraft noise and other local impacts.

[Julie Hilling]

The Minister said that the consultation document will be published “soon”. During the passage of the Bill, we have talked about future legislation that would enable environmental concerns to be addressed, so can she tell me what “soon” means in this context?

--- Later in debate ---

[Mrs Villiers]

We will publish the consultation in the summer alongside a call for evidence on maintaining the UK’s hub capacity.

Last, but definitely not least, the Bill will grant the Government the power to extend ATOL protection to flight-inclusive holidays sold by airlines and those sold on an agent for the consumer basis. Extending the ATOL scheme has received strong support in the House and has the long-term support of the Transport Committee. If the Bill is adopted, we would expect to consult next year on whether the new powers should be exercised.

In conclusion, by establishing a single, clear, primary duty to passengers as the overriding principle of economic regulation, the Bill will incentivise investment in our airports by providing greater clarity and certainty for airport operators and investors; put passengers’ interests at the forefront of the regulatory regime; give the CAA far more effective powers to intervene swiftly if an airport fails its customers; and open the way for a further extension of the ATOL scheme, which for nearly 40 years has provided financial protection and peace of mind for millions of holidaymakers. I urge the House to support the Bill.

[Jim Fitzpatrick (Poplar and Limehouse) (Lab)]

I begin by thanking all my colleagues who sat on the Bill Committee for their support, assistance and advice, as well as those who helped on Report, outside stakeholders who sent submissions and/or gave evidence and the Transport Committee for its scrutiny of the Bill.

We welcome and support the Bill. On Second Reading, my hon. Friend the Member for Garston and Halewood (Maria Eagle) said that we would support the Bill. That was no surprise. Much of it was drafted when we were in government, so there was a legacy. However, the timing of its arrival was a bit of a surprise, so the Transport Committee scrutiny was a little dislocated. Indeed, the Government’s response to the Select Committee was published only last Friday. It is good that it is out, but it demonstrates that there were surprises in the timing.

Not only was the arrival and timing a surprise but the inclusion of the security clauses, which were not in the original Bill, was not expected. Also, importantly from our point of view, the environmental protection measures, which were in the original draft Bill and mentioned in the Department for Transport press releases announcing the publication of the Bill, surprisingly did not appear in the Bill. That was a disappointment to the Opposition, and I shall return to it.

I do not want to appear too critical, however, although it might come across that way in due course, because, as I said, we support the Bill. In Committee, the Minister was as courteous as usual, although she and the Government did not accept a single amendment—she did so quite politely—even when she was injured and might have been a bit more vulnerable. The fact that Ministers did not accept any amendments was a matter of considerable disappointment to us, particularly given that we had the support of many stakeholders and recommendations from the Transport Committee.

The Minister has well covered two of the obviously key elements of the Bill—putting the passenger at the core of the CAA and updating the industry’s economic regulation. However, a number of other issues were raised in Committee, highlighting the strengths and weaknesses of the Bill, and I wish briefly to refer to some of them. We had a good discussion on security and the outcomes-focused, risk-based system. We support those arrangements, but, as my hon. Friend the Member for Bolton West (Julie Hilling) said, we were concerned about the arrangements for staff transfers and the certainty of their entitlements on wages, conditions, pensions and redundancy agreements. The staff side raised concerns that members of staff might be worried and often not accept or apply for transfers. The potential haemorrhaging of staff in such a sensitive area was of concern to the whole Committee, so it was good to hear the Minister provide additional reassurances before and after my hon. Friend’s intervention.

The Minister mentioned the ATOL reforms, which we all support, despite the delays. We will do what we can to help the Secretary of State and the Minister of State introduce and enact the reforms, because that is what we all want. Recent pronouncements have perhaps pointed towards more complications arising, which is obviously frustrating not only to the Department and the Government, but to all concerned.

Let me turn to the opportunities that were missed. On the environment, we proposed a duty, as the Minister mentioned. We also suggested including environmental aspects in the licensing conditions for Heathrow, which we think would be reflected right across the industry. On the passenger experience, we proposed that the responsibility for producing welfare plans should be a matter for the licensing arrangements for Heathrow, given the experiences in recent years of passengers being stranded, with all the difficulties that we have seen, heard about and, in some instances, experienced. It is interesting that the indicative licence produced for the Civil Aviation Authority suggested that the licence that it will produce for Heathrow ought to contain passenger welfare elements. We think that the Government could have given a firmer steer by referring to that in the Bill, which would have helped. We also made various suggestions about the efficiency and scrutiny of the Civil Aviation Authority, although I will return to those presently.

There are two additional areas that the other place will want to take account of: one was mentioned in Committee, whereas the other was not. The first is the honesty and accuracy of ticket prices, particularly from the bucket airlines, and the hidden surcharges. The CAA could clearly play a role in addressing that, and I am sure that the issue will be raised in the other place. The other issue, raised most recently, is the suggestion that certain passengers should be able to fast-track themselves through security and immigration for a price, which has caused quite a bit of consternation among passengers generally. Given that the suggestion has been made since Report, I suspect that the other place will want to see how things could be obviated to ensure fairness for everybody going through our airports.

Let me look briefly at the three areas I have mentioned. On the environment, we had a bit of banter with the Government about their mantra, which we hear all too frequently, of wanting to be the greenest Government ever. We obviously had quite a bit of disagreement about whether the Bill reinforces that claim. Indeed, the Minister for shipping, who is in his place, and I had a discussion this afternoon about this being the greenest Government ever in terms of environmental protection. However, I do not think that Mr Deputy Speaker—[Interruption]—if he was paying attention—will let me go there. [Hon. Members: “Ooh!”] My apologies, Mr Deputy Speaker: I wanted to ensure that you did not allow me to stray, because, seeing the hon. Gentleman in his place, I could easily have gone down that cul-de-sac.

On reporting and giving information to passengers, clauses 83 and 84, which we covered extensively, are welcome. However, we thought that there ought to be a duty on the Civil Aviation Authority, as there is on every other economic regulator, to take account of the environment. Reading between the lines, I am not sure whether the Minister’s comment that she expects the matter to be raised in the other place was perhaps an indication of more openness from the Government or that they might be prepared to look at this again.

One element of licensing to do with the environment that was raised by a number of my hon. Friends concerns protection for neighbourhoods, planning permissions and the rest of it. We think that including that in the licence would give communities greater strength and the certainty that airports and the aviation industry would take account of the sensitivities mentioned by the Minister of State.

The last thing we suggested—which the Government did not think it was appropriate to pick up—was the requirement for ticketing to show the environmental impacts of different modes of travel, thereby helping passengers to make decisions based in part, perhaps, on the difference between the environmental impact of going by air and the impact of travelling by rail or coach. I will be surprised if that suggestion is not examined further in the other place.

On the passenger experience, the reporting, information gathering and publishing will, again, be welcomed. However, as I have said, we think that the welfare plans should have been included in the licence, and that represents a missed opportunity by the Government.

[Mrs Villiers]

I feel that I ought to reiterate the reassurance I gave in Committee and on Report. We, too, are very supportive of a focus on passenger welfare plans. We just do not believe that the content of the licence should be hard-coded in legislation. We believe that the best approach is to give the independent, expert regulator the responsibility to decide what licence conditions are appropriate.

[Jim Fitzpatrick]

I fully accept that; we have a disagreement over whether this ought to be in the licence. We think that putting this in the Bill would strengthen the requirement and give a much clearer indication to the regulator that the Government expected it to look at this as a key area, particularly given the experience in recent years. We are talking about a difference in emphasis, rather than a difference in principle, because we all want passengers to be better protected against the vagaries of the weather or other factors detrimentally affecting them.

Labour Members raised the whole question of the information on queuing times, and not just in baggage-handling areas. The key area where we disagreed was on whether immigration queues could or should be counted and measured, with information given to the public. Obviously, the Government’s position is that immigration and the immigration service, the UK Border Agency and the UK Border Force are the responsibility of the Home Office, and therefore it is not appropriate to deal with them in this Bill. However, given the further recent confusion over what the queuing time actually is, particularly at Heathrow, and given the disagreements on measuring between the airports and the immigration service, we think that the CAA could have played a very constructive role in that area, authoritatively collating the evidence and publishing it. As with a number of the other amendments that we failed with, I am sure that the Lords will wish to return to that.

On CAA efficiency and National Audit Office scrutiny, we again agree to differ, but at least the Minister did come up with a proposal to strengthen the scrutiny, which, in some way, addressed the concerns we were raising. Obviously, we will monitor how the proposal works in effect. We hope that it will give greater reassurance to the airlines and other customers that the CAA will operate as we would all wish.

In conclusion, this was a good Bill in draft and, in essence, it remains a good Bill, but there is still much room for it to be even better. We hope that the other place will be able to make the improvements that we were, sadly, unable to make.

Cost of Living

Theresa Villiers Excerpts

Wednesday 16th May 2012 Commons Chamber

[Maria Eagle]

My hon. Friend is correct, of course. The Government have said that those who are out of work should be willing to travel for up to 90 minutes to take up a reasonable job offer or lose their jobseeker’s allowance. The Secretary of State for Work and Pensions has said:

“The truth is there are jobs. They may not be absolutely in the town you are living in. They may be in a neighbouring town…We need to recognise the jobs often don’t come to you. Sometimes you need to go to the jobs.”

Not only is he out of touch about the extent to which there are actually jobs, but he seems to have no concept of the cost of travel under his Government. Those on the minimum wage will have take-home pay of just over £10,000 a year, but a season ticket for the 90-minute journey between Newark Northgate and King’s Cross would cost more than £8,000. Under the Government’s policy, therefore, they expect someone to spend up to 77% of their take-home pay just to get to work. Coming into London from Braintree would cost someone in a minimum wage job 46% of their take-home pay. There are other examples. The cost of transport is making it harder for people to take up jobs or to stay in education, as my hon. Friend the Member for Sedgefield made clear in the examples that he gave.

Of course we need to bring down the deficit, but we need the right balance between a plan for reducing spending and a plan for jobs and growth. That is why I have supported more than two thirds of the Government’s cuts to transport spending—difficult cuts, which we would have had to make in government as well, to the Highways Agency, Transport for London and major transport schemes. However, £6 billion is two thirds of the reductions in expenditure planned across this Parliament. We would not have cut support for rail and local transport services so far or so fast. We could then have relentlessly focused on keeping down the cost of transport, helping households through tough times and not adding needlessly to the pressures that they face. We would have held fare rises at 1% above inflation during this Parliament, and without the need to cut one penny from the investment in the network that the Government are rightly taking forward. We could also have protected local bus services and kept fares down.

Of course, Ministers are so out of touch that they claim that those fare rises and cuts to services are not actually happening. In his autumn statement, the Chancellor claimed that he had succeeded in keeping increases in rail fares at just 1% above inflation. He said:

“RPI plus 3% is too much. The Government will fund a reduction in the increase to RPI plus 1%...It will help the millions of people who use our trains.”—[Official Report, 29 November 2011; Vol. 536, c. 810.]

Why did fares rise in January by as much as 11% on some commuter routes? What the Chancellor perhaps forgot to mention was that the Transport Secretary—not this one, but her predecessor—had given back to the train companies the right to add up to a further 5% increase on top of that cap. [Interruption.] That was banned when we were in government once times were getting tough. By not cutting the rail budget so far and so fast, we would set the minimum—[Interruption.] If the Minister of State, Department for Transport, the right hon. Member for Chipping Barnet (Mrs Villiers) wants to intervene, perhaps she would like to do so properly instead of chuntering from a sedentary position. By not cutting the rail budget so far and so fast, we would not only set the maximum fare rise at 1%—

[The Minister of State, Department for Transport (Mrs Theresa Villiers)]

The point I was making is that if the hon. Lady has such a problem with fares basket flexibility, why are her Labour colleagues in Cardiff still applying it in Wales?

[Ms Eagle]

There is devolution in Wales, where they make the choices on the basis of the budgets assigned to them by this Government. We have been very clear that we abandoned flex and stopped it, and Lord Adonis made it clear that, because times were so tough, we were not going back to it. The current Government have reintroduced it, while pretending that they are cutting fares, which they are not. It is simply not true, as Ministers claim, that this is just an additional cost to the taxpayer. As the National Audit Office has said,

“there is a risk that the benefit of the resulting increase in passenger revenues will not be passed on to taxpayers fully, but will also result in increased Train Operating Company profits.”

This is a Government who are not just out of touch with the impact of these fare rises, but unwilling to stand up to the train companies and enforce even the cap they claim to have set. This is indeed a Government who are in hock to the TOCs.

The pressure on commuters is set to spiral over the next two years because Ministers have decided that next year’s fare rises are to be even higher—up to nearly 12% on the current rate of the retail prices index. That is nearly 12% in both 2013 and 2014, and the tender documents for the new franchises reveal even more pain on the way. Bidders are promised even more freedoms on fares, including the right to introduce a new super-peak fare at even higher prices, hitting hard-pressed commuters still further. Franchise bidders are promised that they can cut daily services by up to 10%. They are no longer required to improve performance over the life of the franchise and no longer required to maintain the same level of CCTV on trains.

As we exposed last month, a programme of ticket office closures has already been signed off by Ministers, but staffed ticket offices are not a waste or an inefficiency that can be cut out with no resulting impact on service. The impact will be passengers cheated out of the cheapest fares, which are not always clearly advertised or available at ticket machines. Those without access to the internet, often those seeking work or older people, are unable to get the better deals and are left to pay over the odds for their train tickets.

Ministers continue to deny that they have signed off these closures. At the last Transport questions, the Minister of State assured the House that “they are not happening”. That is what she said, yet we have seen the e-mail from the Department’s own rail fares and ticketing review, warning the Department’s press office not to deny that ticket office closures have been given the green light because

“the Minister has already decided to approve some ticket office closures…it’s just not been announced yet.”

I have a further leaked document with me. This is from London Midland, the company set to be the first to implement a closure programme—for the first of the 675 ticket offices across the country that we know have been earmarked for closure. This leaked document reveals that London Midland will save £1.25 million a year by closing 86 ticket offices—profits before passengers. It also refers to a payment of £200,000 from the Department for Transport. Perhaps the Secretary of State—or the Minister of State—can confirm when she closes the debate whether the Department for Transport is actually paying companies to push through these closures? A reference in this document suggests that that might be the case. The Minister of State can tell me now if she would like to intervene. She does not want to, so perhaps the Secretary of State will address the issue at the end of the debate. The future of rail under this Government will be higher fares, more overcrowding, less CCTV and fewer ticket offices.

If Ministers are out of the loop when it comes to what is happening to rail fares and ticket office closures, they are even more delusional when it comes to bus services. Last month the Under-Secretary of State for Transport, the hon. Member for Lewes, told the House that what had been said about bus cuts was “entirely untrue”, and claimed that

“there have not been the cuts that the Opposition are so keen to talk up.”—[Official Report, 19 April 2012; Vol. 543, c. 485.]

It is not the Opposition who are talking up bus cuts, but the major operators. Arriva told my hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham South (Lilian Greenwood) that

“with the 20% reduction in BSOG, the ongoing cuts to the concessionary fare scheme, and a reduction in tenders across the UK, this has put enormous pressure not only on Arriva, but the bus industry as a whole.”

These are real cuts. Evening and Sunday services have been withdrawn on Route 32 in Wycombe. The Saturday service has been withdrawn on Service 84 in Maidstone. Route 1 in Watford, Route X9 in Milton Keynes and Service 50 in Guildford have all been cut. In fact, one in five of all supported services have been lost, and fares are spiralling. The Under-Secretary of State should stop coming to the House and claiming, as he did during last week’s Transport questions, that there have not been any bus cuts, because there have.

The Government need to understand that not just buses but lifelines are being cut: lifelines connecting young people with colleges, parents with child care, and older people with shops and services. The loss of a bus service can have a devastating impact on those without cars, and on those in rural areas in particular. It can have a devastating impact on their lives, their chances, and their capacity to get out and about.

Like the train fare rises, the bus cuts are a direct consequence of the Government’s decision to cut the councils’ funds for local transport by 28%, and their decision to remove any requirement for what is left of that money actually to be spent on transport. At the same time, the Government have cut the subsidies given directly to bus companies by a fifth. The result is that not only are there additional pressures on family budgets, but young people are simply unable to reach their full potential.

Ministers need not take my word for that. They can listen to the Association of Colleges, which has warned of a drop in further education enrolment. They can listen to the 60% of colleges that report a drop in transport spending by their local authorities. They can listen to the Joseph Rowntree Foundation, which has revealed that 40% of young people say that their decisions on post-16 education were influenced by transport, not by courses. When students travel, on average, between nine and 35 miles to get to college, and when 72% of them rely on the bus to get them there, it is no wonder that the loss of bus services will hit them and their life chances hard.

The hon. Member for Lewes told the House that he had held discussions with bus companies about the costs of travel for young people. No doubt they delivered the same message to him as they have delivered to me when I have raised our own proposals for a concessionary fares scheme for 16 to 19-year-olds in education or training. I believe that the bus companies want to be helpful, but Brian Souter of Stagecoach told me—

Heathrow Airport (Operational Freedoms)

Theresa Villiers Excerpts

Tuesday 15th May 2012 Written Statements

[The Minister of State, Department for Transport (Mrs Theresa Villiers)]

My statement of 14 July 2011, Official Report, column 55WS, announced a phased trial of operational freedoms at Heathrow airport to gather evidence in relation to the greater use of tactical measures, in defined and limited circumstances, to prevent or mitigate disruption and to facilitate recovery. The trial is run by BAA, the airport operator, with oversight provided by the Civil Aviation Authority (CAA), the independent aviation regulator.

These measures are consistent with the Government’s commitment to runway alternation at Heathrow. I would also emphasise that the trial will not increase the number of flights at Heathrow which remains capped at current levels.

Phase one of the trial ran from 1 November 2011 until 29 February 2012. An interim report on the first two months of phase one was published by the CAA on 21 February 2012 . The CAA has today published its final report on phase one, alongside a report by BAA, assessing the impact on operations at the airport and on communities around Heathrow: www.caa.co.uk/apfg

The CAA’s report is encouraging about the benefits of the measures trialled so far, but suggests that more detailed data and analysis is required from phase two to draw definite conclusions on these and the impacts on local communities.

The CAA report concluded BAA ran phase one of the trial within the parameters agreed with Government and generally collected and published data for analysing the trial in an appropriate and transparent manner. The CAA noted that the broad spectrum of interested parties, and the technical nature of the measures trialled, made successful engagement with local communities challenging; and they made suggestions for improvement.

The report also accepted BAA’s analysis that phase one of the trial recorded:

dual arrivals were deployed for 3.2% of westerly arrivals at the airport (1,802 out of 56,260 arrivals); an average increase of 13 de-alternated flights each day on westerly arrivals, from 21 to 34 per day;

dual departures were deployed for 0.07% of westerly departures at the airport (38 out of 55,860 departures);

operational improvements in relation to arrival punctuality and delay, stacking (under specific circumstances) and taxi times following arrival;

A large increase in complaints, although it was not clear whether these were generated by the use of operational freedoms, as a proportion appear to correlate to a prolonged period of easterly operations which was due to weather conditions rather than the trial;

generally low awareness of the trial but some support for it from residents surveyed when its objectives were explained; and

no detriment to safety.

In my previous statement, I also set out the timetable for phase two of the trial. Following advice from the CAA, I am announcing today that I have agreed to a six month extension of phase two which will now run from July 2012 to March 2013.

The CAA concluded that the relatively short duration of phase one meant that the evidence it provided on the impact of operational freedoms was more limited than anticipated, partially as a result of an unusually high level of easterly operations. The extension until March 2013 will increase the amount of data generated enabling a more robust analysis of the benefits and impacts, allowing a direct comparison between phases one and two. A longer trial will also reduce the risk that external factors (such as easterly winds) significantly limit the amount of usable information. This will ensure that the eventual consultation with local communities on whether a more permanent operational freedoms regime is adopted at the airport is based on a sufficient level of evidence.

Phase two will also mean that Heathrow will benefit from greater resilience during the Olympic and Paralympic games period when the airport will be under more pressure than usual.

Improving punctuality, tackling delay and strengthening resilience at Heathrow would improve the quality of the UK’s international connections and enhance the reputation of our largest international gateway. Phase one has shown that, without prejudging our views on the associated impacts, there is potential to deliver operational benefits without increasing capacity. We therefore have grounds to believe that there is still more that can be done to deliver a better Heathrow, while continuing to protect communities affected by aircraft noise.

I have therefore agreed to the continuation of the trial of tactical use of dual arrivals and departures measures agreed for the first phase. I have also agreed that the following freedoms should be added to phase two:

Aircraft scheduled to arrive after 0600 will be permitted to land between 0530 and 0600 provided that the same number of flights scheduled to arrive between 0430 and 0500 are rescheduled to after 0500. This is expected to delay the onset of noise disturbance to local communities in the early morning period and enhance the resilience of the schedule;

During “segregated” operations departing aircraft may be re-directed (radar vectored) by air traffic control from their normal routes of departure (mostly within predetermined noise preferential routes). This is expected to improve the reliability of the schedule by increasing the departure rate from a single runway and improve the scope for reducing the number of unscheduled night flights;

Subject to approval of the safety case by CAA, it is intended to apply the same principles to enable dual departures later in phase two, but only within the predetermined noise preferential routes;

The cap on the more flexible use of dual arrivals allowed as part of the trial will be raised from 6 to 12 per hour;

The proactive tests used briefly in phase one will be continued. The periods during which these tests will be undertaken will be announced on BAA’s website during the first month of phase two.

BAA will shortly begin a further period of engagement with local authorities, communities and other stakeholders around the operation of phase two, particularly on the monitoring of noise impacts. Once the trial is complete, the evidence collected will provide the basis for a consultation with local communities. This will consider whether an operational freedoms regime of some form should be adopted on a more permanent basis at Heathrow and if so what safeguards should apply in relation to its use. This consultation will inform the subsequent decision by Ministers.

Civil Aviation Bill (Programme) (No. 2)

Theresa Villiers Excerpts

Wednesday 25th April 2012 Commons Chamber

[The Minister of State, Department for Transport (Mrs Theresa Villiers)]

I beg to move,

That the Order of 30 January 2012 (Civil Aviation Bill) (Programme) be varied as follows:

1. Paragraphs 4 and 5 of the Order shall be omitted.

2. Proceedings on Consideration and proceedings on Third Reading shall be taken on two days in accordance with the following provisions.

Consideration

3. Proceedings on Consideration shall be taken on the first day and shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion at the moment of interruption on that day.

Third Reading

4. Proceedings on Third Reading shall be taken on the second day and shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion two hours after their commencement.

If the House agrees to the programme motion, consideration of the Bill will be taken today, and Third Reading will take place after the Queen’s Speech and last for up to two hours. The reason why Third Reading will take place on another day is that this is a carry-over Bill, and, if it is to be successfully carried over, this House must retain ownership of it until after the Queen’s Speech and pass it on to the other place in the next Session.

The proposals in the Bill were subject to extensive consultation, and to pre-legislative scrutiny by the Select Committee on Transport, for which I am grateful. The Bill also received very thorough scrutiny in Committee, and I thank Members for that. I also welcome the extent of cross-party support for much of the Bill, and I am confident that today’s debate on Report will maintain the high standards and the well-informed contributions that we have seen in the House throughout the Bill’s consideration.

Question put and agreed to.

Civil Aviation Bill

Theresa Villiers Excerpts

Wednesday 25th April 2012 Commons Chamber

[Pat Glass (North West Durham) (Lab)]

I say at the outset that overall, this is a good Bill. It was drafted by the previous Government and taken forward by the current one, and I agree with much that is in it, but I still have some concerns about a number of issues, one of which is passenger welfare. I was a member of the Public Bill Committee and I raised the issue, but I did not receive sufficient assurances from the Minister that the Government were taking it seriously enough in the Bill.

The Minister was unable to satisfy me on three key issues: first, whether airports will be required to take seriously enough the issue of passenger welfare when things go wrong; secondly, how the Government will routinely measure passenger satisfaction; and thirdly, how, having measured passenger satisfaction, they will make systemic changes to improve passengers’ experiences.

The Transport Committee has recommended that the Government structure licences specifically to address key passenger satisfaction issues, including those relating to immigration and baggage handling. We are all familiar with the frustration, anger and stress that can be caused at airports when our luggage is lost or sent to a different airport, or when we are close to missing a flight because of a long queue at security. I was able to relate to the Public Bill Committee an occasion when I was held in a long queue at security. As the flight time got closer and closer, the anxiety that that caused me was made much worse because I was travelling alone. In the current economic situation, many families are having to prioritise what they can afford and consider whether their finances will stretch to an annual holiday. When they have saved hard all year for a well-earned break, they deserve better treatment and a better experience at our airports.

The Government have cut 6,500 staff from the UK Border Agency, with 1,500 going from the UK Border Force, including more than 800 this year alone. We have heard the concerns that have been raised about the relaxation of security checks at our borders to avoid chaos at security. The chaos at the UKBA last summer meant the abandonment of checks on potentially hundreds of thousands of people, and we—least of all the Home Secretary—still do not know who came in through our borders. The relaxation of controls was a direct consequence of the reduction in the number of staff, and although that is primarily the Home Secretary’s responsibility, it has a significant negative impact on the passenger experience. The public rightly expect proper immigration controls to be in place, and passengers expect there to be sufficient staff to prevent massive delays at airports.

[The Minister of State, Department for Transport (Mrs Theresa Villiers)]

I am, of course, very interested in matters related to the UKBF, but if the Opposition are so concerned about the issue, I am puzzled that they did not table an amendment on it.

[Pat Glass]

We did table amendments on the issue in Committee and considered it in some detail, and I was not happy with the responses that I received. That is why I am raising it again.

[Mrs Villiers]

If the hon. Lady was so unhappy with the response given in Committee, I am surprised that an amendment has not been tabled for consideration today.

[Pat Glass]

The proposal is part of this group of amendments. The Minister can say what she likes, but the passenger experience at our airports, which involves standing for hours in long queues because of cuts in UKBA staff, is simply not good enough.

--- Later in debate ---

[Julie Hilling]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his clarification. I absolutely agree that all airports should be doing it, but the Bill enables us at least to put the obligation on some; we would then hope that the others would follow. If airports want to attract business from passengers and other businesses, their standards need to be as high as those of the others. It is important, therefore, that we set down what we expect from our airports and airlines.

As we heard, the Transport Select Committee undertook the inquiry “Keeping the UK moving: The impact on transport of the winter weather in December 2010”—a very long title. That in-depth report looked into all elements of transport—not only aviation but the road network and how transport links together—and recommended that passenger welfare should be at the heart of airport operations. It also agreed with the recommendation of the Begg report that Heathrow and other airports should develop welfare plans for passengers during disruption. The report stated:

“Passenger welfare should be at the heart of airport operations. We concur with the recommendation of the Begg report that Heathrow should develop a welfare plan for passengers during periods of disruption: other airports should do the same. It is unacceptable that such plans do not already exist. If airlines fail to meet their obligations to accommodate stranded passengers, airports should be prepared to step into the breach. We would support measures by which airport operators could reclaim the costs of providing support to stranded passengers from airlines which had not discharged their legal responsibilities and we recommend that the CAA investigate how this can be achieved.”

The Government responded:

“However, the legal responsibility to provide care and assistance to passengers remains that of airlines. It is important that any initiatives to bolster the provision of passenger welfare during periods of disruption, for instance through passenger welfare plans, do not create any uncertainty in this area.”

The Committee welcomed the Bill, about which the Government response said:

“The CAA would have a new primary duty that would put the interests of passengers unambiguously at the heart of the regulatory regime.”

It is disappointing, then, that on Report we are still urging the Government to put in the Bill the obligation for airports to develop welfare plans.

[Mrs Villiers]

I hope that I can reassure the hon. Lady. Our concern is not about the amendments’ content but that we can trust the CAA to put these kinds of issues in the licence system. The best way to ensure effective regulation is to give the regulator the decision on exactly how to focus on passenger welfare. The hon. Lady can be confident that even if the amendments fall today, the CAA will ultimately put exactly this sort of thing in the licences, on which it will consult as soon as the Bill becomes law.

[Julie Hilling]

I thank the Minister for her intervention, but I have to say that I am not reassured, because if we believe that those things are fundamental, I do not see why we should not put them in the Bill. She reassures us that the regulator will ensure that those things are in place, but let us tell the regulator. Let us say, unambiguously and up front, that we expect those things to happen and that the regulator will ensure that, rather than allowing the regulator to make those decisions for itself.

I want to talk, as others have, about what happened at Heathrow in the winter disruption of 2010. The point is worth reiterating, because the Begg report made alarming reading. Let us look only at the headlines: 9,500 people sleeping in the terminal; passengers seeking refuge in subways; a lorry carrying blankets for passengers having to turn back on the M25 because of the traffic conditions; very few passengers provided with water and refreshments; absolute chaos and confusion. As the Begg report found:

“Confused and contradictory messages caused incorrect signals to go to airlines, to passengers, and from airlines to passengers”.

Passengers were given laptops to try to rebook their flights—the laptops were around the terminal. That is fine for regular travellers and regular internet users—perhaps they could find their way around the system—but many passengers would clearly not have had the first clue about what to do. There seems to have been an absolute lack of care and concern for passengers at that point. Indeed, there was no contingency plan in place to ensure that those with medical conditions, who are more vulnerable—for instance, those with diabetes—had access to food, water and other things they needed. There must be a system in place and a channel of support for those who need medical support at times of disruption.

It is true that we all get those messages on the television or radio: “Do not travel unless your journey is absolutely essential.” Unfortunately, the vast majority of us always believe that our journey is indeed absolutely essential. People set out in their cars or other modes of transport when, if they had stopped to think about it, they would not have done so. Airports face that difficulty in dealing with us—that even when it is snowing or there is thick fog, we believe that our flight is going to take off. Airports have to accommodate themselves to the fact that we are not always sensible. Living in a country that does not often have severe weather, we are perhaps more naive about when we should travel and when we should not. However, we also have to recognise that many of those travelling to airports set out the day before or when it is not apparent that there will be bad weather later. Again, we have to consider not only human nature, but the fact that people will set out before conditions worsen. That is particularly true when we think about volcanoes erupting and other things that can happen unexpectedly.

Going back to the winter problems, particularly at Heathrow—I acknowledge that other airports dealt much better with the weather—it is unacceptable for passengers to have such an experience. It unacceptable not only for them, but for UK plc. Our airports are our gateway to the rest of the world. We need airports with first-world standards, not standards one would expect in a developing country.

There did not seem to be a huge amount of improvement at Heathrow this year. Perhaps I could be criticised for saying that not enough information was given on previous occasions, but when there was a threat of snow, a quarter of the flights were cancelled. The report states that flights should be cancelled and information given in advance if such disruption is feared. Perhaps the Minister has better information than I do and will be able to respond, but four inches of snow were threatened—the threat was of snow being dumped, rather than falling long term, over days or hours. Considering that we are supposed to have had this great investment in snow clearing and other things to keep our airports moving, cancelling a quarter of the flights feels like a knee-jerk reaction.

Yes, airlines are responsible for the treatment of passengers, but it is not good enough for different airports to have separate passenger welfare plans. A passenger needs to know what support they will get at any airport, because it is the airport, not the airline, that will be blamed if there are problems. Whether a passenger has booked with Virgin, British Airways or whoever, they will blame Heathrow, Manchester or Gatwick for their bad experience and lack of support, rather than the airline that should be providing that support. Airports clearly need the power and responsibility to have concerted passenger welfare plans, and the CAA needs the authority to ensure that that happens.

[Mrs Villiers]

It is a pleasure to see you in the Chair this afternoon, Mr Deputy Speaker. I would like to echo the comments of the shadow Minister for aviation to the effect that our experience in the Chamber today shows something of a contrast. It shows the great strengths of this Parliament—that we can embrace both the aggressive exchanges that we heard earlier and the detailed and considered scrutiny of legislation that we are undertaking now.

I also very much welcome the words of support that the shadow Minister has expressed—both today and throughout the scrutiny of the Bill—for the broad thrust of the framework put before the House. This is a Bill that started its life under the previous Administration, so although it is being put forward by a coalition consisting of Conservatives and Lib Dems, it owes much to our Labour predecessors. That degree of cross-party involvement has strengthened the Bill, as have the extensive consultation done by the previous Government and the further work with stakeholders done by the current Government.

Before I deal with the amendments in detail, I want to make a general point about the passenger experience. I completely agree that a key aim of the Bill is to ensure that we improve the passenger experience at our regulated airports, because it is important both for passengers and for our economic competitiveness, the quality of our airports and making passengers the central priority of our regulated airports. That is essential. Although Opposition Members have expressed concern and called for changes in the Bill to reflect that, I hope they will agree that what is already in the Bill will be a significant overall improvement on the current system, which essentially leaves the CAA with few levers at its disposal in the five-yearly price control process. That process is important, but the Bill enables the regulator to opt for real-time regulation, so that it can intervene when passengers need it, in a flexible and targeted way, to address just the sort of issues that so many hon. Members have raised today. Although we may differ on the precise drafting of the Bill on some issues, I hope that we can uniformly agree that it will be a significant step towards achieving a better experience for passengers at our airports.

Let me deal first with the amendments; I will come to the new clause in a moment. There can be no doubt about the importance of these issues, whether it is baggage handling or the protection and safeguarding of passengers in the event of disruption. I have huge sympathy with all the passengers who were subjected to hassle and inconvenience during the various incidents outlined by hon. Members today. It is clear that the aviation sector as a whole needs effective means to deal with passenger welfare during such incidents. The hon. Member for Blackley and Broughton (Graham Stringer) gave us a timely reminder that this is not just a matter for airports, but that airlines have a number of important and legally binding duties in respect of passenger welfare. However, it is clear that airports have an important role to play as well.

Although I can understand and agree with the sentiment behind much of what has been said today and the general aims of the amendments, I cannot recommend accepting them. The Bill provides a far more effective means of protecting passengers in relation to the matters raised. Clause 18 and the licensing regime will give the CAA the flexibility to tailor licence conditions to the specific circumstances facing individual airports. That flexibility is important as a means of minimising distortions associated with regulatory intervention and ensuring that the action taken by the CAA is proportionate and tailored to individual circumstances. As I said in response to the hon. Member for Bolton West (Julie Hilling), giving the independent expert regulator flexibility and discretion in deciding the content of the licence is a more effective way to protect the interests of both present and future passengers. If Parliament chooses to use the legislation to hard-code certain points into licences, that would constrain the regulator’s freedom to decide what priority should be afforded to different passenger concerns and what costs should be allowed for the delivery of competing consumer priorities.

The amendments would make the licence system unbalanced because there is a wide range of different issues that passengers care about. Moreover, a prescriptive approach in the Bill is likely to make it more difficult for the regulator to adapt its approach to the changing concerns of passengers. If we adopted the amendments we would risk obliging the Civil Aviation Authority to give greater weight to the factors listed in the amendments than to matters that might become equally or, indeed, more important to passengers in future.

I hope that I can provide some reassurance to hon. Members on the matters that they have raised. They can be confident that the CAA would use the new licensing powers proposed under the Bill to address the issues that they have raised in the amendments. As we discussed in Committee, in response to a request for advice from the Secretary of State, the CAA has published an indicative licence to assist Parliament in its scrutiny of the Bill. A copy was sent to the Library and, at the request of the Department for Transport, the draft licence includes provisions on operational resilience which, I agree, are crucial for an airport to be effective.

The proposals in condition 7 would require the licence holder to operate the airport efficiently and to use its best endeavours to minimise any detriment to passengers arising from disruption. It would also require the airport to draw up, consult on and gain the CAA’s approval for an annual resilience plan setting out how it would secure compliance with its obligations under the condition. The licence holder would then be obliged to comply with commitments it made in its resilience plan. I hope that reassures hon. Members, including the hon. Member for Bolton West (Julie Hilling).

[Gavin Shuker (Luton South) (Lab/Co-op)]

Will the Minister confirm that if the amendments are not accepted, the current insufficient resilience safeguards might be something dealt with in a licence issued by the CAA?

[Mrs Villiers]

If I understand the hon. Gentleman correctly, yes, it is clear that the Bill provides the CAA with flexibility to include provisions in the licence on baggage handling and passenger welfare. Our rejection of the amendments should not be taken as an indication that matters are not sufficient; it is simply that the Bill already provides the tools for the CAA to deal with those them.

[Gavin Shuker]

I am extremely grateful to the Minister for giving way again. She it talking about the provisions positively. Is it her view that the CAA should issue licences with provisions on those particular points?

[Mrs Villiers]

As I believe I said, the previous Secretary of State had already indicated to the CAA that resilience and passenger welfare were issues that should be addressed in the licence.

[Nigel Mills]

Something that is missing from the indicative licence is a requirement to measure or try to improve people’s experience at border control, although that is understandable, given that it is not within the remit of the CAA to deal with that. Has the Minister had any discussions with the Home Office, given the recent problems at Heathrow and elsewhere, to see whether more data can be published to try to improve that experience?

[Mrs Villiers]

I am very much aware of my hon. Friend’s interest in the UK Border Force, and I shall come on to those matters. However, on various occasions, I have had discussions with Home Office colleagues on those matters.

[Mrs Ellman]

On the same topic, how will passport control matters, which are the responsibility of the Home Office, be addressed under the licensing regime?

[Mrs Villiers]

As I shall come on to explain, I do not believe that the licensing regime is an appropriate mechanism to address issues relating to border controls.

The CAA sought initial views from industry in drafting the indicative licence. However, Parliament has not yet concluded its consideration of the Bill, so the CAA has not yet begun to consult on proposed licence conditions for each airport that will be subject to regulation. Until consultations have taken place no final decisions will be taken about what goes into the licence. However, if the Bill is passed as drafted the CAA will consider the extent to which it is necessary to include conditions on resilience and passenger welfare in the licence. The CAA expects activities that may be part of the new licence regime to include taking into account other obligations on service quality standards, and the success of codes of conduct and voluntary arrangements adopted by the industry. As the body with the relevant operational expertise, the CAA is well placed to determine appropriate and effective licence conditions. The amendments could undermine our goal of giving the specialist regulator a flexible toolkit to protect the passenger, so I hope that the Opposition will not press them to a vote.

[Graham Stringer]

I am grateful to the Minister for giving way. As ever, she is generous with her time in answering questions. My question is slightly rhetorical. Does she accept it is much more difficult for such airports as Heathrow, which operates at 99% capacity, to be resilient?

--- Later in debate ---

[Mrs Villiers]

Whether in our rail system or at our airports, there is a trade-off between capacity and resilience. If a system is intensively used, it is often more difficult to maintain appropriate reliability, but I pay tribute to the work done at Heathrow in recent years to improve reliability. In my opinion, its record stands up strongly in comparison with that of its European competitors.

On new clause 2, the Government of course agree that it is hugely important that airlines and airports should be sensitive to the needs of disabled people, and that they comply with the regulation that has been introduced to protect the interests of people with disabilities. I agree about the benefits of publishing information on compliance with obligations relating to disabled passengers. However, I do not support the new clause.

My first concern is a practical one, as the provision is so drafted that it would put the obligation to produce an annual report on the Secretary of State and the CAA jointly. I have significant doubts about linking the CAA and the Secretary of State in that way. The aviation regulator and the national enforcement body for European aviation consumer legislation are separate from the Secretary of State in respect of ensuring compliance with EU law, and the amendment could be seen to compromise the CAA’s independence in that role. I am concerned, too, about the impact of the provision, and I believe that there are effective mechanisms already in place to secure the result that it is intended to achieve.

The CAA publishes an annual report and corporate plan, and it makes a considerable amount of consumer information available on its website. An extra annual report on a specific area of legislation, on top of those more wide-ranging reports, seems disproportionate. The CAA is committed to the principles of better regulation, and it aims to be as transparent as possible in all its work, including in relation to compliance and the enforcement of legislation relating to consumers and disabled passengers.

[Jim Shannon]

Further to that point, and to what I said earlier, I am aware of many people, particularly people with disabilities, who are subject to a strip search every time they go to the airport. Is it necessary to go to that extreme every time someone who clearly has a disability appears at the airport?

[Mrs Villiers]

The airports have an important obligation to ensure that all security checks are carried out appropriately, but it is enormously important that they do so as sensitively as possible, particularly in relation to the needs of disabled passengers. I have a great deal of sympathy with the point made by the hon. Gentleman.

The CAA continues to develop capacity to help consumers, and is at an advanced stage of setting up a new consumer advisory panel to act as a critical friend of the regulator as it proceeds to put the consumer at the heart of its regulatory effort. I hope that those provisions give the hon. Member for Liverpool, Riverside (Mrs Ellman) the reassurance that she seeks. The new consumer panel, which will replace the Air Transport Users Council, is a step in the right direction. It will provide the CAA with an important insight into how it can best serve the consumer’s interest. It will have internal independence from the CAA, which will enable it to provide an effective challenge. It will have the scope to make public statements and it will publish an annual report.

--- Later in debate ---

[John Woodcock]

As ever, my hon. Friend has made an excellent point, and the amendment presents an opportunity for such leadership to be shown.

[Mrs Villiers]

Perhaps I can illustrate that by reminding the House that as soon as the problem began to emerge, when the new EU rules were introduced, the former Secretary of State for Transport instructed airports to stop applying the EU rules and revert to the old rules until a trial was developed. He took decisive political leadership then, and we will continue to adopt that approach.

[John Woodcock]

The Minister is right to point out that action has been taken in this regard. The point that we are making today, with which I hope she will agree, is that some airports are still not applying sensitivity as we would wish them to do. That remains an issue, but we now have an opportunity to do something about it.

--- Later in debate ---

[Gavin Shuker]

The hon. Gentleman goes to the heart of the issue. I agree with him completely that the regime that comes in must be as good as, if not better than, the one it replaces. That is why amendment 13 would require the Secretary of State to carry out a full assessment of the change. I hope that there will be support for that if it is pressed later.

The hon. Gentleman’s second point was that change is important. Change is essential in aviation security and in all aspects of security so that we do not get into the pattern of doing the same thing day after day and thereby miss the threats. This country has an advanced aviation security regime. There is good partnership between airports, the Department for Transport and the agency within the DFT to ensure that it is implemented. When I sat on the Transport Committee, I was pleased to accompany its Chair, who spoke earlier in this debate, to speak to the officials who are charged with our aviation security in the run-up to the passage of the legislation. It is clear that we have major expertise in this, which we can share across Europe.

The key issue is not whether the Bill will strengthen or weaken our aviation security, nor what operational procedures or equipment we should use, but the question raised by the hon. Member for Beckenham (Bob Stewart): will the regime be better? At this stage, I do not have the information that is needed to answer that question. More important, I fear that the House has not had an opportunity to explore and answer that question fully. The new clause seeks to bring about such an opportunity, which is extremely welcome.

When we consider what the role of the Government should be, we see that the public expect there to be a hierarchy of interventions. There are places where they do not want government at all, and there are places where it is very much required. Security and the protection of the people are at the top of that hierarchy. Although the change being made in the Bill is not in any way designed to push the matter off the Secretary of State’s desk, it is a change to a system that has by and large worked very well.

The change is very big, however, and as I said in an intervention, it comes in the context of changes that are happening around Europe. I visited Brussels two weeks ago to talk about a number of subjects, and the extent to which the UK has become a tarnished brand was clear. Ever since the Conservative party moved to a more right-wing grouping within Europe, and more recently because of the veto that the Prime Minister exercised—although many of us would question what it actually stopped—our Government’s ability to influence other national Governments’ policies on various matters that we should agree on as a bloc has been diminished.

[Mrs Villiers]

I think the hon. Gentleman would be interested to know that the last time I attended the Council of Ministers, the Danish presidency proactively raised the issue of security reform, drawing on a number of the principles that we were considering in the UK. There is already interest in Europe in what we are doing, and we as a country can take a leading role in the debate on how to deliver a much more effective and passenger-friendly security regime.

[Gavin Shuker]

I absolutely agree that we have great expertise to share across Europe, and I am pleased to hear that the Minister has been making that point in Brussels. If she were being charitable, though, I think she would accept that the atmosphere there has changed.

[Mrs Villiers]

indicated dissent.

[Gavin Shuker]

No, she is not going to be charitable. Okay.

The Minister rightly gave the example of the ministerial team at the Department for Transport having acted in response to concerns about European guidance on security related to the Sikh community. The current system allowed her to take that action, but we are about to change that system.

[Mrs Villiers]

I can reassure the hon. Gentleman that the move to an outcomes-focused, risk-based system will not change the responsibilities in relation to directions such as that given by the former Secretary of State, my right hon. Friend the Member for Runnymede and Weybridge (Mr Hammond). Under the new system, the Secretary of State will still have the power to make directions such as he did in relation to the problem of religious headgear.

[Gavin Shuker]

I am extremely grateful to the Minister for giving me that assurance, but I would like her to give it to the House in a full debate about aviation security. By 7 o’clock tonight, the House will have finished Report stage. My party’s Front Benchers made their arguments so forcefully that I am sure they will carry the day if the amendments are pressed, but if not, we will have to go on assurances from the Government, not on assessments such as those we call for in the amendments or on positive resolutions of both Houses such as could be made if new clause 3 were accepted.

I accept the Minister’s point about leadership and am pleased that she is being responsive on the matter, but we must not ignore the fact that a big change is being made to aviation security. The public will want us to be able to account for what we have done. The change should not be made lightly; it should be made with the full, cross-party support of the House.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mrs Villiers]

Government amendments 17 and 18 have not had much attention so far, which is probably a good thing for Government amendments. They are minor and technical, and provide for a change to section 12(3) of the Aviation Security Act 1982 by substituting the words “that Authority” with “the CAA”, thereby removing any doubt that the CAA is the authority referred to.

Amendment 11 to clause 80 deals with religious headwear. Committee members will recall that I raised this matter to illustrate some of the points we were discussing. I am sure the House will agree on the importance of ensuring that passengers are treated with respect at all points during their journey through an airport and that our system of security checks is operated in a culturally sensitive way. I welcome the work of colleagues such as my hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton South West (Paul Uppal) and the right hon. Member for Wolverhampton South East (Mr McFadden) on this important issue.

Each passenger departing from a UK airport undergoes a standard security process, irrespective of their age, gender or ethnic background. The problems highlighted today relating to religious headwear emerged in April 2010, when new EU regulations came in that required a physical hand search to be carried out in relation to turbans. As hon. Members, including the hon. Member for Feltham and Heston (Seema Malhotra) and the right hon. Member for Wolverhampton South East, have mentioned, physical contact with the turban causes considerable distress and offence to Sikhs. That was a concern not only for passengers but for many members of staff, as Heathrow is lucky enough to draw many members of staff from the Sikh community.

The former Secretary of State for Transport, my right hon. Friend the Member for Runnymede and Weybridge (Mr Hammond), acted swiftly and instructed airports to suspend temporarily the application of the new EU rules. As I mentioned in response to the hon. Member for Luton South (Gavin Shuker), the ability to take such a decision will remain in place under the new approach, because the Secretary of State will retain responsibility for policy and directions.

Airports were instructed to revert to the old systems while consideration was given to how to resolve the concerns expressed by the Sikh community. After intensive work over a short period, a trial was put together with the assistance of members of the Sikh community and is now under way at almost all the UK’s major airports. It uses a combination of explosive trace detection and hand-held metal detectors as an alternative to a hand search of the turban. This technology is successfully deployed in the United States as part of their aviation security regime. The trial is going well and is being carefully evaluated, and we are keeping the European Commission up to date with the results.

I have also written to European aviation and security Ministers to highlight the importance of the issue and to draw their attention to the trial, conscious of the sort of points made today about the UK’s responsibility as a country with a significant Sikh community. We very much hope that the trial will provide a sound basis of evidence for the EU in deciding whether it is possible to change the European rules on security to meet the concerns of Sikhs and ensure that the rules operate in a culturally sensitive way. The trial runs for 18 months up until this summer, and we are currently engaging with the EU with a view to continuing to conduct searches in this way.

[Mr McFadden]

I am grateful to the Minister for updating the House on the progress of the trial. Has she received any indication from the European Commission about its willingness to adopt this approach more widely, if the UK Government conclude that it does not compromise airport security?

[Mrs Villiers]

As I recall, it featured in my discussions with Siim Kallas last time I was at the Council of Ministers. We get the impression that the Commission is interested and has an open mind, and, in respect of the immediate prospects, we will consider whether we need to start a further trial when the current one expires in July. We are considering various ways of solving the problem, because it is important that we find a solution that works for the community.

[Mr Spellar]

Given that the trial must have been running for about 12 months, will the Minister tell us whether it has been a success? Most of the evidence will have come in the first month.

[Mrs Villiers]

As I have said, we believe that the trial has been positive so far, but it would not be appropriate for me to pre-judge the results before they have been properly assessed.

By way of further reassurance on this issue, clause 80 secures the same outcome as amendment 11, by inserting a new section 21I into the Aviation Security Act 1982, which will require the CAA to provide aviation security advice to airports, airlines and other groups. That would, if the CAA considers it to be appropriate, include advice on security checks on passengers wearing religious clothing. Therefore, although amendment 11 has provided a valuable opportunity for the House to discuss the matter, the Bill already provides for the outcome that it seeks. The Government will continue to engage with both the Commission and other member states with a view to finding a long-term solution to this important issue.

Let me turn to an outcomes-focused risk-based security regime. I welcome the words of support in principle for that direction of travel which we heard from the hon. Member for Barrow and Furness (John Woodcock). We have put together a joint Department for Transport-CAA team with the relevant skills and knowledge to develop, trial and implement the new regulatory regime. We have consulted stakeholders and hosted several interactive events with industry to explain our position. A range of trials will be carried out applying the new regulatory approach. We are conscious of the importance of retaining staff, if we can, when the posts are transferred from the Department for Transport to the CAA. We are working to ensure that we retain those staff when the posts are transferred.

The hon. Gentleman has made points about secondments in the past. We do not see a major difference being made to the retention of staff when a secondment ends, although we certainly do not rule that out as part of our strategy for retaining expertise. To respond to the points that the shadow Minister made, we agree that we are talking about a significant change to aviation security. To respond to the hon. Member for Blackley and Broughton (Graham Stringer), we believe that this move could reduce costs for industry, but that is certainly not the driving factor. The paramount priority must be to ensure that aviation security remains robust at all times. I believe that moving to a more outcomes-focused and risk-based approach could well enable us to deliver higher standards than apply currently, as we will be giving the airport industry more opportunity to develop innovative ways to deliver security outcomes and apply principles of continuous improvement. We are absolutely certain that we must in no way allow the security standards applied currently to slip. We are confident that that will not happen with an OFRB approach, and we believe that the reforms we are proposing could make passengers in the air even more secure than they are today.

[Bob Stewart]

Training is crucial, and we have to ensure that it is as good as it possibly can be. Speaking as someone who has been involved in such security matters, I can tell my right hon. Friend that the real problem is that people lose focus if they do the job for a long time. Training can help with that. We must ensure that our training is good and that it includes keeping a focus on the job when it can sometimes become repetitive and boring.

[Mrs Villiers]

My hon. Friend makes a good point with which I completely agree. He also made an important point earlier, which is that some variation in the way security is delivered in different airports can assist in maintaining the highest standards of security, because it injects a further element of unpredictability, which can help us frustrate the evil intentions of those who would do us harm.

In addition, we also see an advantage to the aviation industry of moving to a system that it can run more efficiently and, we hope, in a more passenger-friendly way. When we respond to the consultation on such security, we intend to provide as much detail as possible about how the new approach will work. I cannot support the proposal in new clause 3 for the Secretary of State to be obliged to require the approval of each House before such measures could come into force. I fear that that would slow down reform and could jeopardise our ability to respond swiftly to security threats. The Secretary of State intends to take forward the reformed approach to aviation security under powers in part II of the Aviation Security Act 1982.

Part II gives the Secretary of State the power to give directions to industry for the purpose of protecting civil aviation against acts of violence. The Secretary of State's decision-making powers do not require the approval of Parliament before they can come into force. Changing that as proposed by the new clause could damage our ability to keep passengers secure. Directions from the Secretary of State often contain security-sensitive information which, if widely disclosed, could be used by people who mean to do us harm. Obtaining the approval of the House via secondary legislation inevitably takes time, even with the most efficient business managers in charge of Parliament’s agenda. Aviation directions sometimes have to be made quickly to respond to new threats—in some cases, within a matter of hours or days. For example, swift action had to be taken in response to the liquid bomb plot. If it had been necessary to recall Parliament so that the matters could be debated by both Houses it would have been impossible to respond effectively.

The House will also recall the printer bomb plot in October 2010, when it was necessary to place emergency restrictions on air cargo very swiftly. If the Secretary of State had not been able quickly to ban certain consignments, it could have left us exposed to similar attacks. I am sure that the Opposition would not want that, so I hope that they will consider withdrawing the new clause.

[John Woodcock]

In our mind, there is no question at all that emergency provisions such as those introduced after the liquid bomb plot would be subject to parliamentary scrutiny, so I do not understand why the Minister is suggesting otherwise.

[Mrs Villiers]

I am afraid that that is how I interpret the new clause. There would be a serious risk that it would have that result, although I am pleased that the hon. Gentleman has assured the House that that is not the intended outcome. He will appreciate that that would be damaging to our efforts to keep people safe.

[Gavin Shuker]

The new clause states:

“An order under this section must be approved by a resolution of each House of Parliament. ”

There is nothing in the measure, as far as I can see, that would prevent the existing powers of the Secretary of State “to direct” from being taken away. It is more about the transition from one regime to another.

[Mrs Villiers]

That may be the Opposition’s intention, but I am advised that the effect could prevent the Secretary of State from taking swift action on the sort of plots that I have outlined.

Turning to amendment 13, clause 82(3) requires the Secretary of State to consult the CAA before making a transfer scheme. Such a scheme would allow, for example, the transfer of relevant staff. I can assure the House that the Department has begun to work with the CAA on understanding how the transfer of staff and property to the regulator might impact on the delivery of the CAA’s functions, whether it is safety, economic regulation or new security functions. The Government’s priority is to ensure that our aviation security remains robust before, during and after the transfer to the CAA. We have begun work to assess the impact of the transfers, for example, to ensure that the CAA has access to the right information and knowledge on aviation security, and we are looking too at how best to integrate aviation security in the CAA, including synergies between safety and security. The CAA is considering how best to manage security at board level, as well as how it can be most effectively managed at operational level. We remain committed to ensuring that the CAA continues to conduct its regulatory functions to a high standard and that it fulfils its aviation security functions to an equally high standard. I therefore urge my colleagues to oppose the amendments and new clause, because I do not think that they are necessary to deliver the outcomes that they are intended to secure.

--- Later in debate ---

[Graham Stringer]

Amendments 2 and 1—that is the order in which they appear on the selection list—may be considered to be either relatively minor or the most important amendments to the Bill, depending on how they are interpreted.

This is the “minor” aspect. I asked in Committee why the word “effectiveness” was not included in clause 1(3)(c) and clause 2(4)(c), along with the words “economy” and “efficiency”. The Minister’s responses are always very courteous and comprehensive, but on this occasion, unusually, I was not satisfied that there was a good reason for the absence of the word “effectiveness”.

When I was more centrally involved in local government, we regularly spoke to the Audit Commission. It used to refer to the “three E’s”—effectiveness, efficiency and economy—and used to joke that “economy” was usually left out. That is not surprising in view of the dictionary definitions of all three words. “Effectiveness” apparently means

“to accomplish the purpose, producing expected results.”

The meaning of “efficiency” is self-evident:

“performing or functioning in the best possible manner with the least waste of time and effort”.

Those are clear and relatively objective terms. “Economic”, however, is defined as

“pertaining to the production, distribution, and use of income, wealth, and commodities.”

It is a much more general term, and it is the one that the Audit Commission used to say was left out. Why on earth do clauses 1 and 2 not state that the holders of licences should be effective, which is surely very important? Although I consider that to be the relatively minor aspect of the amendments, it goes to the heart of the Bill. As I have said on a number of occasions, although the Bill gives the CAA new responsibilities to look after the interests of consumers, it does not tell us either how that is to be done or what the consumer’s interests are.

The Bill states that the CAA must oversee airports to ensure that there is continuity, and that air transport services have regard to

“the range, availability, cost and quality of airport operation services.”

That in itself is fair enough, but the Bill does not give the CAA the overarching purpose of improving aviation and ensuring that it continues to form a major part of the United Kingdom economy.

Our demand for the inclusion of the word “effectiveness” highlights the strong deficiency in the Bill that we debated in Committee. No real political controversy is involved in changing the nature of the functions of the CAA, whether we are talking about the regulation of air space or the ensuring of economy and safety. That is not a matter of great debate between the parties. There is a great debate between Members and parties, however, about how aviation should develop and whether we should continue to be a leading country in aviation, and about whether our economy, which depends on aviation, should be hindered by not having the aviation facilities we deserve. I could make a very long speech about these matters. I shall not do so, but I do want to make a few important points.

I believe that many Conservative Members, and many members of the Government, want to improve our aviation facilities, including by increasing the capacity of airports in south-east England. Unfortunately, however, they are caught in a situation where the tail is wagging the dog. Indeed, there are two tails. Dogs with two tails are usually known to be particularly happy, but not in this instance. There is the Lib Dem tail, as the Lib Dems have for historical—and, I think, mistaken—reasons always opposed increasing airport capacity in south-east England. The Government tail is also being wagged by Boris Johnson, current Mayor of London, who believes he can win the mayoral election only by opposing the expansion of airports within the London system, and by proposing instead an absurd island airport in far east London—in the Thames estuary, in fact. That may be good for his chances in the mayoral election, but it is extremely bad for the country.

[Mrs Villiers]

I can assure the hon. Gentleman that the Government’s policy on airport capacity is not driven by tails or dogs or anything like that. It is driven by an understanding of the importance of ensuring that aviation has the space to grow, but also that it does so within parameters that address the local impacts of aviation, such as aircraft noise and air quality, which, as I am sure the hon. Gentleman will agree, can be corrosive. We also need aviation to play its part in our efforts to tackle climate change. Our approach is, and always will be, based on a sound and sensible assessment of the evidence on how best to have a growing aviation industry that also plays its part in addressing its environmental impacts.

[Graham Stringer]

The Minister makes a consistent case on that, but she will not be surprised to learn that I do not accept it. The noise around airports is diminishing as planes get quieter, and air quality is regulated by European regulations, with most of the pollution around airports being caused by cars and other road traffic. That needs to be dealt with, but the levels are set by European regulations, and those levels cannot be surpassed.

Those arguing against increasing airport capacity often say that that will help in our commitments to reducing carbon dioxide emissions. As we demonstrated in Committee however, that is not the case, because as a result passengers on intercontinental journeys often have to fly via other countries, so they have to take off twice, which produces extra pollution and extra carbon dioxide.

If the Government carry through their intention to put aviation into the European emissions trading scheme, as with the polluter on the ground, aviation will be dealt with on a Europe-wide basis, so we do not need an extra domestic policy to address the issue. The Government’s current policy is strangling the British economy.

--- Later in debate ---

[Graham Stringer]

I could not agree more. Before the debate, I looked up on the internet how many cities in China have a population of more than 1 million—the size of Birmingham. There are 160 cities that are bigger than or the same size as Birmingham and five cities that are bigger than London, three of which are not very well known. The biggest, Chongqing, has a population of 31.4 million, but how many air routes do we have to Chongqing? There are routes to Shanghai from London but from nowhere else in the UK. The others are Beijing, Guangzhou—or Canton, as most people would know it—and Tianjin. Those cities are all bigger than London and there are very few routes to them. The hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) mentioned India, Brazil, Russia and China. This country wants to be the centre of the financial world through the City of London and, as Europe gets itself into a mess with deflation, our future must increasingly rely on trading with the growing economies of the world. However, at the same time, we are cutting off our links.

[Mrs Villiers]

I can reassure the hon. Gentleman that he should not necessarily believe all the propaganda he reads on the posters in Westminster tube station. If flights to Hong Kong are taken into account, Heathrow delivers more services to China than any of its continental rivals. London is one of the best connected cities in the world. We have five highly successful airports serving the south-east, six if we count Southend.

[Graham Stringer]

Since the second world war, as the Minister will know, Heathrow has been the largest international airport in the world. Soon it will no longer be that. It is still bigger than Frankfurt as regards its international destinations, but—I do not have the figures in front of me—the number of destinations served by Heathrow has gone from something like 220 to 180. Increasingly, the passenger numbers are going up because larger aeroplanes are going to fewer and fewer destinations.

I wanted to make both that small point about why the word “effective” is not in the first two clauses and the larger point that I would like not only the words to be in the Bill but there to be an effective aviation policy, which the Government do not have. On this issue, although not necessarily on others, the Government’s policies are anti-business and anti-growth. They are damaging the UK economy and they need to change them. Changing the wording of the Bill would help.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mrs Villiers]

I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Rochester and Strood (Mark Reckless) for his kind words and contribution and all Members who have taken part in the debate on this group of amendments. I was grateful that the shadow Minister expressed an interest in amendment 19 and am delighted to talk the House through the Government amendments; like those in the previous group, they are very dull and technical.

Amendment 14 rectifies a drafting omission in clause 63 by specifying that the functions captured by the references to “relevant 1998 Act functions” in clause 63 are the functions specified in clause 62(2). Amendment 15 enables further clarification of how clause 70 will operate. Clause 70 provides that two or more persons are joint operators of an airport where they jointly have overall responsibility for the management of all the area. It is important to be able to identify the operator or joint operators so that there is clarity about who is appropriately subject to regulation.

Concern has also been expressed, for example by British Airways, that the test could draw some companies into the regulatory system in a way that is not intended, for example when an airline is involved in running the terminal from which its flights take off. Amendment 15 provides that the Secretary of State has the same powers to make regulations when two or more persons are to be treated as having overall responsibility for the management of an area, as she already has for sole operators under the Bill. If unforeseen problems emerge, further clarity could be provided by secondary legislation.

On Government amendment 19, the intention of clause 77(5) is to exclude persons carrying out exempt Crown functions from economic regulation under chapters 1 and 3 of the Bill. The Bill already provides that the UK Border Force and the police, who currently carry out exempt functions on behalf of the Crown, are not subject to the prohibition on levying charges in clause 3. Amendment 19 ensures consistency, removing the possibility of the CAA being required, in response to a request under clause 7(2) to make a market power determination in respect of a core airport area operated by a person exercising exempt Crown functions. It also disapplies the requirement under clause 14(4) to treat persons carrying out exempt Crown functions as having applied for a licence if there is a positive market power determination.

After the excitement of Government amendments, I now turn to new clause 4, which relates to the National Audit Office. I fully agree with Opposition Front Benchers and others about the need for the CAA to be efficient in carrying out its functions, but I am afraid that I am not persuaded that the NAO would deliver more effective scrutiny than the current mechanisms by which the CAA’s functions are audited and scrutinised.

Moreover, the CAA is overwhelmingly funded by the aviation industry, whereas the NAO’s role is to scrutinise public spending on Parliament’s behalf, and the income the CAA receives from the industry is not classified as public spending. Parliament recognised that by removing the NAO’s role in 1984. As the shadow Minister acknowledged, the issue was considered by Sir Joseph Pilling in his 2008 review of the CAA. He concluded that there was no need for NAO involvement, and that recommendation was accepted by Ministers under the previous Government, and I have yet to see convincing reasons why they were wrong.

There are other examples of industry-funded regulators that come under the scrutiny of the National Audit Office, as the shadow Minister said, but most either are non-ministerial Government departments or rely on Government funding for a significant amount of their income. Others, such as the Financial Services Authority and the Office of Rail Regulation, are funded by industries that receive or have received significant taxpayer support—distinguishing them, again, from the aviation sector, where such indirect taxpayer support is not present.

To provide reassurance in response to the concerns that have been raised, I shall highlight the strength of the current scrutiny arrangements. The Secretary of State appoints the CAA’s external auditors; she presents the CAA’s accounts to Parliament by placing the annual report statement in the Library; she is involved in the development of the authority’s corporate plan; with the Treasury’s consent she approves the national loans and sets the CAA’s required rate of return on capital; and she will continue to approve the pay of the chairman and the non-executive members of the CAA board. That oversight, combined with the work of the CAA’s independent auditors, gives a strong incentive to secure value for money and offers accountability to Parliament.

I also advise the House that the CAA has implemented the Pilling recommendation on establishing a programme of value-for-money audits. The CAA also consults on its charges and fees, giving stakeholders the opportunity to raise any concerns that they have—they are always robust in making their views known—and the Bill makes such consultation an explicit legal requirement.

There are therefore already effective mechanisms in place to ensure that the CAA acts efficiently. As the shadow Minister said, however, when we considered a similar new clause in Committee, I undertook to reflect on these issues and whether additional reassurance could be given on them. I am therefore today announcing a change to the CAA’s accounting direction, which I hope will provide some further reassurance.

Every year the DFT issues a report direction and an accounts direction to the CAA, specifying the matters that should be addressed in the authority’s annual report and accounts. The Secretary of State intends to make an addition to the accounts direction for 2013 and succeeding years which will for the first time require the CAA to include an efficiency statement in the annual report. The CAA has also agreed to do so for its activities in the current financial year.

The efficiency statement will be subject to validation by the external auditors, whose statement in the annual report will contain a summary of their findings on it, and the Department for Transport will approve the terms of reference for this work. Industry representatives on the CAA’s finance advisory group will be given an opportunity to discuss the statement.

One advantage of such action over the Opposition’s proposed change is that it strengthens the existing annual process of scrutiny, with transparency in relation to industry and to Parliament when the Secretary of State presents the accounts, whereas the NAO’s focus on the CAA would inevitably be less frequent than any annual one. Our approach also enables the CAA to continue to pursue value for money through the selection of its external auditor by tender.

Although I agree with the Opposition about the sentiment of new clause 5, which would impose an explicit efficiency duty on the CAA, I think its adoption is unnecessary because the authority is already subject to such a duty in all but name. The CAA’s strategic plan contains the objective

“to ensure that CAA is an efficient and effective organisation which meets Better Regulation Principles and gives value for money”.

Subsections (3) and (4) of clause 1 already require the CAA to carry out its economic regulation functions under part 1 of the Bill transparently, accountably, proportionately and consistently. To meet its statutory obligation to act proportionately and to target activity only on cases where it is needed, the CAA is obliged to act efficiently and to have regard for the costs and benefits of its activities.

Moreover, the Legislative and Regulatory Reform Act 2006 provides that all statutory regulators

“should be accountable for the efficiency and effectiveness of their activities”.

The Secretary of State for Transport writes to the CAA chair setting objectives for its term, and the most recent such letter makes it very clear that the Government expect the CAA to operate efficiently and to minimise the cost to industry. That oversight, combined with the work of the CAA auditors, gives a strong incentive to secure value for money and offers accountability to Parliament. Over the past 10 years, the CAA has reduced its operating costs in real terms by more than 20%.

I turn now to the points made by the hon. Member for Blackley and Broughton (Graham Stringer). I will not trespass on your patience, Madam Deputy Speaker, with a broad-ranging discussion of aviation capacity, given that that was the subject of a new clause that was not selected, but I reassure the hon. Gentleman that we take this issue seriously and that our approach on a third runway at Heathrow is driven by the evidence on the impact that such a project would have. We believe that it is essential to find an alternative way to meet the long-term capacity needs of the UK economy.

Building a third runway at Heathrow would have a significant noise impact. People who live near Heathrow account for about 70% of the people in the UK and more than one in four of the people in Europe who are exposed to an average noise from airports of more than 55 dB. Thousands of people live with a plane going overhead every 90 seconds on a daily basis, not to mention the planes that wake them up at 4.30 in the morning. The quality-of-life impact of a third runway, which would mean 220,000 more flights every year over a densely populated part of London, would be significant. There is no technological solution in sight to ensure that planes will become quiet enough quickly enough to make the burden tolerable.

[Mr Donohoe]

Just to put it on the record, is the Minister saying that there is no possibility of expansion at Heathrow or near Heathrow, say at Northolt?

[Mrs Villiers]

What I am saying is that we are opposed to a third runway and that we believe it is essential to protect the quality of life of the communities who would be affected by it.

[Dr Julian Huppert (Cambridge) (LD)]

Is the Minister aware of the paper by the Aviation Environment Federation for WWF UK on capacity across the country? It found that there was space for

“a 52% growth in passengers”

and a twofold increase in air traffic movements with existing capacity. Does that mean that there is less need for the expansions that the Opposition seem to be keen on?

[Mrs Villiers]

I warmly agree with my hon. Friend that it is essential to make the best use of the existing capacity in the south-east and around the country. We will explore that in the process that we are undertaking on the future of our aviation capacity needs.

[Gavin Shuker]

I agree with the Minister that we need to make better use of the capacity that we have. Of course, Luton airport in my constituency has more capacity and we are willing to share it. Does she not accept that we have a problem, in that there is no proper UK aviation hub at present?

[Mrs Villiers]

As I said, London is one of the most well connected cities in the world and arguably the most well connected. It has five or, depending on one’s definition, six successful international airports that serve our economy very well. We need this debate to be based on evidence, not on the propaganda that one reads on BAA posters.

As I said, that matter is not, strictly speaking, germane to the motion, so before I try your patience, Madam Deputy Speaker, I will turn to amendments 1 and 2 tabled by the hon. Member for Blackley and Broughton. His intention is that “effectiveness” should be construed as spending wisely. Imposing such an obligation on the CAA could pull it into an inappropriate management role over regulated airports. I am sure that that is not his intention, given that he is rigorous in opposing disproportionate regulation.

My concern is that it is one thing to specify an output that is required, but quite another to specify the manner in which the operator should meet that obligation. The Bill gives the CAA the power to ensure that airports with substantial market power do not impose unreasonable charges on their customers or exploit them. The amendment might oblige the CAA to start telling an airport how to run its business in the most effective way. That outcome would be disproportionate.

The current wording in clause 1(3) is broadly understood by the stakeholders who are affected by the regime. Inserting the word “effectiveness” at this stage might undermine the clarity of the duties to which the CAA is subject, when clarity is one of the most important goals in the Bill.

My hon. Friend the Member for Daventry (Chris Heaton-Harris) is a staunch defender of the air freight industry, and it is always a pleasure to hear his contributions. I repeat the comments that I made in Committee about my admiration for the efficiency and success of that industry in the UK, and I reassure him again that in exercising its information powers in relation to the freight industry, the CAA is obliged to take a proportionate approach. The degree of intervention required in a business-to-business market may be less than is appropriate in the consumer market, and I am sure the CAA will take that on board in ensuring that it takes a proportionate approach.

--- Later in debate ---

[Jim Fitzpatrick]

It is almost breathtaking that, when we are proposing an environmental duty that would cover the busiest airport in the UK, the hon. Gentleman should say, “No, let’s not do that. Let’s wait till we get Southend right.” That just does not make sense. We are arguing for the introduction of an environmental duty now. He is arguing that, although he wants one, this one just does not fit the bill. I was not praising him for his consistency, by the way, and just because he is consistently wrong does not mean that I agree with him.

[Mrs Villiers]

I do not think that the hon. Gentleman is in a position to lecture my hon. Friend the Member for Cambridge (Dr Huppert) on consistency. In theory, Labour opposes a third runway, yet every time one of its Back Benchers mentions the subject, they tend to be very supportive of the idea.

[Jim Fitzpatrick]

The Minister knows full well that the shadow Secretary of State made our position on the third runway quite clear when she invited Members to attend cross-party talks on the subject. To date, as far as I am aware, my hon. Friend has not even had an answer from the Secretary of State. Our position is clear.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mrs Villiers]

It is important for the hon. Gentleman to appreciate that the difference with those bodies is that a universal jurisdiction applies across an entire sector or industry, whereas we are dealing with a situation in which economic regulation applies only to a few airports. That is why this is not the appropriate or right way to deliver environmental regulation.

[Jim Fitzpatrick]

I hear what the Minister says. In our Committee discussions, those we are having today and in discussions outside, transport consistently appears as a big contributor to greenhouse gas emissions. Aviation continues to grow. In a recent speech, I believe to The Times transport conference, the Minister quoted the statistics showing that transport will, year on year out to 2030 and beyond, make a bigger contribution to those emissions, simply because the sector is growing. It cannot be right not to address the question of having an environmental duty at a time when we are we are introducing the new powers and duties and the new regulatory authority through the Bill. Surely now is the appropriate time for it.

--- Later in debate ---

[Pat Glass]

At the beginning of the debate, I said that I felt that the Bill was essentially a good one with a number of omissions, and perhaps the most glaring omission of all is the statutory environmental duty. That statutory duty was part of the Bill when it was drafted by the previous Government, and it is not clear to me why the “greenest Government ever” would remove it.

In Committee, the Minister told us that the Bill is about economic regulation and that there is therefore no room for a statutory environmental duty. However, the Bill is about much more than simply the economic regulation of the CAA. If it was just about economic regulation, it would not include safety or security or an extension of the air travel organisers’ licence. It is not a clean and simple Bill about economic regulation; it is a long overdue consolidation and updating of regulations covering a wide range of issues in which those sections dealing with a statutory duty on environmental issues should have been included but have been deliberately expunged.

I could perhaps understand the Government’s reluctance to include the environmental duty if the CAA was the only economic regulator to have such a statutory duty placed on it. We have heard the Minister say in response to that point that the Bill only covers certain airports, but as my hon. Friend the Member for Bolton West (Julie Hilling) has said, in some areas, such as security, it covers all airports.

[Mrs Villiers]

Will the hon. Lady give way?

[Pat Glass]

May I finish this point? I will then be happy to give way.

Even if the Bill covered only certain airports, would it not be a good start to begin with the biggest airports in the country? The Minister has also said—I am sure she will say it again when she intervenes—that other economic regulators, such as Ofgem and Ofwat, have universal jurisdiction, but that is not true. Ofgem does not have universal jurisdiction. Huge areas of this country, particularly rural areas, are off gas and are therefore not covered by Ofgem. I know that because I and other Members of the House have consistently campaigned to extend Ofgem’s jurisdiction to make it universal. I am sorry, but the Minister’s argument is just not correct.

[Mrs Villiers]

Both the hon. Lady and the hon. Member for Bolton West (Julie Hilling) made points about parts of the Bill covering all airports, and that is undoubtedly true, but the amendments relate to economic regulation. So the amendments seek to use economic regulation as a means of achieving environmental objectives. That is one of my fundamental objections. If we are going regulate for environmental purposes, we need to do it across the board in a proportionate, targeted and efficient way, not via economic regulation.

[Pat Glass]

And I would agree if we had before us some regulation that would cover all airports, but we do not. So I am sorry: we have to start somewhere.

Moving on to the impact of the statutory duty, I cannot believe that anyone would argue that it is not needed. I appreciate that aviation emissions currently make up 6% of UK emissions, but we all know that that is expected to rise to as much as 25%, even if the Government stick to the current targets and even if those targets are met. But as we heard today, environmental issues around airports and air travel go much further than concerns about emissions. They include air quality around airports and in the wider environment, they include noise pollution at and around airports and they include surface transport links and access. As we heard today from my hon. Friend the Member for Blackley and Broughton (Graham Stringer), a recognised expert in this area, most pollution around airports does not actually come from planes; it comes from vehicles going to, from and around airports. Those living around and close to airports are naturally concerned about air quality and noise pollution, and they will be very unhappy to see the Government remove the statutory duty from the Bill.

Finally, I want to move on to the issue of emissions, which are of concern to us all. We all need to know that the CAA will pay proper regard to playing its part in meeting the 2015 targets, in a world in which emissions from aviation are going to increase, and in which the emissions challenge will simply get harder and harder. I do not understand, in this situation of increasing challenge, why the Government are choosing to remove the statutory duty.

I was not surprised that Conservative members of the Bill Committee voted down environmental safeguards, but I was particularly disappointed and surprised that Lib Dem members of the Committee did so too. Listening to the nice warm words today from the hon. Member for Cambridge (Dr Huppert) only increases my surprise and disappointment. I recall that in Committee, he said that he was not supporting our amendment because it was not strong enough. We have had six weeks. He had an opportunity to table much stronger amendments himself, both in Committee and today, and what have we seen? Nothing. All we have seen is the hon. Gentleman turning himself almost inside-out in an attempt to face both ways at the same time. However, all is not lost. He and his Lib Dem colleagues do have an opportunity to salve their conscience, and to have the courage of their convictions by voting for a statutory environmental duty in the Lobby this evening.

[Mrs Villiers]

I would like to assure the House that the coalition takes the environmental impacts of aviation very seriously—both its constituent parties. We take seriously both its global impact in terms of carbon emissions and its local impact in terms of noise and air quality. I welcome the contributions made by so many hon. Members this afternoon about the significance of those impacts—the hon. Members for Feltham and Heston (Seema Malhotra) and for Hayes and Harlington (John McDonnell), and my hon. Friends the Members for Ealing Central and Acton (Angie Bray), for Rochester and Strood (Mark Reckless) and for Cambridge (Dr Huppert). Although I have some sympathy with the underlying purpose of the amendments, there are a number of important reasons why I cannot ask the House to support them today.

I do understand the concerns expressed, by, for example, my hon. Friend the Member for Cambridge and groups such as HACAN—Heathrow Association for the Control of Airport Noise—and AirportWatch. I know that my hon. Friend is looking for further clarity on environmental investment and I hope I can provide some reassurance today on that and on how the Bill will work. I will also say to my hon. Friend and others who have expressed a view today that the Government will continue to listen with great care to the concerns raised on environmental matters, including those set out in the debate today. We shall continue to reflect carefully on whether further clarity needs to be provided in the Bill, and no doubt there will be another opportunity to consider this matter in the other place. The aviation policy framework that we shall publish next spring provides another key opportunity to address the full range of the environmental impacts of aviation and establish the best way to deal with them.

In the Government’s view, the Bill as currently drafted allows the CAA to authorise reasonable investment in measures that mitigate environmental impact, even where they are voluntarily undertaken. Where environmental measures benefit users of air transport services in the provision of airport operation services, the Bill gives the CAA the power to allow for its costs in the regulatory settlement.

The CAA made clear in its evidence to the Public Bill Committee that a system that safeguards the interests of end users and seeks to replicate a functioning market, as this system does, can and does embrace investment in environmental measures and surface access improvements. Iain Osborne of the CAA pointed out in his evidence that unregulated airports across the world invest in environmental measures. For example, although its noise mitigation scheme is now mandated as part of a planning agreement, Birmingham airport operated a voluntary scheme from 1978 to 1996. Since 2003 the airport has also operated a voluntary scheme to provide roof protection for properties affected by roof damage from aircraft vortices. Other examples include East Midlands airport’s investment in wind turbines and Bournemouth airport’s investment in solar panels. We firmly believe that it will continue to be possible for environmental investment to be authorised under the regulatory system proposed in the Bill. I hope that that provides some clarity and reassurance.

Parliamentary Written Answer (Correction)

Theresa Villiers Excerpts

Tuesday 24th April 2012 Written Statements

[The Minister of State, Department for Transport (Mrs Theresa Villiers)]

I regret to inform the House that there was an inaccuracy in the answer I gave to parliamentary question 98207 on 5 March, Official Report, column 411W and subsequent comments made by the Secretary of State for Transport in debates held on 8 March, Official Report, column 1035 and 23 March, Official Report, column 1049 about how many miles of railway track were electrified between May 1997 and May 2010.

The correct answer is approximately nine route miles were electrified between May 1997 and May 2010, not 39 route miles as previously stated. This total does not include newly constructed railways.

Oral Answers to Questions

Theresa Villiers Excerpts

Thursday 19th April 2012 Commons Chamber

[Paul Blomfield (Sheffield Central) (Lab)]

6. What progress she has made on the electrification of the midland main line; and if she will make a statement.

[The Minister of State, Department for Transport (Mrs Theresa Villiers)]

The Government are reviewing the business case for electrification of the midland main line, and we will consider this very carefully when we make our decisions in the summer on rail investments in the next rail control period from 2014 to 2019.

[Paul Blomfield]

I thank the Minister for her answer and for her response to Monday’s Adjournment debate, which again showed the wide support among hon. Members on both sides of the House for improvements to the midland main line. She knows that electrification alone will not deliver the improved journey times, and that the £150 million needed for the further track improvements, particularly at Market Harborough, Leicester and Derby, will make the difference, for a relatively modest investment. Does she therefore agree that we need to cut corners on the track and to do so on the budget would be a false economy?

[Mrs Villiers]

I very much agree that Monday’s debate was excellent. Although the hour was late, the attendance was strong, with a huge number of hon. Members demonstrating their support for a project that does have a good business case; electrification will be expected to pay for itself over the appraisal period. We will consider the other upgrades that the hon. Gentleman would like to happen. We do not think that their business case is likely to be as strong, but those projects will be examined carefully, too, alongside all the other competing priorities, including projects such as the northern hub.

[Nicky Morgan (Loughborough) (Con)]

16. I thank the Minister for her constructive comments and response to the Adjournment debate that I led on Monday evening. Given the remarks she made just now, she is obviously aware of the cross-party support in the House for the upgrade and electrification works. I hope that she is also aware of the support outside, including from all the local enterprise partnerships and councils affected. Is there any further information that any of us campaigning for the electrification and upgrade of the midland main line could provide to her or her office before her decision is made?

[Mrs Villiers]

My hon. Friend has been running a great campaign on this issue, alongside many other honourable colleagues. As she says, support has been demonstrated by a lot of the other stakeholders and, of course, by the Derby Telegraph, fine institution that it is. We are confident that we have the information we need, working with Network Rail, and we will be looking further at that in the run-up to these decisions. Of course we take this issue very seriously, because we are committed to electrification of the rail network; we are committed to about 800 miles of it, with about 130 miles of it on stream with TransPennine electrification, whereas the Labour Government only managed less than 10 miles of it.

[Jonathan Ashworth (Leicester South) (Lab)]

May I tell the Minister that this project also has huge support from the fine institution that is the Leicester Mercury? She has referred to the strength of feeling expressed in Monday evening’s debate. This project has huge cross-party support and support in the business community, although there is concern in some quarters that, because of HS2, we will not get the money for it. Given that the population and the conurbations that this line serves are likely to expand greatly over the next few years, the sooner she can give us a firm commitment on this, the better.

[Mrs Villiers]

I am delighted that the Leicester Mercury is also on side, too. As the Secretary of State has made clear, we believe that it is important to invest in and upgrade our current rail network, as well as prepare for the challenges of the future with HS2. But it is only because this Government have made a decision to prioritise investment in transport, despite the deficit that we inherited from our predecessors, that we are having this conversation at all and it is the only reason that electrification of the midland main line is a real possibility.

[David Tredinnick (Bosworth) (Con)]

Does my right hon. Friend agree that the project is tremendous value for money, because it will take pressure off the east and west coast main lines? With the prospect of a 60-minute journey from Leicester to London, there will be more demand on the line, so the cross-party support is genuine.

[Mrs Villiers]

I agree that electrification has general benefits, many of which would materialise if electrification on the midland main line were to go ahead. It will depend on whether it is affordable and on the assessment of competing priorities, which are also supported by communities in other parts of the country. We will take all economic issues and environmental benefits into account.

[Mr Brian H. Donohoe (Central Ayrshire) (Lab)]

7. What recent discussions she has had with the Chancellor of the Exchequer on the cost of fuel.

--- Later in debate ---

[Grahame M. Morris (Easington) (Lab)]

8. What assessment she has made of the effect on jobseekers of rail fare increases.

[The Minister of State, Department for Transport (Mrs Theresa Villiers)]

No specific assessment has been made of the effect on jobseekers by my Department. The Department for Work and Pensions has a scheme in place to assist jobseekers. Jobcentre Plus issues a discount card to eligible jobseekers to help them travel more cheaply on train services to job interviews and for vocational training. The card offers a 50% discount on a wide variety of fares including London travelcards.

[Grahame M. Morris]

A previous Conservative Secretary of State advised people to get on their bike to find work; it seems that the Department for Transport has taken that advice to heart given the rapid increases in rail fares, particularly over the next two years. Can the Minister confirm that the Government will now allow train companies to increase fares by as much as 8% above inflation over the next two years, and will she at least consider limiting the cost for those people in constituencies such as mine for whom this is very difficult?

[Mr Speaker]

I am grateful; we have got the point.

[Mrs Villiers]

This Government are determined to get the costs of running the railways down. We have a plan for delivering that—a plan that has been opposed by Labour Members, who have provided no ideas themselves on how we deal with this problem. We are determined to deliver better value for money for passengers. That is why we are going to get the cost of running the railways down.

[Alok Sharma (Reading West) (Con)]

Jobseekers and workers from my constituency travel regularly by train to London and elsewhere in the south-east and the wider introduction of smart ticketing should help to reduce their travel costs. Can the Minister update the House on plans to extend smart ticketing across the south-east, funding for which was announced in the Chancellor’s autumn statement?

[Mrs Villiers]

We believe that introducing smart ticketing across more of our national network is a very important way to improve services for passengers to make ticket-buying easier and more convenient and also as a way to assist our efforts to get better value for money for passengers and in terms of reducing the costs of running the railways. That is why we have allocated funding to projects to deliver smart ticketing in the south-east and why we are funding the interaction of ITSO with Oyster in London. We are determined that the sort of benefits that people have enjoyed with Oyster in London for many years can start to be enjoyed across a wide range of services across the national network.

[Mrs Louise Ellman (Liverpool, Riverside) (Lab/Co-op)]

The Government’s plans for the future of the rail service include the statement that Ministers wish to withdraw or reduce rail subsidies. What impact would this have on rail fares?

[Mrs Villiers]

What we want to do is get the cost of running the railways down so we take the pressure off fares and off the taxpayers’ subsidy. We need to be fair to both the groups that fund the railways and it is vital that we go forward with our programme to give better value for money and eliminate the inefficiency in the railways that arose under Labour’s term of office. In its term of office, fares rose and inefficiency increased dramatically in the railways.

[Stephen Mosley (City of Chester) (Con)]

My hon. Friend will be aware that the Opposition said they would cap train fares this year by the retail prices index plus 1%, but where Labour is in control, in Wales, it has maintained the 5% flex element. Is this not just another case of the Opposition saying one thing but doing another?

[Mrs Villiers]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. We cannot believe a word Labour says on fares. The Leader of the Opposition stood at the Dispatch Box and said that the fares basket flexibility was an outrage, yet the Labour Administration in Cardiff are still using it. When it comes to Ken Livingstone, we cannot believe a word he says either on fares.

[Maria Eagle (Garston and Halewood) (Lab)]

Does the Minister understand that many people who are out of work do not have easy access to the internet and rely on the help and advice of staff to ensure they get the cheapest fare, which is not always clearly advertised or available at ticket machines? Can the Minister confirm whether it is Ministers or train companies who are responsible for the decision to close many of these vital ticket offices?

[Mrs Villiers]

The hon. Lady should give me an example of these closures, because I have to say they are not happening. No decisions have been made on possible changes to the way that ticket offices are regulated and we are going to be looking at this issue as part of our efforts to drive efficiency in the railways, but before any decisions are taken we will think very carefully about the impact on all rail users, including the disabled, those who are jobless and those with visual impairments. This is a very important issue to get right and part of the way we will deal with it is by expanding the smart ticketing and alternative ticket-buying opportunities we have discussed this morning.

[Maria Eagle]

That is an interesting answer. The Minister seems to be out of touch with what is happening in her own Department. I have here a leaked e-mail, dated just two weeks ago, from the civil servant responsible for the rail fares and ticketing review. It says that

“the Minister has already decided to approve some ticket office closures (it’s just not been announced yet…)…there will be more of those in future.”

What is worse, she then admits that Ministers plan to pin the blame for the closures on the train companies, saying,

“your way of slipping in there that the initiative comes from TOCs not us is very neat”.

Will the Minister now own up and admit that she has already given the green light to these closures, which passengers will find not “very neat” but very inconvenient and very expensive?

[Mrs Villiers]

The shadow Secretary of State refers to the proposal from London Midland, which is being considered but on which no final decision has been made.

[Brandon Lewis (Great Yarmouth) (Con)]

9. What discussions her Department has had with local authorities on the devolution of funding for major local transport schemes.

--- Later in debate ---

[Paul Maynard (Blackpool North and Cleveleys) (Con)]

T4. The Minister will be aware from her answers to my written parliamentary questions that the Labour party spent no money and completed no track work for the northern hub during its time in government. I am sure that the House welcomes the Ordsall Chord as the down payment on the northern hub, but can she assist those in the Chamber who might be frustrated by the lack of progress on how the new infrastructure projects, such as electrification, impact on the delivery of the northern hub?

[The Minister of State, Department for Transport (Mrs Theresa Villiers)]

It is right that the Government are making considerable progress on the northern hub, in contrast to our predecessors—not just the Ordsall Chord but north trans-Pennine electrification, improving the Hope Valley line and other improvements that will benefit Manchester, Sheffield, Bolton, Preston, Rochdale, Halifax and Bradford. I acknowledge that there is more to do, and the remaining elements of the northern hub will be carefully and seriously considered when we make our decisions on the next high-level output specification railway control period.

[Mr Clive Betts (Sheffield South East) (Lab)]

T2. I apologise for raising again the issue that I raised last month without getting an answer. Two years ago the Government inherited an in-principle agreement from the previous Government for the tram train pilot scheme in Sheffield. The scheme is not about rolling out multi-billion pound expansion across the country at this stage. A simple pilot could determine whether what works in other countries works here. When will we have a starting date?

[Jack Lopresti (Filton and Bradley Stoke) (Con)]

T6. Officials in the Department are considering the Greater Bristol metro rail campaign’s four-track bid for high-level operating strategy funds. Does the Minister agree that, if successful, the four-track system at Filton bank would unlock an essential local railway line for more regular local trains serving popular residential and business locations?

[Mrs Villiers]

I am very aware of the project and I recognise its benefits, and officials at the Department for Transport are working with Network Rail and the local authorities concerned. It looks to have a fairly positive business case and we will consider this alongside all the others put forward this morning that could be funded in railway control period 5.

[Mr Stephen Hepburn (Jarrow) (Lab)]

T3. Will the local transport Minister give us an assurance today that, despite Government Members’ statements, there will be no planned changes to the concessionary fares scheme?

--- Later in debate ---

[Tony Lloyd (Manchester Central) (Lab)]

T8. Do Ministers accept that when railway stations are left without staff, the travelling public, particularly women, feel insecure using them? Will they give an absolute guarantee that staff will not be taken out of stations when that would put the public at any kind of risk?

[Mrs Villiers]

In deciding the rules on ticket offices, it will of course be important to consider carefully how best to deploy staff in a way that keeps passengers safe and secure, so the issues the hon. Gentleman raises will be an important part of our thinking before we decide whether any changes need to be made.

[Henry Smith (Crawley) (Con)]

T10. Will my right hon. Friend join me in paying tribute to the staff of Virgin Atlantic, Gatwick Airport Ltd and the South East Coast ambulance service for their professionalism when assisting passengers following the emergency landing of flight VS27 earlier this week?

[Alison McGovern (Wirral South) (Lab)]

Current electrification schemes for a better railway agreed under the previous Government will hopefully yield lessons on how to improve engineering processes and should make electrification of the midland main line and the important scheme for the Wrexham to Bidston line, which runs through my constituency, a better prospect. What early lessons has the Department learned on how to improve engineering for electrification?

[Mrs Villiers]

Sir David Higgins has come up with some great ideas exactly along the lines the hon. Lady mentions, which could considerably reduce the cost of delivering electrification. However, it is still expensive and still has to be affordable, so we will have to look at priorities.

[Mr John Leech (Manchester, Withington) (LD)]

Has the Secretary of State now calculated the cost associated with increasing the motorway speed limit to 80 mph and the increased number of casualties expected as a result of such a measure?

High Speed 2 (Scotland)

Theresa Villiers Excerpts

Wednesday 18th April 2012 Westminster Hall

[The Minister of State, Department for Transport (Mrs Theresa Villiers)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship for the first time, Mr Havard, and I congratulate the hon. Member for Glenrothes (Lindsay Roy) on a thoughtful and well informed speech on an important topic. I, too, thank other hon. Members for attending the debate. I agreed with almost everything the hon. Gentleman said, in particular that successfully delivering a high-speed rail network is in large part assisted by and dependent on maintaining cross-party consensus. We are grateful for the consensus that we have seen on this matter to date, and the attendance at today’s debate demonstrates the support for high-speed rail across parties and in different parts of the United Kingdom.

The ability to travel quickly and efficiently between the UK’s productive centres is vital for commerce to thrive and for businesses to create jobs and invest in our country. High Speed 2 is a core element of the Government’s vision for a transport system that is an engine of economic growth, as the hon. Gentleman highlighted. A new national high-speed rail network will deliver massive benefits in capacity, connectivity and reliability, which will help to underpin prosperity right across Britain and leave a lasting legacy for generations to come.

I fully recognise that there is tremendous support for high-speed rail in Scotland. As the hon. Gentleman highlighted, recent evidence for that is provided by the “Fast Track Scotland” report of the Scottish Partnership Group, which comprises a wide range of business groups, local authorities and the Scottish Government. We all share a vision for faster journeys that bring the constituent parts of our island closer together.

The hon. Gentleman focused strongly on the need to take high-speed rail to Scotland as soon as possible. The coalition agreement makes it clear that our ultimate goal is a genuinely national network, with high-speed services from London to the midlands and the north, including Scotland. We see phases 1 and 2 of the High Speed 2 project as the best way to make progress towards that goal. If we look back over our transport history—we can look at the construction of the first railways, the London underground or the motorway network, for example—we see that major networks have invariably been delivered in phases over a number of years. For high-speed rail in Britain to be an affordable and manageable proposition, the only viable option is a phased approach. Our priority is therefore delivery of the Y network, with London to the west midlands as the first phase.

However, the day after we announced our decision on phase 1 of the network, the Under-Secretary of State for Transport, my hon. Friend the Member for Hemel Hempstead (Mike Penning), was north of the border at a meeting arranged by Transport Scotland to outline the details of the announcement and to discuss the next steps with key Scottish stakeholders; and last month, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State attended a round table with Scottish businesses. She also had very constructive discussions with Keith Brown, the Minister for Housing and Transport in Scotland. She has agreed that the two Governments will step up their engagement on this issue, with a view to establishing an appropriate division of responsibility and putting the necessary governance in place to work through potential solutions.

Working with the Scottish Government, we hope to develop a mutually agreed timetable over the summer for our plans to consider progressing HS2 further. Officials from the two Governments are due to meet within the next few weeks to start that new strand of work. Care is needed in considering the case for extensions. All relevant evidence and options need to be properly assessed. It would be in no one’s interest if work on possible extensions slowed down progress on the Y network. Moreover, it will be difficult to look seriously at the route of potential extensions until we are much closer than we are now to a decision on routes to Manchester and Leeds—something on which the Government have only just received the advice of HS2 Ltd.

Undoubtedly, therefore, there are some practical constraints on the extent of the work that can be done at this stage, but I assure the hon. Member for Glenrothes and others attending the debate that those practical considerations do not mean that the Government will sit back until the full Y network is completed before looking seriously at how high-speed services could be extended.

[Sheila Gilmore]

We are all very conscious that the Government have come in for criticism. People have said, “Why bother taking high-speed rail to Birmingham when it will lop such a small amount off journey times?” Given that the real benefits, both economic and environmental, will come when we get the extension to Scotland, is there not a great deal of value in progressing those plans as quickly as possible, because that will reinforce the argument for the first part of the scheme?

[Mrs Villiers]

As I have said, we are certainly prepared to start considering the future development and expansion of the network while still in the process of delivering the initial phases. The question has often been asked, including by the hon. Member for Glenrothes today, about who would pay for what were there to be extensions. It is too early to start to design funding packages, although I am sure that hon. Members will be aware that the devolution settlement gives the Scottish Government the responsibility for funding rail infrastructure that is north of the border.

The hon. Gentleman also expressed concern about the impact that a vote for separation and division of our nation would have. I agree that such a huge constitutional change would make it much more difficult to deliver major improvements to our transport network, if only because of the distraction that it would cause. If the entirety of the Government machine is focused on separating itself from the rest of the United Kingdom, that will inevitably have a detrimental effect on efforts to stimulate the economy and to improve the transport infrastructure.

We have already begun work with partners north of the border to ensure that Scotland gets the most out of our current plans for HS2, as well as to explore fully Scotland’s future aspirations for even faster connectivity. We should not underestimate the benefits that Scotland will get from the Y network, which we are already taking forward. It is a fact that the benefits of HS2 will extend far beyond the cities directly served by the Y network. HS2 Ltd’s estimate of the £44 billion economic boost that high-speed rail could produce is a cautious one, and the boost will be felt in Scotland and the north of England as well as in the south.

HS2 will increase capacity and enhance connectivity all the way to Scotland by relieving pressure on the most congested, southern end of the west coast line. The seamless transition of trains on to the east and west coast main lines from the Y network will deliver faster journeys to destinations the length of Britain. Completion of the Y network is expected to slash the journey time between Edinburgh and Glasgow and London to about three and a half hours. That will deliver very significant connectivity and economic benefits. We want those benefits to be delivered as soon as possible—a number of hon. Members mentioned the time of delivery—which is why we are exploring options for bringing forward formal public consultation on phase 2 of the Y network. We will set out our proposed timetable later this year.

[Lindsay Roy]

The evidence indicates quite clearly that a quantum modal shift from air to train would be achieved if the journey time could be two to two and a half hours. With a journey time of three and a half hours, there would still be a propensity to go for air transport.

[Mrs Villiers]

I am not sure that I agree with the hon. Gentleman on that. Given the experience with high-speed rail in the rest of Europe, I think that a journey time of three and a half hours will make rail a very attractive alternative to flying, particularly when one factors in the increased time at either end of an air journey. There is quite an intense debate on the issue of an air-to-rail switch, but experience in the rest of Europe shows that a high-speed rail journey of three and a half hours is generally an attractive alternative to the plane.

The claim by opponents of HS2 that better, faster transport between north and south will see economic activity pulled into London and away from the UK’s other great cities is misguided. I have every confidence that bringing Edinburgh and Glasgow closer to London with the Y network—a journey time of three and a half hours—will be a real boost for those cities, as well as for the cities of the midlands and the north of England. That confidence is based on the evidence from our European neighbours, who began their high-speed rail journey a generation before we had even started arguing about the first 67-mile stretch of track from the channel tunnel. The hon. Gentleman expressed concern about how slow Governments have been to take up that challenge.

Faster journeys will see more extensive modal shift between air and rail as the train becomes the mode of choice for more travellers, countering the allegation made by opponents that HS2 is not green. High-speed rail is already greener than flying, but the difference between the two modes will widen as we clean up our sources of electricity generation.

A crucial point to underline is that we are not pursuing HS2 just because of the positive benefits that we believe it will generate. The case for HS2 also rests on the pressing need to head off big problems that are heading towards us and will affect the whole of Britain. The simple fact is that the demand for inter-city transport capacity is growing strongly and has been for many years. If we fail to deal with the capacity pressure that we will face in future years, we will do lasting damage to our economy and competitiveness.

I emphasise that HS2 does not mean that we will stop investing in and improving our current transport networks. We fully recognise the importance of continuing to enhance our existing rail network, and that includes improving links between England and Scotland, not least because of how determined we are that the benefits of the Y network must be felt well beyond the cities that it serves directly. We have therefore embarked on a major programme of rail improvements, including the inter-city express project, which will create new jobs in the north-east and deliver a new fleet of trains for the east coast line. Those trains will start operating in 2018, offering faster, greener, higher-capacity and better-quality services, boosting fast-line capacity from Scotland into King’s Cross and cutting journey times.

On the west coast route, the long-awaited new Pendolino carriages have started service on the Birmingham-to-Scotland corridor. The Manchester-Scotland route is also due to get new trains, with delivery complete by May 2014. The new east coast timetable introduced last May increased the number of through-services between—

[Mr Dai Havard (in the Chair)]

Order. The time for this debate has been exhausted. Thank you very much.