Civil Aviation Bill

Brian H. Donohoe Excerpts

Monday 30th January 2012 Commons Chamber

[Maria Eagle]

I am well aware that the Labour Government sold a stake in NATS. I am talking about the Secretary of State’s predecessor’s proposal to sell all of it. It is a question of the Government retaining a stake. If she is willing to confirm that the Government will retain a stake, I will be happy to give way to her. She shakes her head.

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

Ownership is currently entirely within British hands. It is possible that that will no longer be the case if privatisation goes ahead.

--- Later in debate ---

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

This is an important Bill. Civil aviation is a vital part of our economy. Regulation must support the industry to operate in the public interest. The call for a new look at regulation has been long standing. Indeed, the Select Committee on Transport in the last Parliament called for a review of the Civil Aviation Authority in November 2006. It has taken a long time to bring this Bill forward.

I am pleased that the Committee had the opportunity for pre-legislative scrutiny, but it was disappointing that the time for consultation was so severely curtailed. Indeed, our response to the draft Bill was published on the morning of the publication of the Bill itself. It is important that the Government should give an assurance that they will consider the points of concern that our report identifies. Our consideration was helped by the evidence of the Minister of State, the right hon. Member for Chipping Barnet (Mrs Villiers). I regret that she is not able to be here today and wish her a speedy recovery.

I should make it clear at the outset that there was general support for the regulatory aspects of the Bill, in particular the flexible licensing system and the focus on passengers. However, we have concerns, including in areas where there was little or no consultation before the Bill was published. First, there is a need for clarity on the definition of the key part of the Bill, the focus on the passenger’s interest. There needs to be a clearer definition of “users of air transport services”. We recommend that this be clarified to read: “passengers and shippers of cargo, both present and future”. We considered the representations made by airlines, and recommend that the position of airlines should be recognised as a secondary duty.

There was support for light-touch regulation. Licensing conditions and their associated costs must be proportionate to the benefits gained, which means that impact assessments are required. We were told in evidence from the aviation industry that the impact of the Bill on an airport handling 10 million passengers a year could be £200,000 a year, a significant amount in these difficult economic times. The emphasis in the Bill on the needs of passengers is welcome. This requirement must be reflected in the licences and the conditions imposed by the CAA. It is important that the requirement for information on the passenger experience, together with the environmental implications, should be clear, relevant and useable. Costs should relate to benefits.

There are two areas of concern and possible omission. First, passport control and immigration are identified by passengers as areas of key concern, yet they are handled by the UK Border Agency, not the Department for Transport. A way must be found to include those aspects when considering the passenger experience under the Bill. Baggage handling was another area of concern identified by passengers, yet it is often provided by private companies on behalf of airlines. A way must be found to include that, too. We were also concerned about an omission in relation to passenger welfare—in particular, in relation to plans to deal with disruption, such as when adverse weather caused major disruption at Heathrow. Although the CAA has spoken about the need to insist on plans to deal with passenger disruption and look after passengers when disruption occurs, there does not seem to be a requirement for that in the Bill. It is important that that, too, should be looked at. We also questioned witnesses about the aviation consumer advocacy panel, which is due to replace the Air Transport Users Council. It was unclear how that panel, representing the interests of passengers, would work or whether its interests would cover cargo as well as passengers. We need much more clarification on that.

There are two areas where powers were introduced after we were able to consider the Bill in draft form. We have questions about both. First, the ATOL––air travel organisers’ licence—scheme, first introduced in the 1970s, deals with financial protection for consumers who have purchased air package holidays in the event of a company going into insolvency. The Transport Committee has looked at the operation of ATOL, and at its inadequacies, and we have called for greater clarity in the information available to travellers, so that they can be sure whether they are covered by such insurance, and in the extent of the scheme, so that it is clear which passengers are covered. A power to address this is included in the Bill, but we have not yet looked in detail at the Government’s proposals. We hope to remedy that tomorrow, when the Committee will look specifically at the Government’s plans for ATOL and at the industry’s view of them.

[Mr Donohoe]

I commend the work of the Transport Committee on the Bill. One area of concern is the effect that the changes will have on the industry and on the economy. Will the Committee investigate that element of the proposals? It seems that only the Minister has shown any optimism about economic growth, and I hope that the Select Committee will look again at that subject when it revisits the Bill.

[Mrs Ellman]

Economic growth is indeed an important area and, while the Minister stated that it was an objective, it was not made clear how the changes would actually operate. So, yes, we would certainly like to look into that matter further.

Another area of concern relates to the proposed changes to responsibility for security in aviation. Transec was set up in 1991, following the Lockerbie disaster. Aviation security is a matter of prime importance, and aviation terrorism remains a magnet for terrorists who wish to inflict mass loss of life as well as economic disruption. It is a matter of concern that changes are being proposed in the area of responsibility for aviation security without a full consultation on how they will work.

It is proposed that the Secretary of State remain responsible for aviation security policy, with the CAA adopting new responsibilities that would include conducting a review of the aviation security directive, giving advice and assistance to the industry on security measures, monitoring and enforcing compliance with EU and domestic requirements, and carrying out national security vetting on individuals. The changes are linked with a change of approach from “direct and inspect” to an outcome-focused, risk-based approach.

These are major, substantial issues. The changes will involve a £5 million a year transfer of payments from the taxpayer to the aviation industry and passengers. Of greater importance, however, is the fact that they will result in divided responsibilities for aviation security. That is a matter of prime concern, and we call on the Department to be more explicit about exactly how the new system will operate, and to reassure passengers that their safety will still be a matter of supreme importance.

--- Later in debate ---

[Dr Huppert]

The hon. Gentleman makes a fair point and I am sure that this issue will form a significant part of our discussions in Committee.

Clause 84(2) says that the CAA

“may publish guidance and advice with a view to reducing, controlling or mitigating the adverse environmental effects of civil aviation in the UK.”

I think the wording could be stronger and say that it “must” do so and, hopefully, take that further. Aviation accounts for a significant and growing proportion of our carbon emissions and it also has a significant noise impact, which we must take into account. The body that regulates aviation must have regard to these facts and bear some responsibility.

[Mr Donohoe (Central Ayrshire) (Lab)]

Will the hon. Gentleman at least concede that the airline business has improved its environmental impact greatly in the past 10 or 20 years?

[Dr Huppert]

Indeed, it has, and I have had discussions with Rolls-Royce, which makes a number of new engines that perform significantly better in that regard, but there is still a long way to go. It is certainly true that emissions per passenger have declined, but the number of passengers has gone up and there is a complex factor relating the two. We need to go further in making sure that planes are fully utilised. We have had discussions in the Chamber about trying to change from a per passenger duty to a per plane duty, and I hope we will be able to go further and resolve the anomalies regarding the Chicago convention that prevent that change.

The Bill provides the Secretary of State with the power to ensure that information is published but does not go as far as requiring the CAA and airports to do so. It could go slightly further in that direction to ensure that passengers are provided with the information to which they are entitled rather than leaving it to the whim of whichever Secretary of State happens to be in charge. I am not suggesting that any Secretary of State in the current Government would be so foolish as not to go the full way in that regard, but one can never know what a future Government or Secretary of State might do. Of course, environmental information should be provided as a matter of course, and I hope, for clarity, that clause 84(2) will explicitly include carbon dioxide emissions and other greenhouse gases.

I should also like to understand a little more about how the penalties in the Bill were arrived at. Obviously, we hope never to have to use any of the penalties for failure to comply or to provide information, but they are somewhat complex. Clauses 44 and 45 have a complex formula based on turnover, clause 51 has fixed amounts, clause 52 has unlimited ones, clause 86 has very low penalties and clause 87 goes back to unlimited ones. I hope that the Minister can give us some clarity as to exactly how those penalties were decided.

Clause 104 deals with the disclosure of medical information, which requires proper scrutiny and some clarification. The clause allows the CAA to disclose medical information relating to flight crew and air traffic controllers in an anonymised form for the purposes of medical research. I can absolutely see how that would be beneficial and why we should want to introduce it, but I am concerned that in a small airline it might be possible to identify an individual using a combination of the information provided and data that are publicly available on the internet. That could pose a serious threat to privacy. This clause requires close scrutiny to ensure that de-anonymisation of data is not possible. I am aware of academic work that has been done on data that were about to be released by the Ministry of Justice. A group was challenged with trying to de-anonymise information from anonymised data and it turned out to be worryingly easy to do in a number of cases. I hope that Ministers will look at that issue.

--- Later in debate ---

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

I am extremely grateful for the opportunity to speak in this important debate, and to follow the hon. Member for Cambridge (Dr Huppert). I am disappointed that he did not spend more time discussing his airport, of which I am a great fan, as I flew from there when I was in the Air Training Corps. However, there is an airport slightly closer to my heart now, given that I represent Luton South.

Many hon. Members have said that aviation is crucial if we are to achieve economic growth and change—a green economy—in future. I do not dissent from that view, as aviation has an important role to play. There are pressures on capacity in the south-east, for example, that I should like to discuss, but first I shall turn to the Bill. I was a member of the Select Committee on Transport when it examined the woeful performance of BAA in the winter weather of 2010. It was clear that there were major, extensive problems at Heathrow, and our report, which was quite authoritative, if I say so myself, underlined the way in which regulatory issues ended up affecting BAA’s performance.

I shall give an anecdote that stuck out for me when we took evidence on the inquiry. When Heathrow published its monthly performance figures in December 2010, it passed 56 of the 60-odd measures proposed at the time, because they did not measure what was important to passengers: the ability to leave the gate on time, and the conditions in which they were looked after. It is crazy, given the fact that there were delays of up to 72 hours for many passengers—we saw the scenes on our screens—that the performance measures that were taken into account did not show the problems at the airport.

It is not just Heathrow that is a problem, as the issue is on everyone’s mind. It is also about how the wider industry relates to the CAA, and how we hold the CAA to account. In that regard, the Bill is extremely welcome. The role of the CAA in taking on security is a welcome measure, as is the CAA having more flexibility and setting the licensing scheme for UK airports. However, airlines too are customers of airports; it is not just the end passenger who is buying a ticket. Indeed, as a user of airlines, I put my primary faith and expectation that everything will work in the airline’s hands: whether it is easyJet, BA, Virgin Atlantic or Ryanair, I would want to hold them to account. Sadly, when there are failings in airport operation, customers and passengers go to the airline in question, and the Bill could do more. I therefore support the introduction of a secondary duty for the CAA. The primary duty to the 210 million or so passengers is important, but there should be a secondary duty to ensure that airlines are served effectively by the CAA.

The CAA believes that its adoption of security functions will impose an additional £5 million charge on the industry, but there is little in the Bill about how scrutiny will be enhanced for the CAA. As my hon. Friend the Member for Poplar and Limehouse (Jim Fitzpatrick) pointed out, we will seek to be helpful in Committee and amend the Bill. The NAO has a role to play in holding that major economic regulator to account.

On the wider issue of aviation, the Bill is extremely welcome, as it does many sensible things in a sensible way. However, it does not serve to fill the vacuum of aviation policy in this Parliament. We face a major capacity issue in the south-east, and there are broader environmental and economic concerns—we all accept that. However, the policy vacuum on capacity, particularly in the south-east, is not answered by the measures. In my own patch, London Luton airport can do much to assist with the solution to those problems.

[Mr Donohoe]

Given that it is rumoured that the Ministry of Defence is proposing to sell off RAF Northolt, does my hon. Friend believe that it is feasible that that could be part of the equation in overcoming the problem of congestion in the south-east?

[Gavin Shuker]

My hon. Friend makes an extremely strong case. I have looked at those proposals, and that airport is only a few miles from Heathrow.

[Mr Donohoe]

Four miles.

[Gavin Shuker]

Indeed, but I am not qualified to make that assessment.

My hon. Friend does, however, make the point that no options should be off the table. We have said, despite the fact that we made a manifesto commitment to a third runway at Heathrow, that we are willing to take that off the table if it enables us to enter into cross-party talks. These are long-term decisions taken for the country’s future, and that is a statesmanlike approach by our Front-Bench transport team. Failure to do anything is not an option. The capacity challenge in the south-east can be tackled if Luton airport increases its capacity from 10 million passengers to 18 million over a period. That is part of the answer, but it does not answer the broader question of how we establish a serious hub airport that can compete with other airports, particularly in Europe, on level ground.

In Luton, we can achieve 18 million passengers without significant ground works, and without extending the runway or building a second runway, which is welcome. We are 25 minutes from St Pancras—practically zone 3 on the London underground. We are one of the big four airports that, I believe, we are seeking to expand. Luton ultimately can absorb only a small amount of the additional capacity that is required, and we have heard different suggestions from different people in recent weeks. The expansion of Heathrow is not on the table, and we understand why the Secretary of State holds her personal convictions. An additional runway at Stansted has been ruled out. We have heard about the plans for “Heathwick”, linking Heathrow and Gatwick, although I am not sure exactly what those proposals would achieve. In the past fortnight, we have heard about “Boris island”, but whatever option we choose, we must find a long-term solution to the problem of capacity. If the Government are unwilling to do so while they are in power, we will have to face up to those problems when we are in government.