Civil Aviation Bill

Graham Stringer Excerpts

Wednesday 25th April 2012 Commons Chamber

[Jim Fitzpatrick]

I could not agree more. I will discuss previous experience, but, as the hon. Gentleman says, recent experience underscores the expectation that the Government, the authorities or the airports will have to deal with the experience of passenger delays. The horror stories that are starting to come out about passengers experiencing delays of some hours because of shortages of immigration staff and the article in The Daily Telegraph on Monday or Tuesday of this week in which the previous chief executive of UKBA offered some analysis of the problem underscore the fact that there is an important matter to be addressed.

Amendment 9 is the generic proposal. It states:

“A licence must include provisions requiring the holder of a licence to develop passenger welfare plans.”

That is an all-encompassing proposal that we think would cover all the matters that passengers would expect airports and airlines to deal with, including stranded passengers, resilience, delays and all manner of difficulties that passengers might experience. Amendment 10 looks specifically at the position of stranded passengers and suggests that something should be done for them.

[Graham Stringer (Blackley and Broughton) (Lab)]

As ever and as was the case in Committee, I am following the logic of my hon. Friend’s contribution. Will he expand a little on why it should be the owners of airports who provide provision for stranded passengers and not the airlines, as has previously been established in law?

--- Later in debate ---

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

This group of amendments draws attention to the importance of the passenger experience. The Transport Committee has looked at that theme a number of times over the years. Some improvements have been made, but there are still major questions, some of which are raised by the amendments.

Overriding the specific points made by the amendments is the general question of who speaks for passengers. The previous organisation, the Air Transport Users Council airport consultative committee, stopped being responsible for airing passengers’ views. It was suggested that Passenger Focus might take up that responsibility, but that did not materialise. When the Transport Committee questioned the CAA in our pre-legislative scrutiny, it told us that it was setting up a panel. When we asked what form the panel would take, how its members would be chosen and how it would operate, the answers were unclear. There is still a big question mark over whether there is effective representation for air passengers. Such representation does not seem to be enshrined in the Bill. I would like to hear the Minister’s comments on that.

[Graham Stringer]

My hon. Friend is making a very good point about who represents passengers. Does she agree that a flaw in the Bill is that it does not state not only who represents passengers but what the interests of passengers are? If that major flaw is not corrected today, I hope it will be corrected in the other place.

[Mrs Ellman]

I thank my hon. Friend for drawing attention to some important points. I agree that the matter needs further thought, and I hope that the Minister can respond on it.

The Select Committee’s work also drew attention to some problem areas in the allocation of responsibility for looking after passenger experiences. Key passenger concerns, particularly about passport and immigration issues, the time it takes people to get into the country and baggage handling, are not necessarily the responsibility of the airports, but they are, in reality, seen as responsible for them. We have heard examples recently of long queues, which are the responsibility of the UK Border Force, yet happen in the airport and are part of the air passenger’s experience. There do not seem to be any means of addressing that dual responsibility in the Bill, and that needs attention.

My hon. Friend the Member for Poplar and Limehouse (Jim Fitzpatrick) referred to the Select Committee’s earlier work on the implications of bad passenger experiences and the need for passenger welfare plans. The problems that air passengers experience at times of disruption during otherwise fairly normal periods are a long-running issue, and there has also been the near-breakdown of the service in situations such as very bad weather. We produced a report drawing attention to the matter and Ministers told us, or certainly implied, that the new licence conditions could contain requirements for passenger welfare plans to be put into practice, so that there would be clear responsibility for looking after passengers and giving them information in times of severe disruption. That does not seem to be happening in the Bill.

I know that the Civil Aviation Authority, in laying down what I think it calls its indicative licence conditions, has said that passenger welfare issues are part of the licensing process. However, it is extremely unclear whether the conditions will be enforceable, how clear they will be and whether there is to be a further consultation period before any such conditions are laid down. That is another area of concern.

All the points that I have made relate to the amendments, and I will be interested to hear the Minister’s response. The experience of passengers travelling by air is extremely important, and it is time that it became a focus of our attention.

--- Later in debate ---

[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 ---

[John Woodcock]

My hon. Friend makes an excellent point, and I intend to touch on Europe shortly.

Carrying out such an approach presents a challenge to the industry. Directions from Europe, with which any UK regime will have to comply, usually mandate a blanket approach. As my hon. Friend says, that may well be changing. Through the new clause, we seek to require parliamentary scrutiny and approval before Ministers are permitted to undertake what would be one of the most significant reforms to aviation security in the past two decades.

In Committee, the Minister suggested that Labour Members have set our face against moving towards a risk-based approach. That is not the case. We simply believe that any such move is serious enough to require parliamentary scrutiny—at the point and in the circumstances where the Government seek to make it.

The Government’s impact assessment predicts significant reductions in regulation and costs. If they were to emerge in practice, they would, of course, be welcome—provided they did not result in security being compromised. There is support for such a reform from airlines and airport operators, and we have listened carefully to their opinions.

[Graham Stringer]

My hon. Friend accurately relates what the Government’s regulatory impact statement says. Will he acknowledge that, as we debated in Committee, Manchester and other airports strongly dispute those figures and believe that there will be a huge increase in the regulatory burden on airports?

[John Woodcock]

My hon. Friend raises a good point and accurately reflects some of the concerns that cast doubt on the impact assessment, which I know will have been thoroughly engaged in and scrutinised by Ministers and others across the whole Department, as it is now in Whitehall. There was much debate in Committee over whether the assessment thus far made presents an accurate picture.

On an issue that is literally a matter of life and death, it would be deeply irresponsible to make such a major decision on the grounds of cost and regulatory burden alone. Ministers must make it clear how such a move would enhance Britain’s capacity to keep aviation secure.

In their impact assessment, Ministers have argued that a move to a risk-based regime is consistent with the principles of better regulation. The drive to improve and lessen regulatory burdens, where appropriate, is one that we pioneered in government and continue to support now. However, moving away from the current “direct and inspect” regime for aviation should not automatically follow from that. Requiring specific parliamentary approval for this reform would give Members the opportunity for more detailed probing of some of the claims made by Ministers for this change, and how they would fit with EU directions at the time the change is proposed.

In Committee, we did indeed question the reliability of the predicted costs of the reforms—supposedly £23.7 million over 10 years. Parliament should have the opportunity to consider the reliability of those figures in the light of consultation responses. Furthermore, adopting a risk-based approach will inevitably create variation within security procedures adopted at different airports—again a major step change from the present.

--- Later in debate ---

[Graham Stringer]

I wish to make one general point and two specific ones. The Minister will know that although I accept the basic thrust of the Bill, I have never accepted the regulatory impact assessment and I believe that, throughout the Bill, extra burdens are being introduced for the aviation sector. I have been surprised and disappointed that she, as a Conservative Minister, has not explored more of the market-based solutions to some of these problems.

As my hon. Friend the Member for Barrow and Furness (John Woodcock) said, any assessment of the security costs is unlikely to be accurate, because many of the security regulations will be made at the European level. Making any such assessment is always going to be difficult, but it is close to impossible in this case. I am not going to repeat the discussion that we had in Committee, but I will say that Manchester airport is very concerned that the very expensive scanners that it has put in place may be outlawed by the new European regulations. That is the background to my position; I am unconvinced by the Government’s figures.

The first of my two specific points relates to security and follows on from what my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Riverside (Mrs Ellman) said. I am firmly of the school, particularly on security, that thinks, “If it ain’t broke, why try to fix it?” There is no evidence to suggest that TRANSEC is not doing a good job. It is integrated with other security services and, more importantly, for transport matters it is integrated with other transport areas apart from aviation. In short, it is doing a good job, and it seems to me that the real motive—the real driver—for moving security on to airports is primarily cost. That is not a good reason, particularly given that, as my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Riverside (Mrs Ellman) said, this will not have received the scrutiny that it deserves before the Bill goes through. Why take a risk? Why stand a chance of losing experienced and well-qualified members of TRANSEC, who may not want to move into airports? This proposal is unnecessary and the justification for it is weak.

I come to my second and final point. The Minister will recall that when I asked her in Committee whether other airports in the European Union had the costs of their security paid for by their Governments, she said that she thought they did. She then wrote to me and said something, and I followed it up with a parliamentary question, which she was good enough to answer fairly quickly. Her response showed that either she was not telling me—I do not believe that she would do that; I am sure that if she knew, she would tell me and other Members of the House—or, as I think, the Department did not know which countries and which airports paid for their security and which did not.

So not only are we being driven by cost, with a lack of scrutiny, to change a security system that works, but, as with other parts of the Bill, that is going to put a burden on UK airports that is not shared by some of their continental competitors. We know that the larger airports in this country—this does not apply to the tiny airports—such as Stansted, Heathrow, Gatwick, Manchester, Glasgow and Birmingham, and possibly some others, are competing as hubs for traffic throughout Europe, particularly for incoming traffic. Yet the Minister is unable to tell us, after a long debate in Committee and after a parliamentary question, whether we are being put at a competitive disadvantage, because she does not know which of those airports have their security paid for by their Governments. So I would like her to answer as thoroughly as she can on this matter. I do not believe that the case has been fully made, and I do not believe that the impact on the competitiveness and success of our airports has been judged properly and accurately.

[Mr Pat McFadden (Wolverhampton South East) (Lab)]

I want to say a few things in support of amendment 11 on security checks. As my hon. Friend the Member for Barrow and Furness (John Woodcock) said, the amendment calls for maintaining the rigour of those security checks while carrying them out in a manner that preserves religious dignity. Obviously, we need strong security at our airports—of that there is no doubt. The terrorism threat is very real—we have had the shoe bomber and we have had the underpants bomber—and the travelling public expect the Government and the airport authorities to do all that they can to ensure their safety. It is therefore not a surprise that security is a high concern in the Bill and a strong concern at a European level.

I and a number of other MPs who have large numbers of Sikh constituents have had many representations about the matter over the past year or so. In particular, we received representations about the way in which new European rules were being implemented, a concern that focused on the question of the physical searching of the turban, or, as Sikhs call it, the dastaar. I believe that the Sikh community, like any other part of the UK, accepts the need for strong security and understands that there is a terrorist threat, but it wants security to be implemented in a way that maintains religious dignity, which is what amendment 11 calls for.

I thank the Minister for listening to the representations from MPs and organisations representing the Sikh community on this issue. As she said in her intervention a few moments ago, the Department for Transport, in response to those concerns when they were at their height, organised a trial using swab and wand technology at our airports. That trial is still in progress. I believe that it was due to finish this summer and I want to ask her a few questions. Following the transfer of responsibility for some of these matters from the Department for Transport to the Civil Aviation Authority, how will MPs make representations on such issues in the future? It is important for us to have direct access to Ministers and officials in the Department for Transport; will we still be able to reflect the views of our constituents in the same way under the Bill?

Will the Minister also tell the House what will happen when the trial involving the swab and wand technology comes to an end? Will there be a formal report or a statement to the House in written or oral form about how that trial has gone? Importantly, do the UK Government intend to report the results to the European Commission, which drafted the new rules in the first place?

My right hon. Friend the Member for Warley (Mr Spellar) said a few moments ago that the United Kingdom had by far the largest Sikh community in the European Union. That is true. It also has the longest experience of having a Sikh community and we have been through these arguments, whether they are about the right of Sikhs to wear their turbans when riding a motorcycle, the right of bus drivers to wear them or the right of serving police officers to wear them. We have been through the arguments time and time again and different UK Governments have proven to be responsive to the concerns, which has enabled us to reach an accommodation. As my Sikh constituents often say to me, if wearing a turban was good enough to fight in the trenches, why is it not good enough to be worn in other walks of life?

The flexibility that the UK has shown through the trial is to be commended. I am not saying that the trial is perfect. As my hon. Friend the Member for Barrow and Furness said, it has not been implemented everywhere. Has the Minister received representations about problems in airports that are not taking part in the trial? Importantly, the fact that the Minister has written to Transport Ministers in other EU member states to outline the British approach has been a good initiative, but problems remain, especially outside the UK. We have had a number of Sikh constituents reporting aggressive and highly distressing searches, particularly at Italian airports, which have shown little regard for religious dignity. Some of us have made representations to the Italian embassy about those.

--- 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.

[Angie Bray (Ealing Central and Acton) (Con)]

It is absolutely true that Boris Johnson, Mayor of London, has always opposed the third runway at Heathrow. I live in west London and represent a west London seat, and he is right to do so given the threat a third runway would pose to the health of west Londoners. Ken Livingstone, the Labour party candidate, has also always opposed expansion at Heathrow airport. Indeed, this is one of the few topics on which all three main parties in the London mayoral campaign agree.

[Graham Stringer]

The hon. Lady is right in what she says, but all three mayoral candidates are wrong on this matter.

It is completely legitimate for any constituency MP, including the Secretary of State, to oppose what they think their constituents do not want. However, it is also incumbent on any Government to consider the national interest, not just the interest of people representing west London. Exactly the same argument is used about High Speed 2, and the analogy is a good one. I chair the all-party group on high speed rail, but if somebody was driving High Speed 2 through my constituency, I would oppose it, because I would like to carry on being an MP and representing my constituents. That is a reasonable thing for an MP to do, but I also know that HS2 is good for the economy. Similarly, I know that constraining runway capacity in the south-east is extremely bad for the economy. It will do no good for the environment; it will just strangle the British economy.

[Mark Reckless (Rochester and Strood) (Con)]

The hon. Gentleman implies that there may be a tension between a constituency interest and the national interest, but the Government’s policy and the Conservative party’s policy of being against a third runway at Heathrow precedes the previous Secretary of State. It has really been this Minister, when in opposition and in her current role, who has taken on the vested interests and put forward a policy that protects the environment, as well as the national interest. I do not believe that there is any relevant constituency interest here.

[Graham Stringer]

I have great respect for the hon. Gentleman, and I agree with him on a number of policies, but he is in error in his understanding of the history of the development of the Conservative party’s policy. To be fair to the Lib Dems, they have always opposed the third runway at Heathrow. The Conservative party was in favour of it until Boris Johnson thought he had a chance of winning the previous mayoral election—that changed its national policy. The Labour party was in favour of a third runway. When the Conservatives became the Government, the shadow Secretary of State said that she would change the Labour party’s policy—I do not agree with this, but I can see why she did it—so that there could be a discussion about how to deal with the problem facing us.

That problem—this is the final point I wanted to make—is that Heathrow is losing destinations and business, and not just because of the capacity on runways. We face at least a double whammy: air passenger duty is having an effect, too. The situation is directing passengers to airports in Europe that have added extra runways, such as Madrid, to where British Airways has moved much of its operations, and Charles de Gaulle. The hon. Member for Daventry (Chris Heaton-Harris) was talking about integrators. The two main centres for freight in the aviation industry are Brussels and Charles de Gaulle; we have already lost out on those issues. Passengers are going to Madrid, Charles de Gaulle, Schiphol and Frankfurt, and, increasingly, to Copenhagen, at the expense of London. That is damaging not only the London economy, but the UK regions, because of the decreasing number of routes from the regional economies into Heathrow, in particular, and into the whole of the south-east system.

[Jim Shannon]

The hon. Gentleman has hit on a very pertinent point. Four countries in the world are expanding their economies at the moment and doing well: Brazil, Russia, India and China. Is not the hon. Gentleman’s point that if we want to increase our trading with those four countries, we need better airport contacts? Is that not the very issue on which we seem to be losing out?

[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.

[Mark Reckless]

It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Blackley and Broughton (Graham Stringer). First, let me respond to what he said about Heathrow and China. We all see the adverts in Westminster tube station, but there is a fundamental inconsistency in the line being pushed by BAA and the Mayor of London, among others, that Heathrow is essential as a hub but that we do not have enough point-to-point flights to different places in China. The model used by BA and its oneworld alliance relies not just on Heathrow as a hub but on Hong Kong, too. It is deciding that it is more effective to use Hong Kong as a hub, for all the reasons given by the hon. Gentleman and others, and to fly to all those Chinese cities with greater frequency and service out of Hong Kong. I do not accept the argument that a lack of point-to-point flights from Heathrow to cities in China makes the case that Heathrow needs a third runway to be a hub airport. The very economies of the hub and of the Heathrow and Hong Kong dual hub model for service for China lead to the system that we have.

[Graham Stringer]

The hon. Gentleman is making a very sensible point about where hubs develop in the world. Hubs developing in the middle east are doing a similar job in serving parts of China and there are also hubs in south-east Asia. A better measure of the failure of Government policy is the number of airlines that want to get into Heathrow from all parts of the world but cannot do so. A number of those airlines, some from China and some from other developing countries with large growth rates, have applied but cannot get their aeroplanes into Heathrow. Does he not agree that that is a better measure?

[Mark Reckless]

The reason there is unsatisfied demand for Heathrow and people who would like to fly from there but cannot is that landing slots at Heathrow are still cheaper than those at other airports and certainly cheaper than they could be. BA uses most of those landing slots, has capitalised the value and does not sell many of them on, partly to ensure that there is only limited competition so it can maximise its profits. I will return to that point, but I have quite a lot of sympathy with the hon. Gentleman’s arguments that the regulator should look to ensure that licence holders—airports—are effective as well as economic and efficient.

I also have considerable sympathy with the shadow Minister’s new clauses on National Audit Office oversight. However, I understand that those are only intended to be probing. I hope that that will also be the case with his amendments, because ultimately I trust the Minister on this issue. I do so for the ultimate reason that, in so many areas of public policy one can pretty much know what the policy will be by looking at where the money is—where the vested interests lie—and at what the civil servants are pressing. Too often Ministers merely oversee that policy solution. In this area I believe that it is the personal, political intervention of the Minister, both as shadow Secretary of State in opposition and now as Minister responsible for aviation policy, that led to, and kept, the Conservative policy against a third runway at Heathrow.

--- Later in debate ---

[Dr Huppert]

I hear with interest what the hon. Lady says, although if that is already happening, I am not quite sure what her new clause would achieve. Perhaps a worked example to give some sense of the numbers and costs involved would make the case more persuasive for me. Perhaps there will be time later—at a future date, as the Bill progresses—to understand exactly what is proposed. I would personally be interested to understand that, but at the moment I do not feel I have enough of a handle on it to support the hon. Lady’s proposal.

[Graham Stringer]

I do not suppose that the hon. Gentleman and I are likely to agree on this, but I would like to understand his position a little more thoroughly. Is it his contention that constraining capacity in the south-east will reduce the number of flights, or will it in fact increase the number of flights—as is my contention—as people fly to other European hubs?

[Dr Huppert]

The hon. Gentleman is quite right that we will agree on very little in this area, other than on the fact that we will disagree quite strongly. At the moment, we have a number of people travelling to the south-east, by road and all sorts of other means, in order to fly out. We can use some of the capacity in other areas, in the north. My contention is that by not expanding capacity in the way the previous Government wanted to, we will see less environmental degradation and we will better be able to stay within our carbon budget, which we can afford for the good of the rest of the world as well as ourselves. However, I do not think the hon. Gentleman and I are going to agree on this one, however many times we discuss it.

Turning to the amendments that deal with environmental issues, let me be clear what I would like to see. I would like to see lower emissions at every airport in the country. Some of that can be done technologically. Planes are coming out that are more and more efficient, which I very much welcome. I have mentioned some of the excellent work being done by Rolls-Royce, and some research has been done in my constituency specifically to enable that, which I very much welcome. I would also like to see more public understanding of the effects of climate change, and of what aviation does and how it compares with other things. I would also like to see some certainty that airports will be able to reclaim when they implement environmental measures—a point that was made very clear to me by AirportWatch, along with others concerned about a lack of certainty.

We had a number of discussions in the Public Bill Committee about the exact nuances of the amendments and their technical aspects. It is important to get things right for the longer term, rather than jumping to agree to half-baked or 99%-baked amendments. Although I recognise the spirit in which the shadow Minister will, I presume, be pressing some of his amendments, I do not think we are quite there yet. I hope that he will accept that concern, and I am sure he will take a different line when we come round to it.

Amendment 3 is definitely much improved. I am much more persuaded by it, but there is still the problem that it would apply only to the regulated airports. I am sure that the shadow Minister would accept that that is a concern, and if we could do something that affected all airports, that would go further—I will return to that point later. The same thing applies to amendment 7. I find it an interesting amendment, and I would be supportive of it, were it not for the fact that clause 84 already requires the same information to be published—I am sure that the Minister will correct me if I am wrong about that. That information should be published, as clause 84 says, so we do not need to move it to clause 83 merely to solve a problem. In Committee, I praised the Minister’s environmental credentials. She turned her party towards the Liberal Democrat position of supporting high-speed rail and opposing a third runway at Heathrow and a second runway at Stansted. She did a good job, and I again pay tribute to her. She made strong arguments that were more persuasive for Conservatives than those that we made.

It is not clear that the Opposition have made that leap, and I seek clarity as to why many Labour Back Benchers argued against the position adopted by shadow Ministers and why they are still hung up on providing more capacity and more runways across the south-east. When I raised that with the Minister she agreed to look further at what environmental benefits could be achieved. I am grateful to her for doing so, and for the time that she has spent with me discussing the matter. She understands quite well what I am trying to achieve.

My ideal is something that has not yet been included in the Bill, because there are some problems with the wording of my proposal, which was recommended by the Aviation Environment Federation. In paragraph 31 of its submission to the Bill Committee, it said that what it would most like to see was an

“amendment to section 4 of the Civil Aviation Act 1982 to clarify that CAA has a duty to the general public, rather than only to the aviation industry or its consumers, and that environmental impacts are as important a determinant of aviation policy as consumer demand”.

That is something that I would love to see. I understand that there are some technical problems with the precise wording of the proposal, which is why I have not been able to table a detailed amendment that I could persuade the Government to accept. I should like to get these things right for the longer term, rather than put on a small show now. However, I hope that such a proposal would be considered, and I look forward to hearing from the Minister as to whether there is any prospect of her doing so.

A key issue made clear to me by AirportWatch and others was the need for certainty for airports. We all agree that we do not want any predatory airlines—I will not suggest any that might fall into that category—to exploit a lack of clarity to avoid paying what we all believe they should pay towards environmental improvements at airports. I believe that the Minister has received legal advice that the Bill provides such certainty, but I hope that she accepts the concern expressed by AirportWatch, the AEF, others and me that there is a lack of clarity. If there is a risk that the Bill is not absolutely water-tight legally, I hope that the Government will table an amendment in the other place to ensure that we do not encounter that problem, as we all agree that we do not want to have that concern. I look forward to hearing the Minister’s thoughts.

How do we achieve the overall environmental progress that we would like? I believe that the Government will shortly publish a draft aviation policy framework. We expected them to publish it in March, but it has taken time to get it right. We welcome the fact that such work has been undertaken, and I hope that the framework looks at the possibility of environmental regulation across all airports. That would be the best solution, rather than fitting the measure into one particular route, and applying it only to regulated airports. I hope that the Minister will be able to confirm that the aviation policy framework, which we all anticipate with great excitement, will deal with those environmental concerns.

There is a prospect of the Bill doing some very good things by improving the information flow and making the CAA more aware, and by making sure that we deal with risks to airports. I hope that the aviation policy framework will offer a visionary solution that ensures that we have a sustainable aviation future.