East Coast Main Line Franchise

Bob Stewart Excerpts

Thursday 20th June 2013 Commons Chamber

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

I congratulate those who managed to secure a debate that is very timely, given some of the announcements that have been made lately. I also thank the Backbench Business Committee for allowing us time to discuss this important issue.

The Government now have yet another opportunity to listen to the overwhelming majority of the British public, including people on both sides of the political spectrum. I think that the logic of the arguments for allowing the east coast main line to remain in public hands is powerful. The Minister likes to call me a dinosaur for believing that public services should be run for the benefit and in the interests of the public. [Interruption.] Members will see, if they check the record, that the Minister called me a dinosaur during a debate in Westminster Hall.

I support the renationalisation of the railways, especially when we see Directly Operated Railways delivering a better service and returning more money to the taxpayer than the private sector—which, let us not forget, has failed to deliver twice on the east coast main line. If that makes me a dinosaur, so be it. However, I think that we should look at the recent polling evidence. The average finding is that 70% of the public regularly support calls for the railways to be run publicly, although some polls produce larger percentages. I think that those people would be offended by the contempt and, indeed, total disregard that the Minister and his party have shown for their views and the concern that they have expressed about the failure of the privatised rail system. [Interruption.] It is certainly a failure when compared with the success that the publicly run public service operator has been able to deliver on the east coast main line. If the Minister will bear with me, I shall explain shortly why I think that the system has been a failure, not least on grounds of price.

As other Members have already pointed out today, Directly Operated Railways has returned £640 million to the Treasury in premium payments—I believe that £40 million of that has been invested in improving the service—and it is estimated that it will have paid back £800 million in premiums by April 2014. That is a tremendous success story, which should be noted by Government Members who malign the performance of public industries. Directly Operated Railways also receives the lowest net subsidy: 1%, compared with an industry average of 32%. We should not forget that a shining example of privatisation cost the public purse £4 billion a year in subsidy.

Let us consider the performance of National Express, the failing private operator. It returned only £370 million in premium payments before turning its back on the franchise, leaving the taxpayer to face not only the shortfall referred to by my hon. Friend the Member for Blyth Valley (Mr Campbell), but the disruption that it had caused. Incredibly, despite National Express having failed to deliver on its commitments, the Government will not stop it or other failed operators bidding for the rail franchise, should they decide to go ahead. In a written answer to my good and hon. Friend the Member for Islington North (Jeremy Corbyn), the Minister confirmed:

“National Express and its subsidiaries are permitted to submit for the pre-qualification process (PQQ) to run passenger rail services in all franchise competitions including the East Coast Main Line.”—[Official Report, 3 June 2013; Vol. 563, c. 970W.]

That is incredible.

[Bob Stewart (Beckenham) (Con)]

If the company is permitted to bid, surely its past record will be taken into account? Is that not the way it will work?

[Grahame M. Morris]

I suspect the Minister may be able to clarify the criteria, but judging by the answer he gave my hon. Friend the Member for Islington North, I suspect that will not be the case. Past performance does not seem to be an impediment, although perhaps it should be—and perhaps the Minister will take more notice of such a suggestion from his own side.

Whether in the public or private sector, companies that fail to deliver on their commitments or promises to the taxpayer should not be allowed to take over franchises that they have shown they are not competent to run. It is not that National Express failed on one franchise and is bidding for another; it has already failed to deliver on the east coast line.

The public understandably have concerns about the Government position in relation to this matter, and they must not reward failure. If the Minister goes ahead with the privatisation, how will he guarantee that any future operator awarded the east coast main line franchise will be able to fulfil its contract, and what assurances can he provide that the taxpayer will see a similar rate of return in respect of premium payments as they received from Directly Operated Railways? It has been said that DOR is a not-for-profit service, but that is not quite true, as it is hugely profitable, but all the profits go to the taxpayer. That is the position, and I am sure various private train operating companies would relish getting their hands on that level of turnover.

Humber Bridge Bill

Bob Stewart Excerpts

Tuesday 26th February 2013 Commons Chamber

[Andrew Percy]

The situation in respect of the tolls is that they could be raised and returned to £3 overnight under the order currently in place, without any consultation with the public.

This is what happens at present. A toll inquiry is held—at great cost to the board—at regular intervals, to which local MPs, including myself and many other Members present, trot up and argue passionately against any rise in the tolls, often on social or economic grounds. The bridge board’s primary responsibility and function, however, is, and will remain, repaying the debt, so those arguments are completely irrelevant.

Huge sums of money are spent whenever an inquiry is demanded and is granted by the Secretary of State, and at the end of that process the inspector’s recommendation has always been that the tolls must be raised. The Bill will allow the bridge board to raise the tolls in line with the retail prices index, should it wish to do so—although I hasten to add that the bridge board has recently said it expects to hold the tolls at £1.50, so there would be a real-terms cut year on year for the next three or four years at the very least.

The charade of a process that has gone on until now in respect of toll rises did not give the public any real say. There was a lot of debate and a lot of hot air was generated, but at the end of the day the situation fundamentally came down to the bridge board’s finances and therefore every toll rise was always consented to, with the exception of one, when a Minister intervened in the run-up to an election.

[Bob Stewart (Beckenham) (Con)]

Is my hon. Friend saying that once the cost of the bridge has been repaid the toll will substantially reduce or disappear?

[Andrew Percy]

We may all be dead and buried by the time that happens—I include myself in that. The freedoms introduced by the Bill will allow the bridge board to refinance in a way that it currently cannot, and it will be for the bridge board to determine what it wishes to do with the bridge once the cost has been repaid. It may want to start raising money for a replacement bridge, because I am assured that the existing bridge will reach the end of its lifespan at some point.

Under the Bill, the bridge board will be entitled to raise tolls in line with RPI. As part of the changes, it has for the first time established user groups and business groups to engage the public properly in any consultation. The situation will be largely unchanged, however: the primary focus will always be whether the bridge board’s finances are sound and whether it can repay the debt, which is its No. 1 legal responsibility. That is done through the tolls, as has always been the case. It is not done at general expense to the taxpayer. Indeed, we have paid for the bridge four times over and still owe about £150 million. The situation in respect of tolls will be unchanged, therefore, except that we will not have to go through this potential charade of having an inquiry at the end of which there is no real discretion.

We are all in agreement about this Bill. We have all supported the campaign for a long time. The fact that tolls have halved has had a huge impact locally.

Rising Cost of Transport

Bob Stewart Excerpts

Wednesday 9th January 2013 Commons Chamber

[Iain Stewart]

I accept that there is an unnecessary complexity in the rail ticketing system. The Transport Committee has looked at that issue and will continue to do so. If the hon. Gentleman will forgive me, I will not go too far down that path, as time is limited, but he has made a valid point.

The comparison with Europe is interesting. A very good website called “The Man in Seat Sixty-One” does an independent comparison of European rail fares. Yes, when you look at the “walk up and go any time” fares, the UK is substantially more expensive, but on other tickets, including buying the day before, Britain is either on a par with France, Germany or Italy or very often considerably cheaper.

I mention that because when we talk about rail fares, we need to differentiate between passengers compelled to travel at a particular time of day and the vast majority who have some flexibility over when they travel. The Opposition are right to highlight in the motion the issue of super-peak tickets, but they miss an important point. I completely accept that some passengers will not be able to change their time of travel, but others can. A super-peak ticket should not be designed to increase prices but to give rail operators the flexibility to discount other peak-time travel and encourage passengers to travel slightly later or earlier if possible.

[Bob Stewart (Beckenham) (Con)]

Will my hon. Friend give way?

[Iain Stewart]

Certainly.

[Bob Stewart]

I thank my hon. Friend and namesake. Is it too utopian to hope that one day in future, rail fares, whatever they are charged at, will go up only by the rate of inflation, and that when we need to renovate our railways the Government will deal with that?

[Iain Stewart]

I am not sure whether it is utopian. The increased cost of investing in our railways has to be met by a mix of passenger contributions and taxpayer contributions. At the moment, the balance is about right. The cost of travel by any means is going up, and that takes into account the extra costs of energy. Similar debates are happening in Switzerland, Germany and other countries about how they cope with paying for the extra investment in the rail industry.

I return to my point about whether we can incentivise passengers to travel outwith the super-peak period. That is a line of questioning that I followed during the Transport Committee’s investigation when those in the rail industry were asked about what percentage of the daily commuter market could move their journeys as opposed to having to travel at the times they do. They were very reluctant to give a figure on that, so it is an area of uncertainty, but my own view is that with improvements in technology and more flexible working patterns, that share of the market will grow. In the last job I had before I was elected here, I had some flexibility because I could plug into the company’s database system and do a fair chunk of my work from home before having to travel in for meetings. If more and more employers give that flexibility to staff, as is entirely possible, it is perfectly feasible that rail operators will have an incentive to discount tickets—the shoulder, as it were—instead of putting up the super-peak fare, which I accept would be very unwelcome.

Time prohibits me from going into some of the other issues in depth. As the hon. Member for Liverpool, Riverside (Mrs Ellman) said, I hope that we have a further opportunity to explore the issues raised in the Select Committee report. There is a need to get the costs of running our railways down, as has been highlighted in McNulty and many other studies. I am encouraged by some of the innovations that are happening. I think particularly of the alliance between Network Rail and South West Trains. It is too early to give a full evaluation of that, but it is already showing signs of making it more efficient and cost-effective to maintain and improve the railway. There is the possibility of increasing revenue from retail space at stations. These factors will all feed into generating revenue for the railways and maintaining the pressure on keeping fare increases down.

I look forward to the Government’s conclusions from its consultation on ticketing. There is a real opportunity to drive down the cost of rail tickets in this country. However, we must look at the whole picture and recognise that we are pretty competitive compared with a lot of European countries. There will be pressures in future—that is a problem with the success of the railways to date—but the picture is not all bleak, and I very much welcome the steps that the Government are taking to improve the situation further.

HGV Road User Levy Bill (Ways and Means)

Bob Stewart Excerpts

Tuesday 23rd October 2012 Commons Chamber

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Stephen Hammond)]

We have had an informed and educated debate with excellent contributions from both sides of the House. I am delighted that Members on both sides of the House welcome the Bill, but I am also delighted that it is this Government who have finally found a way to introduce it. As my colleague, the Under-Secretary of State for Transport, my hon. Friend the Member for Lewes (Norman Baker), said in his short—perhaps too short for some colleagues—introductory contribution, the Bill will go a long way towards putting in place a fairer deal for UK hauliers and correcting the inequality that has existed for far too long.

As a number of Members who have spoken rightly recognised, freight bodies have long called for the introduction of charging, provided that the cost burden on UK hauliers remains roughly neutral. Introducing this charge will clearly help to level the playing field by ensuring that both UK and foreign hauliers pay equally for using the UK’s road network. The Government believe that it is right that vehicles that cause wear to our roads should make a payment to take account of that. HGVs registered abroad are likely to carry more weight on fewer axles than UK-registered vehicles, which means that they are more damaging to the roads. Therefore, it is all the more unjust that they currently do not contribute towards the maintenance of the roads they use, leaving the burden to fall entirely on the British taxpayer.

[Bob Stewart (Beckenham) (Con)]

I have been listening to the debate and assume that a foreign HGV will not be allowed to leave a port of entry without a sign on its windscreen showing that it has paid. Is that what the Bill means?

[Stephen Hammond]

I am delighted to confirm to my hon. Friend that that is what the Bill means, and I will expand on that further in my remarks.

Cost of Living

Bob Stewart Excerpts

Wednesday 16th May 2012 Commons Chamber

[Tim Farron]

As a human being and as someone who is involved in politics, I do take responsibility and do not pretend that it is somebody else’s fault. It is not peculiar, two years into a particular Government, to point the finger at them for something that is a moral crime. If those things are genuinely happening—I am absolutely prepared to believe that they are—then we all take responsibility. One of things that I find unseemly about this world of politics in which we work is how we can sometimes be delighted at people’s misfortune because there is a political point to be made. I try to be reasonable, non-partisan and non-tribal, although I do not always succeed, and I try not to bracket together those in one party or another as having a collective psyche. However, similarly to the hon. Lady’s stance on this issue, I suspect, I observed earlier Labour Members cheering when someone mentioned that we are in recession, as if that were a good thing; I suppose that it might be seen as a political benefit. There was almost embarrassment on the part of Labour Front Benchers about the fact that there was some good news today on unemployment. We must be prepared to take collective responsibility for the things that are wrong and celebrate the things that are positive.

Let me therefore point out something that is wrong. Over the past month, there has been a drop of 2p a litre in the amount paid to dairy farmers for milk. That means that the average dairy farmer is now getting 3p to 4p less per litre than it costs him to produce it. At the back end of the previous Government’s time in office, I tabled some parliamentary questions which showed that the average annual income of a hill farmer, after all the relatively small payments that they get through the single farm payments scheme, was £5,000. Now, I do not know how many hours most hill farmers work each day, but the ones that I know work 16, 17 or 18-hour days. That means that they make about a quarter of the minimum wage. That is an outrage. I wonder whether the hon. Member for North West Durham (Pat Glass) would take responsibility for that, given that it happened under her Government. Of course, we all bear collective responsibility and it is right to say so. The exploitation of dairy farmers, sheep farmers and farmers in general happens because of an imbalance in our market and because of market failure.

Everyone in this House ought to be committed—I am sure that we all are—to fair trade. However, there is something peculiar about the fact that we can wander down one aisle in a shop and buy some Colombian fair trade coffee, and feel good about ourselves for having done so, and then go down the next aisle to buy the milk to put in that coffee, which has been ripped out of the hands of some underpaid Cumbrian farmer. We want fair trade for British farmers, as well as for farmers across the world. Fair trade at home matters. That is why the announcement in the Queen’s Speech of a groceries code adjudicator with teeth is a massive step forward for rural areas and for food producers of all kinds. It is fair and just to do that, but it is also sensible because unfairness damages us all.

Over the 15-year period of 1995 to 2010, which is not entirely coterminous with the Labour Government, there was a 50% drop in the number of dairy farmers in this country. Over the past 30 years, there has been a 25% drop in our country’s capacity to feed itself. If we do not take account of that, we will go down together. It has happened partly because the supermarkets and the food processors are too keen to make a quick buck at the expense of the exploited supplier and producer, rather than looking to the long term.

[Bob Stewart (Beckenham) (Con)]

May I ask, in support of what my hon. Friend is saying, how the Government can make a substantial difference to dairy farmers in his constituency to put things right?

[Tim Farron]

There is a bunch of things that we can do. I thank my hon. Friend for asking the question. We can ensure that there is a fair and decent referee in the groceries code adjudicator. Through the Foreign and Commonwealth Office and our other missions, we can help our farmers to have an export market, because they will get a much better deal from the supermarkets if the supermarkets know that there is someone else who the farmers can sell to and who will compete. We also need to invest in research and development to help people improve their effectiveness and efficiency. I will come back to that point if I have time.

Civil Aviation Bill

Bob Stewart Excerpts

Wednesday 25th April 2012 Commons Chamber

[Julie Hilling]

I start by expressing concern about the “user pays” principle. We do not apply that to the police or other safety and security issues and services. I will expand on that in a moment, but first I want to express my concern about the outcome-focused, risk-based approach to security. The terrorist has only got to get through once; we have to be 100% successful at stopping the terrorist. I am still not convinced that a focus on outcomes will achieve the necessary ends. I therefore believe that the Government must be extremely clear about what they are saying about the risk-based focus. I am still not convinced that just specifying the end result will be adequate.

To return to the costs, the Government say that the freedom of airports to devise their own systems could lead to cost savings, and that worries me hugely. Will that mean that, potentially, airports will be looking at how they might cut costs, and therefore will cut corners? I am concerned that some airports might be less rigorous than others. Our biggest concern in the past few years has been around transatlantic services, which of course have high prestige for the terrorist. However, any attack on any airport or airliner—or, in fact, train, ship or anything else—would be significant and would produce that wonderful splash of publicity that terrorists want to see. If we do not prescribe what airports should include in their security services, is there not a risk that we shall not be able to monitor them properly? I am concerned that some of those smaller airports may then become soft targets for terrorists.

[Bob Stewart (Beckenham) (Con)]

When we are looking at security, we can take no shortcuts whatever. We say, “If it ain’t broke, don’t fix it,” but terrorists spend their time trying to work the system that they are viewing, so that approach does not work in security. We have to try and change the system to throw the terrorist. I think the hon. Lady probably agrees with me on that.

[Julie Hilling]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for that intervention because I absolutely agree with him. That is why I am very concerned that if cost is a driving force within security, airports may look to see how they can reduce costs rather than, as the hon. Gentleman says, continuing to be innovative. As he so rightly says, it is not enough to shut the stable door after the horse has bolted and say, “They got through there but we can stop them next time.” We have to stop them the first time—an incredibly difficult task.

--- Later in debate ---

[Gavin Shuker]

It is a pleasure to speak to this group of amendments, because it is probably the most important one that we will discuss, other than that on environmental protections, which we will come to later.

To put the proposals in context, we are discussing a big shift in aviation security. This is not a peripheral part of the Bill, but a cornerstone. In Committee, we had robust debates about how best to arrange aviation security. I want to put it on the record that I do not believe that the Government wish to weaken aviation security. However, their ideological position is that it is important for the Government to withdraw, where possible, and to pass responsibility to other groups, whether they be agencies, third sector organisations or quangos.

[Bob Stewart]

I apologise for intervening for a second time and thank the hon. Gentleman. The key thing is that, whatever the Government do and whoever is responsible for the security at our airports, security is at least as good as it is now. It might be better or even different. Difference is a good thing in security, as long as the people are well-trained and have decent equipment.

--- Later in debate ---

[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.

Transport and the Economy

Bob Stewart Excerpts

Tuesday 28th February 2012 Commons Chamber

[Karen Bradley]

I agree with my hon. Friend. In fact, my knowledge of Watford extends to having attended a few training courses in Watford over the years, not just to whizzing through on the train. I wholeheartedly concur that any extensions to train services in the Watford area will be greatly appreciated.

The extension of the heritage railway in my constituency is being funded by a private rail company that has been a recipient of money from the regional growth fund—it is very grateful to the Government for that financial support. The company is looking to reopen the line to Stoke-on-Trent from the quarry, which would result in an enormous number of aggregate lorries leaving the roads and travelling by train, which would be of great benefit to people living in the Moorlands. The quarry owners, too, are keen to get as much on the railway as possible.

[Bob Stewart (Beckenham) (Con)]

I have had the privilege of visiting Leek—it is a beautiful place—and I have seen that railway line. Perhaps it might be possible to run a passenger train on it, as well as the steam trains and freight trains. That would help without putting any more danger on the roads.

[Karen Bradley]

That is exactly what Moorlands and City Railways wishes to do. It would like passenger trains to return to Staffordshire Moorlands for the first time since the line was officially closed in, I think, the 1950s. There is a problem, though: part of the line extension would involve relaying track to the village of Alton to provide access to Alton Towers by train. In theory, that is a good idea, but that part of the country is an area of outstanding natural beauty and the residents along the railway track are very concerned about the proposal. Although I can see the benefits of getting traffic off the roads, it has to be done sympathetically.

Cycling

Bob Stewart Excerpts

Thursday 23rd February 2012 Westminster Hall

[Dr Huppert]

As part of my role as co-chair of the Liberal Democrat committee on transport, I have had several conversations with transport committees. I will happily talk to the hon. Gentleman about the details later.

The issue is not simply about infrastructure. We have to look at training and education for cyclists and drivers alike. I am pleased about the Bikeability scheme, which will train 400,000 nine to 11-year-olds a year. It is vital that our children are introduced to the benefits of cycling at a young age, that they are encouraged to cycle to school and that they are given the training to do so safely. I would like to see all cyclists cycling safely and legally, as all road users should.

[Bob Stewart (Beckenham) (Con)]

It may surprise some to know that I cycle in London. Twice I have been hit from behind by motorists. I noticed in the three years that I cycled—until I was very badly hurt—that many cyclists totally ignore red lights. It is also up to the cycling community to behave properly. It is not only the responsibility of Government or motorists. I am sure that everyone here obeys red lights. I used to watch about 50% of the cyclists go straight through red lights and I saw accidents occur because of that.

[Dr Huppert]

I am not sure that the 50% figure is accurate. Several studies have shown that it is smaller than that. The key point is that all road users should behave legally. Drivers should not speed and should not use their mobile phones. Cyclists should not go through red lights. Everybody should stick to the rules and then everybody would be safer. If we can move away from the argument of cyclists versus car users versus taxis or whatever to everybody behaving safely, we would all do much better.

Civil Aviation Bill

Bob Stewart Excerpts

Monday 30th January 2012 Commons Chamber

[Christopher Pincher]

I am grateful for that intervention. The hon. Gentleman clearly intends to carry on for Luton South where Lorraine Chase left off; we have brought forward this Bill, and we have heard what the Secretary of State had to say.

I welcome the Bill, which is timely, because we all know that aviation is an industry that is as important to Britain as it is maligned. It is important because it employs 1 million people throughout the country, sustains a tourist industry employing 2.6 million people and generates about £9 billion of Treasury receipts every year, plus all the Treasury receipts that it generates by making our economy work more effectively and better.

There is no doubt in the minds of operators that they want better regulation. We want regulation that puts passengers first. We want regulation that ensures that security in the age of the terrorist with trainers is sharpened and honed. We want to ensure that transparency at the Department for Transport, at the CAA, among operators and at airlines is the best that it can be. However, we do not want regulation that loads unnecessary bureaucracy on to airport operators or that drives up costs that are of no benefit to the travelling public or to operators that simply want to make a fair buck by doing better and more efficient business.

Birmingham is the airport in my neck of the woods. It has one runway and carries 8.6 million people a year. It could double its capacity without changing its infrastructure in any way. It has a plan to extend its runway so that it can carry bigger planes with more passengers, more fuel and more baggage for longer distances, as far as the far east. That could extend its carriage capacity by up to 27 million passengers a year. At that point, it would begin to compete with airports such as Gatwick.

[Bob Stewart (Beckenham) (Con)]

Presumably, the high-speed link from London will work in reverse and people will be able to get up to Birmingham and increase the airport’s capacity, making it a south-east England airport.

[Christopher Pincher]

My hon. Friend is trying to draw me into the trap of discussing High Speed 2. Birmingham airport carries only 40% of the passengers in its catchment area, so it could extend capacity without picking up passengers from the south-east or elsewhere.

The operators are concerned—the hon. Member for Bolton West touched on this—about changes that might allow the CAA to increase costs by a third on undesignated airports such as Birmingham. In designated airports such as Heathrow and Gatwick, those costs can easily be passed on to airlines. In undesignated airports, they cannot. That places a burden on those airports as they develop their plans of expansion and as they try to build the regional economy, such as that of the west midlands.

It is striking that Britain, with a population of 60 million, has only one formal hub airport, whereas Germany, with a population of more than 80 million, has five hub airports and plans to expand that to six. It seems that the Germans recognise the importance of aviation in building their regional economies. I hope that we will do the same. As we take the Bill through Parliament, as the Secretary of State and Ministers consider it and as it goes through the Public Bill Committee, we must ensure that the clauses do not disadvantage regional airports, which can be so important in building our regional economies.

I will make two more points, thanks to the injury time that has been granted to me. The first relates to environmental protections and reports. We all agree about the importance of demonstrating the effects that aviation can have on carbon emissions and about ensuring that proper environmental reporting is built into the Bill. I ask those on the Treasury Bench to ensure that the information that they wish airports to develop and deliver is not already available through the Department of Energy and Climate Change or reports that are produced by the Department for Transport. We do not want to overburden airports or demand that they duplicate information that is produced already.

My final point relates to the levy, which has already been touched on. Operators are worried that demanding 10% in penalty clauses because of events that are outside their control can place a significant burden on the airport. They say, and I agree with them, that when there are extreme weather conditions or when planes are grounded, the decision on safety is also made by the airlines. Should the airlines not, therefore, also be responsible for carrying some of the penalty clause that is imposed? If that is not appropriate or possible because airlines can choose whether to take slots and can go elsewhere—it is much more difficult for airports to move—is it not possible to reduce or abolish the penalty, so that we do not place undue burdens on our airports?

My hon. Friend the Member for Crawley (Henry Smith) said that we are a trading nation. Of course, we are an island trading nation. Aviation is therefore all the more important to our competitiveness in Europe. It provides the quickest and best connections to markets for our goods and services. I hope that when the Government further consider the Bill and when it goes through the Public Bill Committee, we will place front and centre the importance of balancing and regionalising our economy, and ensure that aviation plays a part in that. We must protect and promote our regional airports. I look forward to the Minister, in winding up, saying that we will.

[Mark Lazarowicz (Edinburgh North and Leith) (Lab/Co-op)]

Those of us who emphasise the importance of ensuring that the environmental consequences of aviation are at the heart of our policy are in no sense anti-aviation. We recognise the importance of the industry to the UK and to our economy but simply want to emphasise the fact that unchecked and uncontrolled, the growth in aviation will lead to increasing CO₂ emissions in the UK and internationally. It is therefore important to encourage the kind of measures that will ensure that that growth can be controlled. That means encouraging more environmentally friendly forms of travel where possible and encouraging the industry to be environmentally efficient in the development of new aircraft and in the way that airports operate.

The way to achieve that direction of policy is to put in place measures that will encourage it. It is right to say that there should be tough emissions controls at European and international level to encourage more efficient aircraft. A lot has happened in that area—I recognise and welcome that. Without those measures in place, we will not get the changes that we want. That is why, as the shadow Secretary of State said, we need to put environmental and planning considerations in the Bill.

I made the point in my intervention on the hon. Member for Cambridge (Dr Huppert) that the Bill allows the CAA to put conditions in licences on a number of grounds, but only if they come within the specifications in clause 1. Clause 1 does not allow environmental and planning considerations to be taken into account, so the CAA will not be able to put conditions on such matters in the licences of particular airports. I hope that the Bill is improved in Committee so that it takes account of environmental and planning concerns over airport developments and aviation more generally.

[Bob Stewart]

Environmental considerations include noise pollution. As more and more aeroplanes circulate around London, the noise gets greater, even in my leafy constituency in Kent. I hope that environmental considerations will be taken into account and that the noise made by Rolls-Royce engines, for example, will be reduced even more.

[Mark Lazarowicz]

The hon. Gentleman makes an important point. As I understand it, the Bill does not specifically encourage such measures, but it could be changed to allow them. I hope that he will support such a change.

My second point is about the consumer interest. It can certainly be promoted by encouraging competition, which I welcome, but the Secretary of State referred to the possibility of passengers choosing between Heathrow, Gatwick and other airports. People in the south-east of England can do that, as they have four, five or six airports to choose from, but in other parts of the UK there is not that option. That is why it is important that the Bill should put in place not just competition measures but other provisions to recognise the consumer interest. If people have a long wait at an airport and are queuing for a plane, they want something to be done pretty quickly rather than having to wait until a new franchise or licence is granted some years hence. The Bill needs to be strengthened to provide for the consumer interest in that way as well.

I want to say something about the proposed sale of British Midland International to International Airlines Group. Like every MP from Scotland, I am very concerned about the effect of that sale not just on competition on routes between Scotland and Heathrow but, as my hon. Friend the Member for Garston and Halewood (Maria Eagle) said, on people’s ability to change flights at Heathrow and access all parts of Scotland. That will affect Scotland’s ability to attract tourism and business. The sale of BMI would also have consequences for its other routes—for example those to Brussels, Copenhagen, Zurich and so on, which are important for business and tourism in Scotland. Although that matter does not specifically fall within the terms of the Bill’s competition provisions, it certainly concerns us now that the future of BMI and its routes is up for grabs.

Another point that concerns many people in Scotland, and which my hon. Friend mentioned, is the cuts to the UK Border Agency. They are concerned that delays in entry to the UK could be made worse. At Edinburgh airport there are fairly regular complaints about the difficulties of passengers arriving late at night, who have to queue to get through the border formalities and even to get into the terminal. They have to wait behind locked doors for the appropriate staff to arrive. That is not a criticism of the staff, who of course do an excellent job, but they are already under pressure and if there are cuts to the UKBA there will no doubt be still further pressures on them and delays for passengers. It would certainly not be a good advert for people coming to Scotland or elsewhere in the UK if we had unnecessary delays because of cuts to border authority staff.

At a time when some Members propose the idea of independence for Scotland and the separation of Scotland and England, today’s debate emphasises the fact that there are many areas in which co-operation between England, Scotland and the rest of the UK is by far the best way of arranging things. I certainly cannot see how having a separate Scottish CAA, presumably with extra costs and extra demands on its resources, would improve airports and airlines in Scotland.

Earlier we had the somewhat amusing spectacle of Scottish National party Members, who I am sorry are not in the Chamber at the moment, demanding that the UK Government intervene to ensure that there is proper competition between the different airlines and other modes of transport in England and Scotland. Surely it cannot escape most people’s notice that without a UK Government to operate in such a way, there would be no reason for such competition to be encouraged. In the absence of SNP Members, I will not pursue that point. Clearly we may be able to do so at a later stage.

My final point is that the airline industry is important to many of our constituents and requires people to be confident in its safety. That was why I was glad to be able to intervene on the hon. Member for Congleton (Fiona Bruce) to mention concerns about extra pressure on pilots due to the proposed changes to regulations. Once again, I hope that the Government will ensure that no such changes are made, as they would jeopardise both the perception and, I fear, the reality of passenger safety. I am glad that there has so far been unanimity throughout the House about that, and I hope that the Minister will say something about it in his closing remarks as it is concerning people who work in the industry and passengers.

--- Later in debate ---

[Damian Collins (Folkestone and Hythe) (Con)]

It is a great pleasure to follow the maiden speech from the hon. Member for Feltham and Heston (Seema Malhotra), who gave such an eloquent, thoughtful and intelligent speech, much of which I could agree with. I shall come on to the substance of her remarks about airports and Heathrow in a moment. I am also grateful for the opportunity to echo her tribute to Alan Keen.

I had the privilege of serving for just over a year on the Culture, Media and Sport Committee with Alan Keen. He was a great colleague on the Committee and continued its work as best he could, right through last summer, including taking part in our questioning of the Murdochs and the phone hacking inquiry. He was, of course, present for the launch of the Committee’s report on football governance, a topic that was a lifelong passion of his. He is sorely missed, not only by hon. Members on both sides of the House, but by members of the Committee.

The hon. Lady demonstrated in her speech that communities that live alongside and around airports are vibrant and have a strong affinity to those airports as a great source of wealth, jobs, income, skills and training for the local economy. Communities that live alongside airports are by no means blighted, but can benefit an awful lot from them. My constituency has a somewhat smaller—in fact, much smaller—airport than Heathrow at Lydd, which works under the name London Ashford airport. It is applying for an extended runway so that it can offer more local and regional services. But the arguments that people in Romney Marsh in my constituency would make about why they support the expansion of that airport are very similar to the hon. Lady’s remarks about Heathrow. The economic benefits of that investment in aviation and having a vibrant airport in the locality are good for the local economy and create jobs, rather than turning people away. That is appreciated by many of the hon. Members who have spoken in this debate so far, whose constituencies either contain an airport or are within the economic hinterland of one.

I welcome the thrust of the Bill, in particular the remit of the Civil Aviation Authority to focus on the consumer experience and passengers as its primary motivation. That will help the regulation and support of airports. I am especially drawn to clause 1 of the Bill, which sets the CAA’s general duty. Subsection 1 provides that it

“must carry out its functions…in a manner which it considers will further the interests of users of air transport services”.

Subsection 2 adds a duty to promote competition. I am sure that people will have amendments and ideas that will be discussed in Committee, but I wonder whether those two points may be combined into one, so that the CAA should consider promoting competition as part of supporting and furthering the interests of air transport services, rather than as a separate point. Many of us would see that those two things can be combined, because competition helps to improve the level of quality and service.

I have in mind especially issues of capacity, which may be at the heart of the concerns that many air transport users face. It was mentioned earlier in the debate that one of the particular issues that air transport passengers might face is the time delays caused by flights being required to stack because they do not have a landing slot. In my constituency in Kent, that is a particular cause of noise and environmental pollution. One of the best ways to clean up the aviation industry and reduce its carbon footprint would be to reduce the amount of time planes spend in the air unnecessarily. Much of that happens simply waiting for a landing slot.

[Bob Stewart]

Stacking causes a lot of noise in my constituency and I just want to endorse what my hon. Friend says. There is increasing stacking over Beckenham and we are getting fed up with it.

[Damian Collins]

My hon. Friend’s constituency is 30 miles or so from mine. I am sure that his constituents and mine share that concern.

Extra runway capacity in the south-east of England is a way to manage aviation much more effectively and reduce planes’ stacking time. Although some might say that increasing aviation capacity might lead to environmental pollution, much better management of planes in the air would significantly reduce it. It is a serious point, and the CAA should think of it when considering the air passenger experience.

Coastguard Modernisation

Bob Stewart Excerpts

Tuesday 22nd November 2011 Commons Chamber

[Bob Stewart (Beckenham) (Con)]

Each year, the coastal waters have more and more incidents. Will my hon. Friend assure me that the surveillance and subsequent safety of our coastal waters will be maintained under the new proposals?

[Mike Penning]

I am sure that my hon. Friend is aware that these days in a co-ordination centre binoculars are not the usual piece of equipment used to survey what is going on at sea. The electronic equipment that we use is highly technical and works very well. In times of high need, we will be able to move that around the network so that other less important jobs that are already flowing through can be taken on by other stations or the MOC while new emergencies that are coming on board, with the local knowledge that is so desperately needed, can be facilitated.