Oral Answers to Questions

Graham Stringer Excerpts

Thursday 29th November 2012 Commons Chamber

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

After half a century of inquiries and investigations into runway capacity in the south-east of England, there are almost no new facts to be learned. Is this not just a fig leaf before the Government do a U-turn and provide a third runway at Heathrow?

[Mr McLoughlin]

I am sorry that the hon. Gentleman thinks that is the case, but it is not. In fact, we are trying to build a consensus across the parties on large infrastructure projects such as this, and to a degree that consensus has been achieved. The HS2 route that we have adopted is the route that the previous Government published.

Aviation

Graham Stringer Excerpts

Wednesday 4th July 2012 Westminster Hall

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

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Dobbin, for what I think is the first time.

I congratulate the hon. Member for Rochester and Strood (Mark Reckless) on obtaining this important debate on the different issues relating to competition in the aviation industry. I agree with many of the points he made, and it is worth exploring further the points with which I disagree. He is serious about trying to find a solution to the country’s aviation policies, and that is worth discussing. Judging by the expressions of everyone taking part in the debate, there is agreement that Boris island is a complete non-starter. It is a decoy duck, Potemkin village, a red herring, or, as the previous Labour Secretary of State said, bonkers; it will not happen. But it is part of the illusions around aviation policy—which are the basis not of what the hon. Gentleman has been saying but of the Government’s policy—that somehow we do not know what has been happening in aviation, and there is more information to be found out. That simply is not true.

Going back to the Roskill commission in 1969 and a series of other White Papers and investigations, more is known about aviation policy in the south-east of England than about possibly any other area. If we want to be competitive, there must be more airport capacity in the south-east. Otherwise, the decline and damage that lack of aviation is causing to the economy will continue. I do not agree with the hon. Gentleman that it is right to suspend any discussion for the length of the Parliament. It might be right for the coalition agreement, but it is not right for the economy.

[Mark Reckless]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[Graham Stringer]

I will in a moment, but I want to go through some of the points that the hon. Gentleman made.

I do not think the “Heathwick” proposal works in detail. When I give way to the hon. Gentleman I want him to tell me about any city in the world—Toronto, Washington, Glasgow—that has tried having two airports. There are examples all round the world of countries saying “We will have an intercontinental airport here and a domestic one there,” and finding that neither of those airports has worked. Off the top of my head, I cannot think of a city with two competing hubs. The nature of hubs, and what makes them valuable—both for countries and airlines—is that airlines from all over the world go into them, with great interconnectivity. The idea of competing hubs is a contradiction in terms, and there is no real evidence that having two adjoining airports works.

[Mark Reckless]

I am delighted to have some discussion of the issue in the current Parliament, and I look forward to hearing from the Minister what decisions may be made about how that discussion should happen. I just do not think we should build any new runways during this Parliament.

I disagree about dual hubs. Perhaps the idea has been tried in, say, Tokyo and one or two other places and has not been ideal, but we are not making a comparison with the ideal; we are making a comparison with the constrained capacity possibility that 14 million people might try to fly from Exeter. Expanding Gatwick, rather than restricting it, will not result in the perfect economic hub airport, but hubs give declining returns, to scale, to the extent that they get bigger and bigger. If we allow flights to new emerging markets and competing hubs operating in the competitive interest of the country, rather than one hub operating in the interest of the monopolist based there, that would be a significantly better airline policy than the one we have.

[Graham Stringer]

All I would say is that the proposition has not worked. We are in decline and we need extra runways in the south-east. Only one new runway has been built in this country since the second world war. Heathrow was, I think, originally planned to have 12 runways, albeit in a different configuration. The hon. Gentleman can look at the history books if he wants to.

The hon. Gentleman’s argument relies on two issues: first, that our connections to China, as the Minister of State said, mean that we are not really suffering; and secondly, that slots are too cheap at Heathrow, and if we freed up that market we would help the economy as a whole. Let me give some evidence.

The Frontier Economics report, “Connecting for Growth”, which was produced in 2011, showed that trade is 20 times higher where there are direct flights to cities in China. It estimates that the UK is missing out as trade goes to France, Germany and Holland, and quantifies the cost to the UK economy of a lack of connections as £1.2 billion a year. Taking that present value over 10 years, that amounts to £14 billion. Paris and Frankfurt boast 1,000 more annual flights to the three largest Chinese cities, Beijing, Chongqing and Guangzhou, than we get from this country. The Minister of State is right to say that we send a large number of flights to Hong Kong, and that there is hubbing in the Oneworld alliance at Hong Kong. The City of London is doing quite a lot of damage at the moment, but if we consider some of the effects, and the latest financial centres index, the Hong Kong index has gone up by 21 and London has gone down by three. There is a correlation, if not a direct one, between the hubbing that is going on there and the damage that is being done to the UK economy. Forbes Magazine has shifted the UK down from sixth best country in the world in which to do business to 10th best. One contributing factor is our connections with other countries.

[Zac Goldsmith (Richmond Park) (Con)]

Does the hon. Gentleman agree that some of the problems that he has just described result not from lack of capacity but from poor prioritisation? Hundreds of flights every day to and from Heathrow involve places that do not in any way contribute to Heathrow’s hub status. We have short-haul flights, flights to Malaga and 15 flights a day to Cyprus. Such point-to-point flights could happen at any other airport. We have masses of spare capacity, but it is not all at Heathrow. If that is the problem, surely the priority is to make better use of existing capacity and to get rid of some of those pointless flights that could easily happen elsewhere.

[Graham Stringer]

I always find that a particularly difficult argument to be put by Conservatives, who suddenly want to plan routes and move away from a completely deregulated market in Europe—apart from where it is constrained by slots. Having argued ideologically for that position, all of a sudden they want to tell aeroplanes that they can only go from Manchester and Leeds and not from London. I do not believe that that is the Conservative party’s position at all. Even if we put up the price of slots, which has been kept artificially low by how slots are regulated, we would not necessarily get the flights going to the right parts of the world that will benefit this economy. We would get even more flights going to New York and the west coast of the United States because those are the most profitable routes from this country in the short term. The two cheap slots would not solve the problem because the central issue is lack of capacity.

I have a few more facts from the London chambers of commerce that represent the views of 350 business leaders from the BRIC countries: 92% made the general point about the importance of direct flights; 67% said that they were more likely to do business in a place if there were direct flights to it; and 62% said that they would only invest in an area if there were direct flights between the city in the country in which they were operating and the city in which they were likely to invest. Such flights to Brazil, Russia and China are limited.

I wanted to talk about the damage that air passenger duty is doing to regional airports, but I do not think that there is time because of the number of Members who wish to contribute to this debate. None the less, such duty is doing damage and the Government really need to change their policy. Twenty-two of our competitor countries in the EU have no air passenger duty whatever, so imposing a duty is a ridiculous anti-competitive position for this country to take.

I want to talk a little about how we use capacity in the regional airports. It is not possible to, as the hon. Members for Rochester and Strood and for Richmond Park (Zac Goldsmith) suggested, somehow move flights about, but there is no reason whatever why we could not have a completely open skies policy in the regional airports. There is 15 times more capacity in our regional airports than would be provided by one extra runway at Heathrow. It would be against the law to direct flights within Europe to that runway; that simply could not happen. At the moment, airlines are reluctant to make use of the partial open skies policy in relation to major regional airports with fifth freedom rights, but the Government must agree that, and sometimes there are difficulties. Airlines, which have a real interest in getting into Heathrow, are suspicious that if they use the facility of partially open skies in the regional airports they will be kept out in any future negotiations to get into Heathrow. Having a completely open skies policy in the regions, however, might shift out one or two intercontinental routes. It will not change the whole structure of aviation, but it will help.

Finally, the central point of the Government’s policy, especially the Liberal Democrat part, seems to be that constraining capacity in the south-east will help the environment and not damage the economy. I hope that I have shown that that constraint in the south-east is already damaging our economic competitiveness, and the answer to that is to build extra runways and not a new airport. It is worth saying, and it has been said before, that our policy is damaging not only our economy, as we are, in effect, helping other hubs in France, Germany, Denmark, Spain and Holland to do better, but our environment. When planes take off from the United Kingdom, taking passengers to airports such as Schiphol to pick up intercontinental flights, they are putting more nitrous oxide, sulphur oxides and carbon dioxide into the atmosphere than would otherwise be the case. Although the whole aviation debate needs to be opened up, the solutions have been known for a long time, and the Government have had their head in the sand for their whole time in office.

[Jim Dobbin (in the Chair)]

Order. Six Members still wish to speak in this interesting and important debate, so they will have roughly four minutes each before those on the Front Bench respond

Oral Answers to Questions

Graham Stringer Excerpts

Thursday 28th June 2012 Commons Chamber

[Justine Greening]

My hon. Friend raises some of the very difficult issues we have already run up against with Heathrow as a hub airport. She also points out that these discussions and decisions matter massively to residents on the ground, and she is right that the question is not just about a third runway at Heathrow—about which we have been very clear—because expanding that airport further would pose significant challenges to local communities, which should be taken extremely seriously.

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

Airport capacity in the south-east has been studied in great detail for the last 50 years, and there is no further information to be found. Is not the reason we are not getting a third runway the deal done between the Prime Minister and Boris Johnson to try to secure votes in west London, as a result of which the entire economy of the United Kingdom is suffering? I believe the Prime Minister wants to do a U-turn on this, and that he will do a U-turn.

[Justine Greening]

I am not sure whether that was actually a question, Mr Speaker, but what I do know is that we need to approach this discussion with maturity and from a long-term perspective. Given how much this decision affects many people, not just in the industry, but on the ground, it is not good enough to have a headline-driven, pub-style debate. What I have called for now is a much longer-term debate to get some answers that are not just right in the next 10 to 15 years, but will be right for the next 50 or 60 years. I very much welcome the fact that companies such as BA and people such as Willie Walsh are now starting to step up to the plate and join that debate. I look forward to their response and those of many others to the call for evidence over the coming months.

Civil Aviation Bill

Graham Stringer Excerpts

Tuesday 22nd May 2012 Commons Chamber

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

My point probably applies more to Heathrow than it does to Gatwick, which is obviously the hon. Gentleman’s main interest, but does he agree that the decision of COMAC—the Commercial Aircraft Corporation of China—to locate in Paris rather than in London, mainly for airport capacity reasons, shows that the Government’s aviation policy has failed because it is essentially an anti-aviation and anti-business policy?

[Henry Smith]

I would not accept that the Government’s aviation policy is either anti-aviation or anti-growth, as shown by the fact that we are now on Third Reading of a Bill that will produce greater flexibility in this sector—vital for a trading nation such as ourselves. I believe the Government should be congratulated by hon. Members on both sides of the House on that achievement.

Returning to my principal interest of Gatwick airport—I am the local Member of Parliament—I believe that it can grow by a further 11 million through-passengers than the current market share shows. The airport’s overall market share is only about a quarter of the total. Gatwick is not a monopoly, so it does not need to be economically regulated. The market should be allowed to work. Deregulation would allow Gatwick the flexibility to invest with pace in new infrastructure to accommodate developments such as the new A380 aircraft and undertake much-needed investment in areas such as the border zone. Through deregulation, Gatwick can emerge fully in line with the views expressed by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister as an airport that can fairly compete with Heathrow and others. As an economically regulated airport, Gatwick cannot invest flexibly or price services according to what individual customers want or what the market will support.

The Bill outlines a series of tests that must be met for an airport to be regulated. These aim to determine whether an airport has substantial market power and, if so, whether there is a risk of abuse of that position, which existing competition law is insufficient to control. An airport that meets the market power test requires from the CAA a licence to operate, which may include a price cap on what can be charged to carry passengers.

With Gatwick being sold by BAA two and a half years ago and now separately owned and operated, I very much agree with the Transport Select Committee’s findings:

“Given the greater degree of competition that now exists between airports in the south east of England…the CAA should undertake its economic regulatory duties with a relatively light touch.”

Several members of the Public Bill Committee expressed a similar view. On Report, my hon. Friend the Member for Rochester and Strood (Mark Reckless) said, correctly in my opinion:

“If Gatwick feels that it should invest significant sums of money in better terminal facilities in order to service the A380s and…allow the sorts of routes to high-growth markets in Asia that we so strongly support, I see no strong reason why it should be prevented from doing so and charging what the market will bear. I believe that that could be to the benefit of the consumer.”—[Official Report, 25 April 2012; Vol. 543, c. 1031.]

Similarly, in Committee my hon. Friend the Member for Amber Valley (Nigel Mills), whom I am pleased to see in the Chamber, noted that the CAA started

“from a position that… airports are regulated, and appears to want to keep them that way…. we should regulate airports only where there is a definite need to do so, and where there is a real advantage to the user, rather than looking to regulate unless we can find a way out of it.”––[Official Report, Civil Aviation Public Bill Committee, 28 February 2012; c. 153.]

There is clear evidence that Gatwick is now competing with other London area airports. Airlines and passengers are moving between those competing airports in the south-east, and airlines are choosing Gatwick in preference to other airports to establish brand-new routes to countries that are key trading partners. Any legal test should reflect those trends, and there should be no risk of presumption towards regulation.

The correct threshold for economic regulation of any company, including an airport, involves the application of the legal concept of dominance, which is well established in both European Union and United Kingdom competition law. It is used, for example, to determine whether telecom network operators should be subject to economic regulation in all EU member countries. Any test for market power should also be one of dominance. That would ensure a consistent approach to assessing whether there is a need to regulate in line with the regulation of other industries.

I welcome this updating of legislation for the air industry. I believe that it gives us an opportunity to enhance our gift as an innovative aviation and trading nation, and to grow the economic prosperity and employment that we need.

--- Later in debate ---

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

I am extremely grateful for this opportunity to speak. It is particularly expedient that I should do so after the hon. Member for Cambridge (Dr Huppert), for reasons that I shall come to. First, let me address one of the issues at the heart of the Bill: passenger experience. We welcome the Bill, which we sought to amend and improve in Committee. I was proud to serve on the Committee with colleagues from the Opposition Benches, some of whom are present. When things go wrong for someone at an airport their first instinct is to blame the airline, but it is rarely the airline that is at fault. We have seen such experiences at several airports and some bubbling discontentment, particularly more recently as a result of immigration and other issues such as poor weather. That is why we sought to put welfare plans for passengers into the Bill and why we sought to help disabled passengers more explicitly by putting such measures in the licence conditions. The two Front-Bench teams have explained their differences on where the emphasis should be.

For me, the key issue is about holding airport operators to account. I served on the Select Committee on Transport, and I remember seeing the chief executive of BAA come before the Committee shortly after the December 2010 snow disruption and confess that, of the 80 different measures of Heathrow’s success that were taken in December 2010, only three or four had been breached and marked as red, whereas every other box had been ticked green. In a sense, that underlines why we need to be really explicit about what we want to measure. I am sure that the CAA will be good at that, although the Opposition would have preferred the Government to have a more active role at the legislation stage.

The second issue I want to address is environmental responsibilities. In Committee, we felt it would be extremely helpful and effective if the CAA had a clear duty on the environment, and at one stage it appeared that the Department for Transport believed that too. Certainly, as the Bill came through, we saw from its drafting that that would not be included. I am talking about giving environmental information to passengers so that they can make smarter choices and about making sure that the CAA, as an economic regulator, can do its job, balancing the needs of the economy alongside the needs of the environment.

I wanted to speak to this Bill not just because I represent an airport constituency—Luton airport, which many people will know and love—but because I am deeply concerned about growth. We know that there is limited growth in the economy, to put it mildly, and that we need a long-term strategy for growth. As the Minister has pointed out, if aviation is one of the routes for that growth, it is important to have continuity and consistency in the Government’s approach. That is why I am so concerned about the remarks that we heard in Committee, which the hon. Member for Cambridge spoke about.

A Liberal Democrat member of the Committee whom I shall not name—okay, I will, it was the hon. Member for Cambridge—said in Committee:

“I would very much like to see an environmental duty in the Bill. That is an important issue, and I raised it on Second Reading.”

He went on:

“I am confident that she”—

the Minister of State—

“will…find a way to deliver an environmental duty in this Bill…It is not a trivial issue.”––[Official Report, Civil Aviation Public Bill Committee, 28 February 2012; c. 116-17.]

We wait to see whether the Minister is willing to give to her coalition colleague that assurance. We certainly felt that the point might have been more easily pressed home had the hon. Gentleman voted for it in the first place. I say that not to embarrass any particular Member on the Government side—honestly—but because I think the issue goes to the heart of aviation strategy more broadly under this Government. As with many issues under the coalition Government, we have one party on the accelerator and one party on the brake. Sometimes those flip around, but on aviation strategy the nature of the coalition becomes even more disparate. We have two people on the accelerator and one on the brake, or one on the accelerator and two on the brake at different times. There is no clarity for the industry about where this Government want to take aviation. That should be a big concern for us.

We know the issues in aviation; the big one that needs to be tackled is the requirement for greater capacity in the south-east. With reference to Luton airport, we know that the Minister is deeply interested in point to point and she is right. We should make more effective use of the capacity that we have. I hope the ministerial team will bring forward commitments on that in the coming months. We can go from 8 million passengers to a greater number without doing significant ground works or extending the runway.

We need resolution on whether there will be a genuine hub airport—one that does not fall over when it snows, when it rains, when there are small amounts of disruption. While that issue remains unresolved, perhaps because of the nature of coalition government, perhaps because of geographic requirements on Ministers or individual MPs, simply saying no is not a policy.

[Graham Stringer]

I wish Luton airport well; I have used it on a number of occasions. However, the recent report from BAA shows that if we do not have a third runway at Heathrow, which is the only solution to providing a hub airport, we will lose £100 billion in the economy. That is a non-trivial amount. Not having a third runway, as the hon. Member for Wellingborough (Mr Bone) said, is actually bad for the environment.

[Gavin Shuker]

I thank my hon. Friend. I want to make it clear that I think the right approach is to reach a cross-party consensus on the future for a hub airport. In that context, the moves by the shadow Secretary of State and the shadow Minister of State to write to Ministers at the Department for Transport saying, “We will take the option of a third runway off the table,” acknowledging that it has been taken off the table by Ministers, is the right way to go. However, the issue does not go away. In the course of developing policy in both major parties, we cannot continue to dodge the bullet. We need a hub airport that is fit for purpose. That is why I believe it is so important, given the passage of the Bill through the House tonight, that we find a way to tackle the big issues in aviation.

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.

Oral Answers to Questions

Graham Stringer Excerpts

Thursday 19th April 2012 Commons Chamber

[Norman Baker]

The industry tells me that it is very concerned about what is happening in Scotland and Wales. It is concerned about the short notice given by the Scottish Government, and about the even shorter notice given by the Welsh Assembly Government. We, on the other hand, gave 18 months’ notice of changes in the bus service operators grant. Representatives of the industry said at the time that, in view of the notice given and the type of BSOG changes involved, they expected to be able to deal with those changes without affecting services markedly.

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

Statements made by the hon. Gentleman before he was a Minister suggest that he must have been constrained in his enthusiasm for quality contracts by his Conservative colleagues in Government. If he cannot help local authorities to pursue such contracts, will he consider introducing a new bus regulator to deal with market failure—an Ofbus?

[Norman Baker]

The option for councils to pursue quality contracts remains on the statute book, although I think that any pragmatic council would choose to try to deal with bus companies in a collaborative way before reaching for the nuclear option. Some of the problems mentioned by the hon. Gentleman will be dealt with by our responses to the Competition Commission’s recommendations, which pick up some of the unsatisfactory behaviour of bus companies.

Northern Rail Hub

Graham Stringer Excerpts

Wednesday 18th January 2012 Westminster Hall

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

I will, like the hon. Member for Hexham (Guy Opperman), curtail what I was going to say. I congratulate the hon. Member for Colne Valley (Jason McCartney) on securing the debate and agree with everything that he said. I will not attempt to repeat it, particularly when so many hon. Members want to speak.

It is worth having some context in our debate. There was roughly an 80-year decline in rail services between 1920 and 2000 and, unexpectedly, over the past 10 or 12 years, there has been a dramatic increase in the number of passengers using the railways. I am not sure that the Department for Transport has completely caught up with a system that is expanding, although I accept that it has done so in respect of HS2—I am talking about the rest of the system. The basic way to determine investment decisions during that long decline was to follow congestion, which meant simply putting money into the south-east of England.

When one justification for the huge investment that goes into rail is to close the north-south divide, one can no longer justify, if one ever could, spending 90%-odd of rail investment in London and the south-east. One way to change that is to ensure that the northern hub is completed in one go. I understand that the Treasury is assessing it over the next six to eight weeks. I should like to make the solid case for the whole northern hub going forward, for the reasons that my hon. Friend the Member for Penistone and Stocksbridge (Angela Smith) and other hon. Members have stated. Detailed points need to be made about why the hub will not be as effective if it does not all go together as one.

I welcomed the previous Secretary of State’s statement to go ahead with the Ordsall chord, which is part of the northern hub. But if the whole system does not go together, there will be a reduction in services to Huddersfield, because unless an extra line is put in at Diggle to take the trains past it—I am sure that northern Ministers in the Department will be familiar with the railway lines there—the extra trains on the Ordsall curve will mean a reduction in trains on that route. If such details, including whether the chord will be there if the size of station platforms is not increased, are not dealt with, we will not get the benefit from the investment in the Ordsall chord.

Both in detail and in general terms, now is the time for the Government to say, as they have said, “We are going to try and do something about the north-south divide”, and that means investing in the rail system. Half a billion pounds is never a trivial amount, but compared to the amount going into Crossrail it may seem to be. I disagree slightly with my hon. Friend the Member for Penistone and Stocksbridge, because this is not the equivalent of Crossrail. We do not have such an equivalent. This is more the equivalent of Thameslink, which frees up capacity in the south-east, and even there it is still only 10% of the cost of Thameslink.

With a benefit-cost ratio of 4:1, the Government should be grabbing at the scheme. There are potentially 44 million passenger places on 700 trains. There will be enormous economic benefit to the whole of the north of England. I hope that the Minister assures us that she and her colleagues will press the Treasury and ensure that, in the next high level output specifications period, we get the full northern hub scheme.

--- Later in debate ---

[Julie Hilling (Bolton West) (Lab)]

I congratulate the hon. Member for Colne Valley (Jason McCartney) on securing this debate, and on his commitment in campaigning for the northern hub. It is wonderful to see so many hon. Members from across the north in the Chamber, and one or two additional supporters who are more than welcome in our fight. As chair of the all-party group on rail in the north, I am pleased to see so many members of the group here. Hon. Members across parties are united on the issue of the northern hub. We are divided only by the Pennines, which are another reason why the whole hub must be united—so that we do not have the perpetual Pennine divide.

The Minister can judge how important the issue is for all of us, and how crucial it is that the whole hub be funded. We will not have the full economic benefit across the whole north if there is a piecemeal approach. I was worried recently when the Secretary of State talked about the welcome electrification of the Manchester-York line as part of the northern hub. I do not want to split hairs, but electrification was always seen as an addition to the hub, and not as the hub itself. It is essential not to lose part of the hub to that electrification, welcome though it is. It is the hub that will hold us all together.

The hub is not glamorous like High Speed 2, but it is essential if we are to tackle overcrowding, increase line speed, reduce journey times and increase services. It is an integral part of High Speed 2. I speak from bitter experience. When Virgin high-frequency trains were introduced with three trains an hour from Manchester to London, services to my constituency diminished. The trains terminated at Manchester Victoria, and we lost services to the airport and elsewhere because inter-city trains took the paths that our trains had previously taken. The only way to prevent that in future is to ensure that the engineering works proposed for the hub are carried out.

We will have more trains through and to Manchester, and more trains will connect to the west coast main line. Eventually, trains will connect to High Speed 2. That unglamorous engineering work will provide passing places so that we continue to have slow, stopping services with fast services. It will improve signalling, the Ordsall chord route across Manchester city, and Manchester Victoria station. Any hon. Members who have spent time at that station will know that it is not the nicest in the world, and I as a woman do not feel particularly safe there. There will be improvements at the station, and two new platforms at Manchester Piccadilly.

Such improvements are as important to the north as the shiny new 250 mph train, and will be to the whole economy. Services will not then stop completely at Manchester Piccadilly when the Huddersfield train leaves, because it crosses every train path coming into the station, with the result that nothing else can come in and out. Constituents in Bolton will have a better, faster service, and people at my home station, Atherton, will not have to play sardines on the train, or have long waits at another gruesome station, Salford Crescent. They will be able to join the inter-city lines.

The project will bring £4 of benefit for every pound spent, and will do something to redress the imbalance between spending in the north and south. I do not understand why Londoners should have three times as much taxpayers’ money spent on their public transport as our constituents in the north.

[Graham Stringer]

During the debate I have done some arithmetic, which I believe is right, and which my hon. Friend may be interested in. Three months’ expenditure on Crossrail would pay for the whole northern hub. Is that not extraordinary?

[Julie Hilling]

I thank my hon. Friend for his intervention, which is interesting. It has been interesting during the High Speed 2 debate that people have frowned about putting so much money into the north, and people in the south-west have rightly asked why they are not receiving expenditure. There never seems to be an outcry about expenditure in London. I spend part of my life in London and before becoming an MP, I wanted to come to our capital city. Investment is needed in London, but it is also needed in the regions.

High-speed Rail

Graham Stringer Excerpts

Tuesday 10th January 2012 Commons Chamber

[Justine Greening]

There are always barriers and challenges in dealing with such significant infrastructure problems, not least money and ensuring that finance is in place. As we have seen with phase 1, we must be incredibly careful that the route minimises the impact on local communities while maximising the economic impact that communities can get out of it. There is a long process to go through as regards talking with the Scottish Government, but I am keen to engage with them on it.

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

The Secretary of State’s statement will be welcomed throughout the whole of the north of England, as the chief executive of Manchester city council said, but there will be a worry in the back of some people’s minds that we were promised trains through to Paris when the channel tunnel legislation was agreed but we did not get them and that the same thing will happen again. It is not just a matter of political will. People in the north would be reassured if the Secretary of State gave a commitment to align stations and resources to build the routes to Manchester and Leeds as soon as possible.

[Justine Greening]

I can give the hon. Gentleman that commitment. I certainly am not going to take any longer than we need to take to progress the full Y network. One aspect of the first phase that I have not mentioned yet is that it will connect HS2 through to HS1, so there will be that link directly to the channel tunnel and the European high-speed rail network, which will be hugely beneficial.

Aviation Industry

Graham Stringer Excerpts

Tuesday 15th November 2011 Westminster Hall

[Mr Donohoe]

I will always be corrected by the Minister in that respect. Under the previous Government, there was a trial period of mixed mode. I understood that the only way we could increase the number of passengers going through the airport was if we brought mixed mode into operation. I do not think I will be proven wrong in that respect.

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

Does my hon. Friend not agree that the number of passengers going through Heathrow is only one measure of its economic importance? If we look at the destinations served by Heathrow in its constrained state, we see that it is losing out in many of the emerging economies such as China, Brazil, Malaysia, India and Russia, and that is where the damage to the UK economy is being done.

[Mr Donohoe]

I could not have put it better. My hon. Friend will be speaking in this debate and will no doubt reinforce that point. It is clear that that is the situation.

--- Later in debate ---

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

The future of the aviation industry has been hobbled by Government policy, but that future is important, and I hope to explain why in the few minutes available. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Central Ayrshire (Mr Donohoe) on securing this debate, which is vital not just to aviation but to the whole UK economy.

Historically, the United Kingdom’s aviation business has been the second largest market in the world, not just in the production of aeroplanes but in the flying of them. We are in danger of losing that position; we almost certainly will. The arguments for constraining runway and airport capacity in the south-east fall down when looked at in detail, as do the solutions, and I will try quickly to go through the reasons why.

Aviation is vital to the economy, not just because airports and aeroplanes—the production of them and the flying of people in them—produce jobs, but because reducing the connections that aviation gives us to the rest of the world is, in essence, like switching off the internet. If someone in the House stood up and said, “We’re going to stop the growth of the internet and communications with the rest of the world,” people would think that that Member had gone off his or her rocker. Effectively, however, that is what we are doing by constraining air capacity in the south-east.

There is only one hub airport in this country, and that is Heathrow. By constraining its runway capacity, we will not necessarily reduce any increase in the number of passengers using it, because operators can use larger aeroplanes on the same runways. However, we will certainly reduce its importance to the economy, because we will reduce the number of destinations it serves. Already, the number of short-haul destinations served by scheduled services from Heathrow is 46, while Amsterdam has 67, Frankfurt 74, Paris 78 and Madrid 63. Heathrow still has more long-haul destinations than those airports, but there is an ecology of short-haul and long-haul routes, and as the number of routes diminishes, so Heathrow’s importance also diminishes. Heathrow already has fewer connections to some of the growing cities in China. As I said in an intervention on my hon. Friend, it has fewer connections to Malaysia and to the BRIC—Brazil, Russia, India, China—economies than its competitor hubs in the rest of Europe, so it is already losing out, and it will lose out further.

It is often said that the regional airports can take the strain, and the hon. Member for Redditch (Karen Lumley), who is no longer in her place, said that people will go to Birmingham. However, all the evidence is that the airlines have no levers to help them to get extra capacity at regional airports, and they have not had any for 20 years. We are going through a recession and economically difficult times, and the loss of traffic at regional airports is about twice the rate at Heathrow. Indeed, the Government’s policies—this also applied to the previous Government—are having a perverse impact, because of the nature of the economies involved. Air passenger duty has a really negative effect on regional airports, and some airlines are choosing to use hubs outside a region because of it. The most recent example that I have come across—there are others—is AirAsia, which was more or less signed up to using Manchester airport, but which is now flying from Kuala Lumpur to Charles de Gaulle. The reason that it gave was simply air passenger duty.

What is true for regional airports, where air passenger duty has a differential impact, is also true for the whole United Kingdom economy—we can do the sums and see the transfers. It is not just that flights are not happening at regional airports, but that operators of flights—particularly tourist flights—from Japan, south-east Asia and the emerging economies are choosing to go to Charles de Gaulle, Frankfurt, Schiphol, Copenhagen and Madrid, rather than Heathrow, because of the extra cost of air passenger duty. As a result, air passenger duty is damaging not only regional airports, but Heathrow itself.

I was pleased by the decision to reduce air passenger duty at Belfast airport. However, if we want to use the capacity at our regional airports, there needs to be a differential between them and the south-east airports. Any differential must help our regional airports, rather than being less than helpful to them, as it is at present. The other way that regional airports could be helped is by building infrastructure. Very few airports in this country have direct links to high-speed trains or good public transport connections. Improving public transport to our regional airports at a cost to the public purse would therefore help in some way.

The biggest push that could be given to our major regional airports, such as Birmingham, Manchester and Glasgow—I do not think this really applies to other regional airports—would come from completely opening up the skies. The previous Government gave regional airports the ability to take flights, with their permission, with fifth freedoms, which meant that those flights could pick up passengers at those airports. That is an advantage, but it would be a much bigger advantage —I imagine this would appeal to a Conservative Government—if we completely opened up the skies around those airports, so that any aeroplane could fly in and out, pick up passengers and take them wherever they wanted. Historically, the only reason why that has not happened is the Government’s over-protectionist position towards British Airways and BAA.

Things can be done to help regional airports that go beyond what is being done at the moment, which is counter-productive. Incidentally, if air passenger duty is such a good idea, why do so few other countries in Europe have it? Only four other countries—Denmark, Norway, Malta and Holland—have it; some have tried it and got rid of it because it is so economically damaging. We have to test these things against what our competitors are doing to find out whether we should have them, and I do not think we should.

It is often said that there are environmental reasons for constraining traffic in the south-east. As my hon. Friend explained, however, when we look at the detail of what happens, it becomes clear that people do not stop flying because of constraints in the south-east system; they use other hubs, and the constraints imposed by air passenger duty reinforce that. Rather than taking a direct flight or using Heathrow, people from Manchester will fly to Schiphol, Copenhagen or wherever and fly onwards because it is cheaper. That saves them air passenger duty and it saves them going into the constrained south-east hub. As a result, there is at least twice the environmental damage, because aeroplanes produce most pollutants—carbon dioxide and other pollutants—when they take off. Someone going to, say, Tokyo may go via Copenhagen. There are not, therefore, good environmental reasons for such a view.

Regional airports are not an alternative, for the reasons that I have given. The former Labour Secretary of State, Lord Adonis, said Boris island was bonkers, and within five minutes of looking at it, we can see that it will never happen—for environmental and planning reasons, and because of the sheer cost and financing involved. When there were fewer environmental issues, it took Munich 25 years to develop a new airport, which opened in 1992. Something as huge as Boris island will simply not happen as an alternative.

I should like to make a number of other points, but other hon. Members want to speak, so I will sit down. There is, however, no real alternative to expanding Heathrow; we certainly cannot use Heathrow and Gatwick as one airport. The Government’s policies are hugely damaging to the aviation industry and the UK economy.

High-Speed Rail

Graham Stringer Excerpts

Wednesday 2nd November 2011 Westminster Hall

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

I congratulate the hon. Member for Blackpool North and Cleveleys (Paul Maynard) on securing this important debate, with the specific title and terms of reference that he spelled out. I also congratulate him on his powerful description and analysis of many issues involved; I agree with a great deal of what he said, although not with every full stop and comma.

I want to make a few points about the project and how it relates to the north-west of England and the north of the country beyond Birmingham. I would like to draw an analogy with trams. At the moment, Manchester is trebling the size of its tram network, while Liverpool, Southampton and Leeds do not have trams. The important point that I draw from that is not that Manchester’s case, which is good for the tram network, was much better than the case of the other cities, but that the 10 districts of Greater Manchester and the three political parties were united. To cite the comments of my right hon. Friend the Member for Knowsley (Mr Howarth), the politics in Merseyside were dysfunctional when it came to trams. Having all-party support and as much backing as possible for a project is almost as important—in some ways more important—than different economic cases, a cost-benefit analysis and an economic impact analysis.

It is important to keep such an all-party group together. This country has too little infrastructure, which damages the whole economy. One of the reasons why we have too little transport infrastructure is that we have not always been able to build an alliance between the parties. I could give example after example of where we should have had motorways, railways, trams and runways where we do not have them. Therefore I welcome a detailed debate, whether it comes from the Front Benches, the Back Benches or people with constituency involvement. The high-speed rail system is a major piece of infrastructure, which, whatever its impact to the north and the south, will help the country as a whole, and it is important to understand that.

I have read many cost-benefit analyses over the years, and while it is important to prepare them, the way in which the Treasury, the Department for Transport and other Departments look at them means that they contain so many variables that one can make them say anything one likes.

The important thing about the project is that it has been justified on two grounds. The first is that there is an immediate issue with capacity between Birmingham and the south, and the second, which comes along later, is that it will help rebalance the country, and the country certainly needs rebalancing.

On the second justification, I have spent my political life trying to get investment into the north of England and into Manchester in particular. If we want to use the project to rebalance the country, it is odd to start building it from the south to the north and not put a spade in the ground in the north of England for potentially 15 or 16 years. The reason for that is the reason that we always get from the Department for Transport: the capacity problem. Such an analysis of why we invest in infrastructure is one of the reasons why 95% of our capital expenditure on transport in England goes into London and the south-east—it is crowded there. If we use that as a basis for our investment decisions, we will always put it there and increase crowdedness, effectively subsidising congestion. I would argue that if we want to make an impact on the north-south divide, we need to start in the north and look at all the projects that are determined by congestion and overcrowding as economically transformative. I know that the hon. Member for Blackpool North and Cleveleys will object to my use of that term; I rarely use it, but it is important in the context of getting as many bangs for our bucks economically, as well as dealing with the immediate transport problem. I ask the Department to look at the issue generally.

I think that the claims for the impact on the north of England from High Speed 2 are ambiguous. I did not go on the trips—I was not serving on the Transport Committee at the time—but there is certainly a case that Cordoba, Turin, Lille and Lyon have benefited. One could also make the case that high-speed rail has sometimes had a negative impact on those cities. The same is true with roads, or with any transport infrastructure, because roads go both ways: they can take economic activity away from or into an area.

[Tristram Hunt (Stoke-on-Trent Central) (Lab)]

I represent Stoke-on-Trent, where there are fears that High Speed 2 could reduce connectivity if the line passes the city and does not stop there, while the capacity on the west coast main line—the Manchester-London route—is diminished. While Stoke-on-Trent might benefit from the growth of Manchester or Birmingham, there are fears in the city about its own connectivity with HS2.

[Graham Stringer]

There is a fear. There are genuine worries in Stoke, and potentially Coventry and south Wales, that there could be a negative impact. I would ask those areas please not to have a dog-in-a-manger attitude and say, “Let us not have this excellent new piece of transport infrastructure.” Let us work out how we can get investment in those areas, using either high-speed rail or something else. If people end up just opposing the project, they will damage the economic and transport base of the whole country.

[Mark Lazarowicz]

Does not the point that was semi-raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent Central (Tristram Hunt) underline the need for some form of regional transport planning? We do not want to build stations with no connections to the wider community and area; we want Stoke and other similar cities that are not on but near the line to have good links. We can see that in the best European systems, which is why the benefits are more widely spread there.

[Graham Stringer]

Absolutely. It makes sense that people can connect to other places if a high-speed line is built. I know that the timetables of the rail system in the north, which I know better than that in the midlands and Scotland, are slower than they were in 1880s—I say that in nearly every debate in which I speak. Taking out congestion points and improving the northern system and that in the rest of the country must be the best way to use the investment that is going into the project.

I want to finish on some points made by the hon. Member for Blackpool North and Cleveleys and by the Action Alliance, which opposes high-speed rail, in the document that it sent out today. First, if someone had £33 billion to spend in the north or the whole of England, they would not necessarily sit down and say, “This is it”; they would probably sit down for a long time and not agree to spend anything. However, the project is out of the starting blocks, and there are many benefits to be had from it. If someone were to ask, “Should the country have motorways?” the answer would be, “Yes, we should have motorways.” In the same way, we should have high-speed rail. That, together with all-party support, is the real justification for the £33 billion.

[Julian Sturdy (York Outer) (Con)]

The hon. Gentleman makes a good point. High-speed rail is important to the north of England, but it needs to be developed alongside the classic network and also alongside aviation and road. We need a strategic transport policy that covers everything. High-speed rail is not the panacea, but it is part of a strategic transport plan.

[Graham Stringer]

The hon. Gentleman is right. Even though I am a member of the Labour party, I am always slightly cautious about having the perfect plan. When one is involved in transport plans or economic development—it does not matter whether it is in the private or the public sector—one has to be opportunistic and take what is there. Sometimes it can take too long to wait for the perfect plan. That does not mean that we should not think about how we can connect different parts of the system.

Like the hon. Member for Blackpool North and Cleveleys, Action Alliance makes the point that high-speed rail does not automatically bring with it economic benefits. Let us take, for example, the economies of Manchester and London, or Birmingham and London. Some argue that high-speed rail exposes them to bigger markets, which is true because the train goes both ways. A dynamic city or region is at a real advantage. What city would not want to be in a bigger market so that they can attract more people and investment? Although it is possible to fail in such an area, it is easier to succeed if there is high-speed rail.

[David Mowat (Warrington South) (Con)]

I, too, was struck by the Action Alliance analysis that when we improve connectivity, the stronger city benefits and the weaker city loses out. If we follow that logic through to the end, it means that we should close the M6, the M1 and the west coast main line, which is ridiculous.

--- Later in debate ---

[Graham Stringer]

It is ridiculous, but that does not mean that Action Alliance does not have a point in saying that it is dangerous; the world is dangerous. We have to take our opportunities to create jobs where we can. It does not automatically lead to growth, but it would be negative not to take this opportunity to have growth. To emphasise that point, let me make one more comparison between Manchester and Liverpool—I am not having a go at Liverpool because this, unlike the story about the trams, has a happy ending. There is a more solid case for saying that airports have a real economic benefit for regions. Unlike roads, they rarely have a negative impact. Merseyside county council did a lot of work on Liverpool airport. It extended the runway and got an estuarial take-off. The whole scheme should have had many advantages, but they were realised only when John Whittaker and the Peel Group took the opportunity and bought Liverpool airport and brought some commercial acumen and ability to it. There are real advantages here. I hope that we can keep the all-party alliance together because this project is important for the country as a whole. As it is called high-speed rail, perhaps it should be done from north to south because that would be slightly quicker than the schedules that are envisaged at the moment.

[Nadine Dorries (in the Chair)]

I call David Mowat.