Flight Time Limitations

Jim Fitzpatrick Excerpts

Thursday 22nd November 2012 Westminster Hall

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

We now come to our second debate of the afternoon on the flight time limitations applying to airline pilots and cabin crew. The subject is complex, but it has a direct and major effect on anyone who flies on a commercial aircraft. Fundamentally, it is about safety—regulating the hours and working practices of air crew so that they are not too tired to do their jobs and can keep passengers and crews safe. It is a matter of crucial importance.

Human error is associated with around 80% of aviation accidents. A major research study has shown that pilot fatigue contributes to between 15% and 20% of fatal air accidents. Fatigue makes it harder for people to concentrate, decreases reaction times, and increases the risk of people lapsing momentarily into unconsciousness or sleep. All such problems can prove fatal if the fatigued person is piloting an aircraft.

The most shocking statistic that we came across during our inquiry was from the British Airline Pilots Association. A survey of its members found that 43% of pilots reported involuntarily falling asleep while on the flight deck. Of those, 31% awoke to find their co-pilot asleep. That demonstrates why the subject of flight time limitations is so deserving of our attention.

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

I am grateful that my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Riverside (Mrs Ellman), who is Chair of the Transport Committee, has raised that statistic; it certainly saves me raising it later on. It truly is shocking. Has she considered what the impact will be of the proposal to reduce the number of pilots on some long-haul flights from three to two given that they might both be asleep, or does she have further information about whether there might only have been two pilots on such aircraft at the time?

[Mrs Ellman]

I will take up that point in a moment.

Flight time limitations are a complex package of measures, dealing with how working hours are distributed over the year, start and finish times, rest periods, and the impact of time zones. UK airlines are currently regulated by the Civil Aviation Authority. The major change that sparked our inquiry is that the rules are now being set at an EU level by the European Aviation Safety Agency, which is based in Cologne. As part of our inquiry we visited EASA, to discuss its work with the agency’s director.

The UK’s flight time limits are set by the CAA, which is permissible under EU regulations. In 2009, EASA started a process of establishing a Europe-wide scheme, and the UK Government are part of those negotiations, so the matter has not come on us suddenly. The advantage in establishing EU-wide flight time limitations is that safety standards across the EU are expected to rise, which will benefit passengers travelling on European carriers. However, there is also a real risk that well-established UK standards will be reduced as part of the process of achieving consensus across the EU. In addition, there are serious questions about EASA’s work, particularly in relation to how it has used scientific advice. More plainly, there are questions about how EASA did not use the latest scientific advice in assessing safe standards.

Many aspects of flight time limitations are relatively uncontentious, but some have generated passionate debate. I will focus this afternoon on the most hotly contested issues, and I will set out my Committee’s conclusions.

We looked at the proposals that were published by EASA in January this year. EASA has since published its formal opinion, which will now be reviewed by the European Commission before coming into law. I will be putting some questions to the Minister about EASA’s latest conclusions. Again, I stress that we are not talking about the EU suddenly announcing a decision without proper consultation. This country, including the Department for Transport, is part of that ongoing and long consultation, so it has an active part to play.

One of the main concerns of the Committee was about the number of hours that crew can fly overnight. The scientific advice provided to EASA has been clear in recommending that the proposed 11-hour duty period was too long and that the limit should be 10 hours. The Government told us that they would not press EASA to change its proposals, arguing instead for more active management of long overnight flight duty periods. In that, the Government were successful. But why is the Minister satisfied that pilots will be allowed to fly overnight for one more hour than scientific opinion considers to be the safe limit? That is an extremely serious matter.

Another concern was about the very long duty periods allowed for under EASA’s proposals. We heard that a pilot could be landing a plane after 19 hours at work and perhaps after 21 or 22 hours of being awake. The CAA described that scenario as “exceptionally rare”, but I do not think that anyone here today would be happy to fly if they knew that their pilot had been working around the clock, however unusual that situation is alleged to be.

EASA’s new proposals seem to improve that situation, with a cap on airport stand-by and associated flight duty of 16 hours. However, BALPA has put a new scenario to us that shows how other aspects of the rules could lead to a pilot working for almost 24 hours, if a long period on stand-by waiting for a delay to an aircraft to be resolved is followed by a normal duty period. I would be grateful for the Minister’s observations on a situation of that nature.

--- Later in debate ---

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

Mr Robertson, it is a pleasure to see you presiding over the debate, sir. It is also a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Milton Keynes South (Iain Stewart), who spoke so eloquently about safety, and I will return to his remarks later.

We welcome the Transport Committee’s first report of the 2012-13 Session. The key question for this whole debate is on the very first page of the Government response. The first sentence under the heading “General” says:

“The Government believes that the current draft of the European Aviation Safety Agency’s…proposals will not lead to a diminution of safety in the UK.”

Well, we have heard from two members of the Committee, who have quoted extensively from personal experience, constituents and BALPA submissions, and made it clear that there were a number of safety concerns about the regulations, and I want to emphasise some of them. Like the previous speakers, I look forward to the Minister’s response, and I seek the reassurance that I am sure he hopes to give us in due course.

Recommendation 1 of the Committee’s report says that the CAA should set

“out its strategy for enforcement and how it will ensure that operators comply”

with their responsibility. In their response, the Government say:

“The CAA will continue to work with EASA on this to ensure that comprehensive guidance material is established”,

adding that once the proposals have been finalised, there will be seminars and the rest of it. I would be grateful if the Minister could say a little more about the timing and about what progress is likely.

Recommendation 2 says the Government should follow up

“the CAA’s concerns about the frequency with which the maximum flight duty period can be exceeded during a scheduled seasonal period.”

The report is referring to the concerns of the CAA, not BALPA or the Transport Committee, and those concerns reflect the evidence the Committee received. The Government’s response says that they

“will raise this issue during EU discussions on this matter.”

That goes back to the point raised by the Chairman of the Committee, who asked about last week’s Transport Council, the UK Government’s response and, generally, where we are going on this issue.

Recommendation 3 calls

“on the CAA to investigate potential under-reporting of pilot fatigue”

so that there can be confidence in the procedures and structures put in place to protect the industry against bad practice. The Government response says:

“The Government accepts the recommendation to investigate the potential under-reporting of pilot fatigue and notes that this is already under consideration by the CAA.”

Again, could the Minister elaborate a little on how that will be undertaken?

As has been mentioned, recommendation 4 covers long-haul flights and oversight. Again, the Committee quotes the CAA as having expressed reservations about the proposed flight duty at night. My hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Riverside (Mrs Ellman) gave a good explanation of the concerns that have been expressed, given that the scientific evidence submitted to the European Aviation Safety Agency makes it absolutely clear that the 11-hour flight duty period at night is too long. The Committee recommends

“that the Government press EASA for a lower limit”.

The secondary question in respect of whether that was going to be done—I will perhaps come back to this a little later—is about the weight given to scientific evidence. My hon. Friend said that the Committee had spoken to the scientists, and as the report goes on to say, the Minister said that their evidence was part of the information used. The question asked is: what is the balance of objectivity? How much weight is given to the scientific evidence? How much weight is given to other submissions and where does the balance lie in terms of the Government arriving at their conclusions?

In their response to recommendation 4, the Government state that additional requirements will be included in the final draft of the impending rules. I am not sure whether that is covered by the Minister’s saying that that is misinformation and that there are not going to be any additional requirements.

Recommendation 6 states that information provided on “commander’s discretion” should be collated and made publicly available. The Government do not believe that publication of a single figure on discretion usage or even an operator’s average discretion usage would provide any safety benefit. I must question the logic of that on the basis that not publishing the data looks as though there is something to hide. Publishing the data, even though it is only a single piece of evidence, gives the safety community, the Transport Committee and others the opportunity to look at it and say, “Is it a single figure? Is it insignificant, or is it a single figure tip of an iceberg? Is there a lot more to this, and do we need to have a look at it?”

The Government’s response states that the CAA will review what information can be published without compromising the integrity of the reporting systems and how best it can be presented to ensure that it is intelligible to the public. I am not sure whether that demeans the public’s intelligence in terms of identifying good safety information. Most of the information will be analysed by experts, professionals and organisations such as the Transport Committee. The CAA will be deciding what can and cannot be published, but when it comes to safety, we want the greatest possible transparency so that everybody can have confidence in what is going on. Will the Minister comment on not publishing the data? After all, it is the commander’s discretion—we are talking about the pilots in charge actually making a judgment.

In recommendation 8, the Committee states:

“The Government should press EASA to amend its proposals to give national aviation authorities the power to monitor”.

That goes back to the point raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Riverside that the Government say that there is no discretion—

[Mr Burns]

No additional advice.

[Jim Fitzpatrick]

There will be no additional reporting. But in their response to the Transport Committee report, the Government say that the rules will fully address the Committee’s concern on the issue of oversight.

Finally, in recommendation 9, the Committee states:

“we would have expected scientific advice to have had a more prominent role in the rule-making process.”

That is the point that I was referring to earlier in one of the other recommendations and the question about the balance of consideration given to the scientific evidence, which the Government in their response state is one element of the development of the regulations. But surely scientific evidence would carry greater weight than the comments from an operator? Perhaps the Minister will outline what the balance might be.

Dr Rob Hunter, the head of flight safety for BALPA, has written to us. He has been quoted by hon. Members during the debate. He raises several concerns. I will mention three to reinforce that which has already been referred to. The first is:

“The provision for airlines to extend flying hours rather than it being a Captain's sole decision.”

The second, as mentioned by the hon. Member for Milton Keynes South is:

“A reduction in the number of pilots needed on many long-haul flights, so that, for example, a London to Los Angeles flight which would currently require three pilots would only require two”.

So at least one of them might be awake during the whole flight if 43% or 31% of the others are asleep. The third is:

“An increase of over 30% more time on home standby so that pilots could be landing aircraft after having been awake for over 24 hours.”

I heard the Minister’s comment about the 16-hour time limit. Will he reinforce that in his remarks? BALPA is a representative organisation, but it has a very strong safety record and a high reputation within the industry. I know that the Minister would not in any way impugn that. However, the fact that it is raising these issues obviously means that it has to be taken seriously.

The submission, which I am sure the Minister has seen, goes on to say that there is no increase in the hours, so this is not a protection issue in terms of carrying out more work. This is about the way in which the work is actually structured. I know from my time in the fire service, and we have seen it in other businesses, that sometimes managers think they can reconfigure the hours to get greater productivity or greater efficiency, when all they are really doing is tinkering with the mechanism. There is no increase in hours here. The validity of BALPA’s concerns that this is a safety issue are underscored in that respect.

BALPA gave evidence to the Treasury Committee on waking hours and provided specific examples of possible shifts. I will not repeat them, because they have been referred to by the Chair of the Select Committee and her colleague, the hon. Member for Milton Keynes South, and I have referred to them earlier.

My hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Riverside introduced the report and effectively outlined the EU consultation and the role of the UK Government. I have asked the Minister about our role within the EU. My hon. Friend raised the key questions of reporting procedures, the scientific evidence and separate national standards, and she sought reassurance on those issues.

The hon. Member for Milton Keynes South, as we all know, has established a sound profile on the Transport Committee. He has a reputation as a diligent member of that Committee, as demonstrated by his attendance here today, as well as by his speech. He reinforced the safety concerns of his colleague, the Committee Chair, and lucidly contrasted the different outcomes when harmonising EU standards through regulation. In some countries we will see a lowering of standards and in other countries they will be raised. What is the balance for the UK aviation industry and the travelling public? He gave a graphic illustration of what is at stake here, relating the experience of his constituent, who, hopefully, has now safely landed and is on his or her way through the terminal.

In conclusion, nobody here is saying that safety is anywhere other than at the forefront of Government thinking. However, when BALPA and the Transport Committee, two very reputable organisations in their different arenas, raise so many questions about safety, it is the duty of the official Opposition to reinforce that. We look forward to the Minister’s comments and we look for some reassurance. Hopefully, when we get to the end of this process, we will have a safer industry and not the reverse.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Burns]

The hon. Lady raises an important issue. I will return to this, but, yes, I do have faith in the CAA, because I do not think it is doing what she suggests. I will return to that when I address a number of questions, because it is an important issue and the hon. Lady and others beyond the House, who will be reading the comments of all hon. Members who have contributed to the debate, need an answer.

[Jim Fitzpatrick]

This is a small point, but it has yet to be stated in our deliberations and the Minister may well put something on the record in due course.

We finished considering the Lords amendments to the Civil Aviation Bill on Tuesday. The Bill transfers massive new responsibilities to the Civil Aviation Authority, with which everyone is quite comfortable. Obviously—I am sure this will happen, but I want the Minister to put it on the record—we want safety to remain paramount in the CAA’s responsibilities. Given that the organisation will grow in numbers, organisational strength and structure, will the safety element of its role grow commensurately?

[Mr Burns]

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving me the opportunity to reiterate that safety is paramount. Among other things, safety is the responsibility of the CAA. The CAA’s commitment, and the amount it devotes to ensuring that the safety of the aviation industry and airlines in this country is paramount, will continue, unaffected by the legislation.

I hope that reassures the hon. Gentleman. I am not sure whether it has reassured him, because he has not indicated either way, but I hope it does.

--- Later in debate ---

[Jim Fitzpatrick]

I am grateful to the Minister. Obviously, I fully accept his assurances. What was going through my mind was that, notwithstanding those reassurances and the respect I have for the CAA, ultimately we are going to disagree about the conclusions that it has reached on some of the issues we have raised. Unless the Minister can give us further reassurance, there will be question marks in our mind about the length of flight times, the reporting procedures and the balance of evidence. We have to go along with the Government’s objective analysis of all the evidence and with their conclusions because we cannot change them. Obviously, I accept the Minister’s assurances.

[Mr Burns]

I appreciate the hon. Gentleman’s last point. I hope that by the time I sit down I will have completely reassured him. If I were a betting man, I would not place a wager on that, but I will do my best to seek to assuage his concerns as much as possible.

Importantly, different safety standards in different member states can distort the market and could, if some do not provide a robust level of safety, put flight crews and passengers at risk, which we all find unacceptable and are united in wanting to address. The harmonised rules will apply directly to all EU airlines, ensuring that UK citizens flying within Europe enjoy the same high safety standards, regardless of where the airline is based.

The flight time limitation requirements are a package of closely interrelated measures that address a number of issues relating to fatigue, including work load, sleep and body clocks, in several different ways. Work load is addressed through setting limits on the length of duty times. The more intensive the work load in terms of take offs and landings, the lower the limit. Additionally, there are medium and long-term limits on duty hours to prevent cumulative fatigue.

Adequate sleep is ensured by the establishment of minimum rest requirements. Body clock issues are addressed by adjusting duty limits according to the time of day the duty starts. There are additional limits if crews are not acclimatised to the local time zone.

I emphasise again that those requirements and limits are closely interrelated. For their effectiveness to be properly understood, they need to be considered together as a package.

Limits are only one aspect of the new proposal. Airlines will also be required to put in place a number of new management processes, including flight time specification schemes tailored to the type of operation being undertaken. Airlines will have to ensure that schedules are planned so that aircrews can operate safely in all circumstances. All aircrews, rostering staff and their managers will have to undergo regular training in fatigue management. The training programme will have to be approved by the CAA.

Additionally, all airlines will be required under separate legislation to have safety-management systems. Under the EASA proposals, those will have to have a specific fatigue risk-management element in certain circumstances. The CAA will be responsible for approving and monitoring airlines’ safety management systems and flight time specification schemes. Airlines will no longer be able to rely solely on complying with fixed limits on flight times. Instead, they will also need to demonstrate how they are managing crew duties to prevent the risk of fatigue from arising in the first place. This part of the EASA proposal is a major step forward. It is very much in line with UK thinking and with international best practice in this field.

Although some provisions of the EASA proposals are slightly less restrictive than the current UK requirements, others are more restrictive. However, as I have said, the new flight time limitations requirements are designed to work as a package of measures. It does not make sense to draw comparisons with the current UK rules by looking at specific limits in isolation.

The CAA looked carefully at the package of new proposals and considered how the various elements will interact. It has assured me that, in its opinion, the package of measures will not lead to any reduction in safety for UK airlines. Moreover, the new proposals are much more stringent than the current EU rules. EASA has identified more than 30 separate provisions where this is the case. For example, it provides for safety improvements in addressing cumulative fatigue, including through extended recovery rest periods twice a month; increasing rest to compensate for time-zone differences and disruptive schedules; and expanding the application of the most restrictive flight duty period to 12 hours between 5 pm and 5 am. That will lead to a substantial improvement in safety across Europe. It is a good deal for UK passengers in today’s single market in air services. When they use any airline from any EU member state, passengers will be protected by the same high standards as those followed by UK airlines.

This is also a good deal for UK airlines, which will no longer have to compete against other EU airlines that follow less stringent rules. It has been suggested that the UK should consider opting out of some or all of the proposed rules or enhancing them. The hon. Member for Liverpool, Riverside raised the matter, but I have to say that this is not an option. We have checked, because there has been a belief that we could add to the proposals that EASA is bringing forward. However, the European Commission has once again confirmed categorically that no member state could do that. It is the package that is accepted. No member state can add on something if it wishes to and, fortunately, no member state can take away anything, either—that is the other side of the coin—which some member states might be interested in doing.

It is fair to say that the Transport Committee itself concluded that the legislation under which these provisions are made rules out the option of a separate UK regulatory regime or an add-on, but I accept that Committee members will have wondered about that in the light of other information that has been bandied around and been in circulation since the Committee produced its report.

I stress that the proposals are currently only an opinion of the European safety regulator. The European Commission has yet to issue its own legislative proposal and we will reserve our final judgment until we see it. We will not vote in favour of the regulation unless the CAA advises us that it provides an appropriate level of safety.

I should like to say something about the use of scientific evidence in developing the proposals, because several hon. Members have raised this matter. Some have expressed concern about this. During the development of its proposals, EASA reviewed more than 50 scientific studies and employed three independent scientists to review its proposals. It also took into account a large amount of operational data and experience across the EU. EASA provided, in the regulatory impact assessment published alongside its opinion, a detailed assessment of the evidence and advice that it considered.

The CAA gave this House, in its evidence to the Transport Committee in February, a detailed account of the procedures followed and the evidence taken into account by both it and EASA. I will not repeat that evidence here. The important thing is that I am satisfied with the CAA’s assurance—that view is shared by EASA and by the CAA’s counterparts in other member states—that a thorough, transparent process has been followed in this case.

The draft legislation imposes a legal obligation on EASA to review the effectiveness of the rules three years after they have come into force. EASA has also said that it plans to carry out further research in a number of areas, to help improve understanding of crew fatigue. The CAA will work closely with EASA to ensure that this research is carried out effectively.

As I have said, we have yet to see a legislative proposal from the Commission. I repeat, to provide reassurance I hope, that we will reserve our final judgment until the CAA has had the opportunity to review that proposal when it is produced.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Burns]

That is helpful, because I was genuinely confused. The advice that I had—I will check it, because it is at such variance with what the hon. Lady has been told—is that we are not aware of any meeting that took place last week. We are aware of an EASA committee meeting in October at which the proposals were discussed, and no member state raised any significant concerns about them. As I said, we will check that, and I will ensure that she is informed of the results.

Both the hon. Lady and the hon. Member for Poplar and Limehouse asked a number of questions arising from the recommendations of the Select Committee report. As both of them will know, the Government have responded to those recommendations. The responses that we gave are still our responses, and we still believe in them. I could go through them one by one, but I suspect that Opposition Members in particular would not want to hear the sound of my voice for quite that long. However, I can confirm, particularly on the questions raised by the hon. Gentleman, that our responses on all issues linked directly to the recommendations of the Select Committee report are as valid today as when we published our response. I hope that is satisfactory.

[Jim Fitzpatrick]

I certainly hear what the Minister is saying. In one or two of my comments, I was acknowledging the Government’s published response while seeking a bit more information. For example, as he says, the new regulations have not been introduced, so I was asking what the time frame was for EASA coming forward, the Commission considering regulations and national consultation. Recognising what the Government have said in response to the Select Committee recommendations, I was seeking elaboration on one or two points, not reiteration. I certainly do not expect the Minister to read into the record the Government’s lengthy responses to the Select Committee recommendations.

[Mr Burns]

The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right. The only downside of not doing so is that people will not have the opportunity to hear once again the wisdom of the Government’s responses to the excellent report by the hon. Lady’s Committee. However, I accept what he says.

The hon. Gentleman talked about the time scale for adoption. As I said, we are waiting for the Commission to introduce legislative proposals. We expect that the regulation adopting the implementing rules will come into force next summer, but will allow a transitional period of two years before the requirements become applicable. That is the best advice I have at the moment. As he will appreciate, it is outside our control, but we assume that EASA and the European Commission intend to stick as closely to that timetable as possible.

The hon. Lady asked how the CAA will tackle the under-reporting of fatigue. I have a considerable amount of sympathy with her point, because I believe that the problem is potentially serious if it is happening on the scale of the poll that she referred to. I do not cast doubts on the poll, but we lack clear evidence of the extent of the problem. However, as we said in our response to the Committee’s recommendation, the CAA is investigating possible under-reporting. I understand from what she said, conversations that I have had with the British Airline Pilots Association and my correspondence on the subject with constituents of mine that in certain cases, there may be an incentive for people to under-report for a variety of reasons. We must change the culture. We need an open and transparent system so that we know exactly what the level of the problem is, if there is one, and how to minimise it. It would seem from the poll that the problem has persisted under the existing rules, never mind what some people say might happen under any changes.

[Jim Fitzpatrick]

The Minister gave a good explanation of the new reporting procedures and fatigue management systems that airlines will have to introduce. That is reassuring, because it is far more structured, but one point of the questions that my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Riverside raised is this. Notwithstanding that the airlines will compile their own data, how does that compare with the confidential reporting systems that exist at the moment, in which pilots can report directly to the CAA? Will those lines of communication still exist? It might be easier for a pilot to send a confidential e-mail or, more likely, a verbal report to the CAA if they want to tell somebody that they are worried. Telling their employer could be entirely different; they might be worried about future employment, promotion prospects and so on.

[Mr Burns]

The hon. Gentleman makes an important point. As he said, an individual would find it easier to report directly to the CAA, so that brings more openness and honesty to the reporting system. He is absolutely right, and that is why the system will continue. Individuals will continue to have the opportunity to make contact through that channel.

The hon. Member for Liverpool, Riverside talked about what happened to flights that reached the maximum limit permitted under the proposals and the need to report to national aviation authorities as part of an open and transparent approach. The new EU implementing rules governing the oversight of operators will come into force later this year. The rules will give national aviation authorities the power and responsibility to monitor all aspects of the application and performance of any flight time limitation.

The Government share the Committee’s concern on the theoretical length of the flight duty period. EASA has acted on the UK’s advice and amended the proposal to limit the combination of stand-by and flight duty periods to a maximum of 16 hours, as I mentioned to the hon. Lady in an intervention during her comments. I hope that goes some way to reassuring her.

To the best of knowledge, and looking at my notes, I think I have covered the main points made by the hon. Members for Liverpool, Riverside and for Poplar and Limehouse, as well as embracing the spirit of the comments made by my hon. Friend the Member for Milton Keynes South. In concluding, I thank the hon. Lady and her colleagues on the Transport Committee for their work and for the care that they took to produce an important and interesting report. We considered it carefully before responding. I have sought to reassure hon. Members about more of the background, the Government’s attitude and what we and the CAA have been doing.

I will conclude on this final point—made for the third time—to ensure that people can be reassured, as I hope they can: we will wait for the publication of the proposals and the CAA’s final recommendations and views before we take any definitive action on this important issue. The Government are as determined today as they were yesterday, and as the previous Government were, to ensure that the safety of passengers and those working on aircraft and in the aviation industry is paramount.

Resolved, That the sitting be now adjourned.— (Mr Simon Burns.)

Air Travel Organisers’ Licensing

Jim Fitzpatrick Excerpts

Thursday 22nd November 2012 Westminster Hall

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

On a point of order, Mr Williams. Before you start proceedings, can I raise a couple of questions? I am not sure what we do in the event of not everybody who indicated that they wanted to speak in this debate turning up. The Select Committee on Transport has scheduled two important debates for this afternoon. Does the Chair have any discretion to delay the start of proceedings to ensure that those who want and are expected to participate have the opportunity to do so? Previously, when I was a Minister, if I had been at a debate and there was nobody in attendance, or if someone to whom I had spoken in the Lobby and who had indicated that they wanted to speak was not there, I would obviously have wanted to ensure that they had a chance to speak.

What are the rules and protocols of the House in the Standing Orders? We would not want anyone to miss the opening speech from the distinguished Chair of the Transport Committee, my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Riverside (Mrs Ellman), ably supported by the hon. Member for Milton Keynes South (Iain Stewart). The Transport Committee has spent a lot of time on the two reports. I know that my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, Leith and Pentland—or is it just Edinburgh and Leith?

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

Edinburgh North.

[Jim Fitzpatrick]

My apologies. My hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh North and Leith (Mark Lazarowicz) clearly has something to say in the debate, and it is important that everybody who wants to speak has the chance to listen to the opening speeches. Without an opening speech from the Transport Committee Chair to set the context for this debate—the Opposition have a few things that we would like to say, although the reports deal comprehensively with the issues, and the Government’s response is equally detailed—it would be helpful if you could advise us, Mr Williams, how we might proceed so that everybody who wants to participate can do so.

[Hywel Williams (in the Chair)]

Thank you for that point of order, Mr Fitzpatrick. I think we have shown a degree of forbearance. It puts us in a difficult position if we have neither a Whip nor a Minister, but I am advised that we may proceed, and I think that we had better, given that we have hon. Members here who are anxious to contribute to the debate. I will take advice during the debate, and if we can start, we will see how we might stop as well, which might be something of a problem. I call Mrs Ellman.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mrs Ellman]

I agree with my hon. Friend. I certainly wish Ministers to listen to what I have to say, and I have numerous questions to pose to them, but the proceedings have started, so I must continue. I hope that the Minister will arrive before I have proceeded much further.

The ATOL scheme was introduced in the 1970s, a decade in which there was a dramatic increase in the number of people travelling abroad on package holidays. ATOL is a Government-backed insurance scheme that protects holidaymakers flying abroad from the effects if travel firms go bankrupt. Holidaymakers can be reimbursed for the cost of holidays and repatriated where necessary. Over the past three years, 250,000 people have received refunds as part of the scheme and 100,000 have been repatriated.

Firms covered by the ATOL scheme charge each passenger £2.50 to cover the cost of ATOL. However, at the time of our inquiry, the Air Travel Trust Fund from which payments are drawn was in deficit to the tune of £42 million. That deficit is now decreasing. I would be grateful if the Minister could tell us the latest figure, as it is important to have. The deficit is falling because the charge per passenger was recently increased from £1 to £2.50, but the scheme remains controversial. Currently, only about half of holiday bookings are covered, an issue at the heart of ATOL reform.

The situation is complicated. Traditional package holidays sold by travel agents and tour operators are covered by ATOL. Holidays sold by agents or firms defined as acting as agents for the consumer, particularly online, are not. Firms selling holidays not covered by the scheme have a competitive advantage, because they do not have to charge for ATOL cover. However, it is not clear whether consumers are aware of that difference. There is also the problem of who pays for repatriating travellers stranded abroad by the bankruptcy of an airline or agent not covered by the scheme.

The Government are in the process of changing ATOL. Two reforms have already been made. First, “flight-plus” holidays—in which a flight plus another part of the holiday, such as a hotel booking or car hire, is bought within a 48-hour window—sold by existing ATOL operators are now covered. Secondly, customers buying holiday packages covered by ATOL must now be issued with a certificate telling them that that is the case. Those two changes are an advance.

The extension of ATOL to certain flight-plus holidays is estimated to bring some 6 million additional holidays into the scheme, ensuring that 60% of holidaymakers are covered. The extra revenue brought into the scheme by those extra travellers should help reduce the charge per passenger, but operators have challenged the Government’s figures, claiming that the travel industry will find ways around the new regulations.

[Jim Fitzpatrick]

My hon. Friend is outlining clearly the background to the ATOL scheme and illustrating the details. She mentioned the changes. On Tuesday, we had the opportunity to debate in the Chamber the Lords amendments to the Civil Aviation Bill, and the Minister moved amendments to improve the ATOL scheme. Will she be referring in her remarks to how those amendments improve the scheme? They relate to what she is discussing, and they go part of the way towards what she wants addressed, which is the 21st-century way of booking holidays.

[Mrs Ellman]

Yes, I will be referring to that point. I would like some information from the Minister on what has happened in practice since the scheme was changed in April.

Our other concern about the extension of ATOL involved the lack of consumer input into the changes. The Government’s consultation on the change attracted just four responses from consumer groups, which I find pretty amazing, because I have had responses from constituents concerned about the scheme as it was operating. The responses from those four consumer groups hardly seemed to feature in the Government’s analysis. Only one consumer group, Holiday Travel Watch, submitted evidence to our inquiry, opposing the extension of ATOL to flight-plus holidays.

The Committee was concerned, as was I, about the minimal consumer response. We need to know what consumers think about the proposed changes and how they are working, and what further changes consumers want.

[Jim Fitzpatrick]

Having read the recommendations from my hon. Friend’s Committee and the Government response, one of the questions that I will be asking the Minister later—reinforcing what she is asking at the moment—is about the Government’s saying that the responsibility for ensuring protection against the collapse of a holiday lies with the consumer. Part of the great difficulty is that consumers do not pay enough attention to whether they are insured and, if they get stranded, the taxpayer picks up the bill.

[Mrs Ellman]

My hon. Friend’s comments reflect views that the Committee has heard over a long period—we have been looking at the issue for a number of years. Particularly when people are stranded on holiday and have problems, we realise that those consumers simply did not know what they were covered for or indeed whether they were covered. That has to be a key issue for the Government. They have partially addressed it, but I will say later how I think that that is proceeding.

The Government were well placed to overcome the problem of that relative lack of formal reaction from consumers and consumer groups by commissioning their own research into whether consumers understood the concept of ATOL cover and whether they wanted it to apply to packages that they assemble themselves online. We must remember the changing nature of the way in which people organise their holidays, because individual consumers organising their own holidays and assembling packages online is a growing trend, so it is important for us to know what consumer views are and about the type of insurance that they think most appropriate. Up until now, however, the Government have not done that. The extension of the scheme has not been based on explicit consumer research, and I want the Minister to tell us why the Government did not do more to find out specifically what consumers want.

The Committee welcomed the introduction of the ATOL certificate, which will increase clarity for consumers about their cover. We have found a consistent issue over the years to be that passengers and holidaymakers simply do not know what they are covered for. There is a risk, however, that consumers who buy holidays that are not ATOL protected will not realise that. Owing to the Government’s positive action, the people who are now ATOL protected will know that they are covered, but the ones who are not covered will not know, because they will not have a certificate. Do the people without a certificate realise that that means they are not covered by ATOL? We simply do not know.

More could be done to inform consumers not covered by scheme of their position and options. The Government agreed to consider our suggestion, perhaps by introducing a voluntary scheme for airlines to inform customers of their protection—or lack of it—when buying a flight. Can the Minister tell me what progress has been made in taking that suggestion forward?

--- Later in debate ---

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

I am sorry, Mr Williams, as that comes as a bit of a surprise in that I was anticipating other colleagues to be called to speak before me. However, I am grateful for the opportunity.

[Iain Stewart (Milton Keynes South) (Con)]

In the interests of clarity, I should say that my ambition is to speak in the second debate. I hope that this brief interruption gives the hon. Gentleman time to get his paperwork in order.

[Jim Fitzpatrick]

Given the number of colleagues who have been able to attend, and given other business in the House, I would have thought that the hon. Gentleman will have ample opportunity to make a substantial contribution to the second debate, given that we have three hours in which to discuss both reports.

Welcome to the Chair, Mr Williams. It is a pleasure to see you presiding over our business. I also welcome the 17th report from the Select Committee on Transport, “Air Travel Organisers’ Licensing (ATOL) Reform”. As my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Riverside (Mrs Ellman), the Chairman of the Committee, eloquently outlined in introducing the report, the air travel trust fund has its origins in the 1970s, but in March 2012 it registered a deficit of some £18.5 million. She mentioned the fact that in 1992, 98% of holidays were covered by ATOL, but in recent times the figure for the market in package holidays, which were the original target for the protection scheme, has fallen way below 40%.

As my hon. Friend also outlined, protection is not just good; it is essential. When companies fail, citizens may be abandoned, and certainly distressed. Responsibility is then on the Government to rescue them, and ultimately the taxpayer must foot the bill. That cannot be right. If people are able to enjoy holidays abroad, there must be some responsibility on them, as well as the organisations that get them to their destination, to ensure that they are covered for returning home. The previous Government were addressing the need for reform, and this Government have carried that on, as well as the need to close the deficit, balance the fund and provide future protection in the light of how bookings are made in the 21st century.

A helpful briefing from the Association of British Travel Agents says in respect of the modern way that people book holidays that

“robust evidence exists to prove that airlines can and do fail financially. Since 2000, 46% of monies paid out from the ATTF on failed ATOL holders can be attributed to the knock-on effects of airline insolvencies.”

It continues:

“In the last three years alone, 51% of all claims on the ATTF can be attributed to monies paid out following failures of ATOL holders as a direct result of airline insolvencies”.

That reinforces my hon. Friend’s point about the modern way of booking holidays.

I shall refer to some of the recommendations in the Committee’s reports, and to the Government response, to reinforce what my hon. Friend said. Recommendation 2 says that additional consumer protection is needed, and in respect of consumers the Government responded

“so they can make alternative arrangements for financial protection, if desired.”

The essential question here relates to many of the points made by my hon. Friend and to the Committee’s recommendations. As she said, only four consumers responded to the report. We had an exchange about consumer awareness of whether they are protected. People want to book the best holiday at the cheapest price, and they may not recognise whether those holidays are ATOL protected. Therefore, the Government’s comment in response to recommendation 2—that consumers

“can make alternative arrangements for financial protection, if desired”—

is somewhat inadequate. We do not want people to want to be rescued; we want them to help to pay for the cost of being rescued, because if they do not, the rescue is down to the Government and the taxpayer foots the bill.

That theme is continued in recommendation 7. The Government responded:

“When a consumer does not receive a Certificate, they will know that they will not be covered by the ATOL scheme”.

However, I am not sure that the consumer will know about that if they do not receive a certificate. It is clear that a lot of people, over recent years and decades, have been stranded, thinking that they were covered, without realising that they were not, because they did not understand the scheme.

Subsequently, the Government say that they

“will consider with the CAA… suggesting information that should be provided to consumers about financial protection every time that a flight is purchased.”

Our point of view, and the theme of the Committee’s report, is that everybody should be protected, and a way must be found to ensure that that protection is included in the price of the holiday.

Finally, the Government’s response to recommendations 5 and 9 states:

“The requirement that those organising and selling package holidays should have in place provision for refunds or repatriation in the event of organiser insolvency comes from the PTD.”

In our view, the position is straightforward: the Government need to ensure that consumers are protected, even against themselves.

Competition within the travel industry is fierce, with many great holidays on offer from airlines, travel companies, package holiday companies, and all manner of individual organisations and collectives, and the Committee is asking a number of questions that the Government need to address. My hon. Friend detailed those issues in her opening remarks, covering the scheme’s history and asking the Minister a number of questions that I know he will respond to in due course, because they are outstanding from the Committee’s report. I have reinforced some of those questions, because they are fundamental to the well-being of the scheme.

The scheme has been reformed in recent years, and that continues with the amendments to the Civil Aviation Bill moved by the Minister in the House on Tuesday. Clearly, the Government are indicating that they will continue with that reform and that, in due course, they will hold a consultation on future reforms. Comments made to me and to the Opposition suggest that there is keen interest in continuing the reform process and in making progress. If I remember correctly, the Minister said in the House on Tuesday that a further consultation is due in the spring, but the question from the industry, consumer groups and the Committee is, when is it likely to happen and can it be expedited?

This is unfinished business, going back many years. We began with it in government, and it is great to see the coalition continuing with it. We want the situation reformed, the deficit bridged, and the fund to be in surplus, not in excess, with enough to cover any contingencies. The whole travel industry—airlines and travel operators—wants exactly the same thing. There is agreement that progress has been made over recent years, but work remains to be done and I look forward to the Minister outlining how he intends to finish the job.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Burns]

I am extremely grateful to the hon. Lady, who is being remarkably generous in the circumstances. Although I appreciate her kindness, there is no excuse for what has happened. I should have been here at 1.30, but I do thank her.

It is clear that the hon. Lady’s Committee has taken a keen interest in ATOL reform and I am glad to have the opportunity to discuss it further following the Committee’s report, which was published in April. Since the Committee reported on ATOL reform, significant changes to the scheme have come into effect that have greatly improved its functioning. Reform of the ATOL scheme is necessary to increase consumer clarity, ensure its efficient functioning and, in the longer term, put it on a self-sustaining financial basis.

On 30 April, the same day as the Committee’s report was published, the Civil Aviation (Air Travel Organisers’ Licensing) Regulations 2012 came into force, bringing flight-plus holidays into the scope of the ATOL scheme. A flight-plus holiday is one where the consumer requests to book a flight and accommodation or car hire within a two-day period. That change gives consumers greater clarity and covers many more people. It means that, essentially, if one buys something from a travel agent or tour operator that looks like a package holiday, including a flight, one should be protected by ATOL.

The Civil Aviation Authority has reported that in 2012-13, 2.5 million more holidaymakers can be covered, thanks to that single change. The flight-plus reform has enjoyed broad support from industry, consumer groups and other stakeholders. As the Committee and our analysis have suggested, it is critical that consumers are aware of their coverage. Flight-plus has gone a long way towards clarifying the ATOL scheme and reducing the chances of consumers mistakenly thinking that they are covered, but further to address that, on 1 October, we introduced the ATOL certificate, which is a standardised document given to every person booking an ATOL-covered holiday. It sets out the coverage and says what to do if things go wrong.

The introduction of the ATOL certificate has been widely welcomed by the travel industry and consumer groups alike. On its launch, it received favourable coverage in the travel industry and national press. The travel trade has worked hard to get ready for all the ATOL reforms, and I applaud its efforts to do so. The CAA has also done a very good job in supporting the travel trade in its preparations. Receiving the ATOL certificate shows that holidaymakers and travellers are covered; equally, not receiving an ATOL certificate with a booking indicates that people are not covered. It removes any uncertainty and gives holidaymakers and travellers peace of mind.

To make the changes effective, the holiday-buying public must be aware of them. To that end, the CAA is preparing for a publicity campaign in the next few months to increase awareness of the changes. Fortunately, that will coincide with a significant period when people are preparing for and buying their summer holidays, immediately after Christmas. That is a relevant and appropriate time to start getting the message across.

We are pleased with what we have achieved with the ATOL scheme thus far. It goes a long way towards addressing a number of the points in the report. We intend to address some of the remaining issues in the ATOL scheme using new powers in the Civil Aviation Bill, which completed its progress through Parliament earlier this week and will receive Royal Assent in due course.

[Jim Fitzpatrick]

I hope that the Minister will forgive me if I have missed this point in his comments, and if he has not covered it, perhaps he will do so.

We referred to the fact that the percentage of holidays covered by ATOL is falling because of the different ways in which people book their holidays. The figure was 98% in 1992, but it is down to below 40%. Will the Minister tell us the percentage of holidays covered by the current scheme and the estimate of the number that will be covered following the reforms that he has introduced and the amendments made to the Bill? How much of a gap will there be?

Will the Minister be looking to address that gap, which we need to close, when he undertakes consultation in the spring, although we will never get to 100%, because some people will always book their own holiday and do their own thing? Will he give us those answers at some point?

[Mr Burns]

I am extremely grateful to the hon. Gentleman, and I will certainly come back to him because I also want to deal with a number of points raised by the hon. Member for Liverpool, Riverside.

Before the hon. Gentleman’s valid intervention, I was about to say that we are pleased with the achievements that the ATOL scheme has so far realised. We believe that they go a long way to addressing a number of the points in the report. We intend to address some of the remaining issues in the ATOL scheme using the new powers in the Bill. For example, holidays sold by airlines are not required to be ATOL protected. That creates a regulatory inequality and potential confusion for holidaymakers. It is important to have a consistent regulatory framework for businesses selling holidays, including a flight, as far as is consistent with EU law.

Further, some consumers are not protected when buying a holiday because that holiday was procured on an “agent for the consumer” basis. That means that, rather than selling a holiday to the consumer, the travel agent technically buys one on the consumer’s behalf, as we discussed on Tuesday in the main Chamber, which means that it is outside the scope of the current ATOL scheme. The powers in the Bill will allow that method of avoiding the scheme to be removed.

Some companies might claim that they are merely facilitating a purchase of a flight, but neither buy on the consumer’s behalf nor make available or sell flight accommodation to them. Thus, they might argue that they are outside the scope of the ATOL scheme. That business practice is a potential avoidance approach. The Bill will give my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State powers to require such businesses to hold an ATOL licence.

The Bill is awaiting Royal Assent. Our intention is to create a level competitive playing field and to avoid holidaymakers mistakenly thinking that they have protection when they do not. Holidays including a flight that look like package holidays should be protected like package holidays under the ATOL scheme. These further reforms will go a long way towards ensuring that.

Of course, before taking further steps, we will consult widely. Subject to parliamentary processes, we expect to produce an impact assessment and launch a consultation on draft regulations in 2013. Our decisions will be based on the outcome of that consultation.

--- Later in debate ---

[Jim Fitzpatrick]

I appreciate the statistics that the Minister has just cited. I confess to being a little surprised that, with the advent of flight-plus, the protection goes only to 55% of people travelling abroad on holiday. I am not pointing the finger at anyone and saying that they are responsible for that, but it shows the size of the problem facing the Government, because the other 45% of travellers are the ones the Government will have to pick up the tab for if they need emergency flights to get them home. Those are the people the taxpayer wants to ensure are paying some insurance cover for themselves.

[Mr Burns]

I can understand the hon. Gentleman’s point. I think, though, that, up to a point the relatively small increase in the coverage reflects the fact that the number of people who buy a package holiday in the conventional sense is far greater than the number of people who will buy a flight-plus plan. I think that that is one of the main reasons for the relatively small increase in the percentage.

On ATOL and our proposals, our aim—from the actions that we have already taken and those that will flow from the Civil Aviation Bill—is to provide clarity about coverage rather than to protect everyone. The ATOL certificate will help to show consumers when they are or are not covered. They can then decide what level of protection they purchase through insurance or by paying by credit card, which is an element of the protection in the scheme. The scheme will give greater clarity to individuals before they decide what to purchase.

[Jim Fitzpatrick]

One point referred to earlier is the consumer’s awareness of whether what they purchase is ATOL-protected. That is a huge issue, because the more that people realise they are uninsured or unprotected, the more likely they are to think about that and to decide that it is worth the £2.50, as it currently is, to protect their family and themselves against anything that might happen, and with which they may not be familiar.

The Minister may not be able to respond on this now, but in due course, when the CAA launches the extended scheme, will it seek the biggest possible buy-in, particularly from the companies that offer protection, to have as much publicity as possible? That would raise the awareness of consumers, and allow companies engaged in the scheme to point the finger at those that are not, and say to people, “If you go with them, you are not covered; if you come with us, you are.”

[Mr Burns]

The hon. Gentleman makes an extremely valid point. For any scheme, a crucial element, apart from its effectiveness, is people’s understanding and knowledge of what they may—or, more importantly, may not—have protection against.

I have every confidence that companies, whether tour operators or airlines, will do all they can to make potential customers aware that they are covered by the scheme, because that is a positive selling point for customers and gives them peace of mind. However, as I said earlier, the CAA will also publicise the scheme proactively to ensure that people are generally aware of their protections if they make purchases from those covered by the scheme or from those who, in due course, will be brought within its ambit through our use of the powers contained in the Civil Aviation Bill.

It will become part of people’s mindset that the protection exists, and they will want to know whether they are protected because of the possible implications if they are not. This is slightly off the subject, so I will keep the comments brief, but that is like people going abroad under their own initiative, who may not get the health card for the reciprocal health arrangements in Europe if they travel there, or private health insurance if they travel further afield—to the United States or wherever—although, if they are taken ill or have an accident and need medical treatment, they will face catastrophic bills that could, for instance, completely change their family’s financial position.

The more publicity there is and the more that people are aware of what the situation is and what protections they have, the more the consumer will be interested and concerned to find out exactly what they are buying.

[Mr Burns]

I am grateful to the hon. Lady for that intervention, because it raises an important issue. As I said earlier, we expect the campaign to be launched by the CAA immediately after Christmas. That is when many people consider purchasing holidays for the summer, so it will be relevant at that time. It will seek to make people aware not only of the ATOL scheme—for those who are not aware of it, and I fear that many are not or do not fully understand what it is—but of the changes and improvements made during this year. It will also provide clarity, so that the message gets across to those who are purchasing a holiday, flights or whatever, that as well as looking for value for money and so on, they should check whether their purchase is ATOL-protected and what that protection means.

[Jim Fitzpatrick]

I was going to ask the Minister another question but, if I may, I will ask him a supplementary to the one from my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Riverside.

The Minister has said that the CAA is looking to start advertising in the new year. We all know that summer holidays start being advertised on Boxing day. That is the sort of time when people are indoors and when those who work have a few days off, and they will be tempted by the adverts on the TV. That is the time for the industry to advertise. My hon. Friend asked whether the CAA will be engaged with the industry. An imprimatur on adverts—that they are CAA-approved—might be the way to co-ordinate the publicity campaign between the industry, which will have greater buy-in from the customer, and the CAA, which might have their future bills reduced.

I wanted to ask about the Minister’s earlier comment on people not taking out private health insurance, for example, when they go to the United States. Most people know that if anything happens to them there, they face a massive health bill, and I think that most people therefore take out private insurance. Are there any figures for the comparison between the number of those who travel to such difficult places and the 50% to 55%, who the Minister says are ATOL-protected against the collapse of their airline?

[Mr Burns]

On the last point, to the best of my knowledge, there are no figures, and I suspect that, by their nature, it would be difficult to find any accurate figures. However, there is one benefit. The hon. Gentleman talks about the north Atlantic route, on which the two main carriers are British Airways and Virgin. At the moment, they have both voluntarily signed up, so their passengers have the protections. They have done that simply because they want to give such protection to their customers, and I pay tribute to them for doing so voluntarily.

As the hon. Gentleman rightly says, the start of the advertising campaign is intended to coincide with the Boxing day bank holiday. He and I are familiar with the huge number of adverts that traditionally emanate immediately after breakfast on that day.

On whether the CAA will consult the industry, I have no doubt that it will. The CAA wants a focused system of advertising that gets across the message. It is open, as the Government are, to views, opinions and recommendations that will help it come up with the most informative and best advertising, and with maximum coverage for their message.

I am not sure that I altogether have the same faith as the hon. Gentleman in human nature. Although, to the best of my knowledge, no figures can prove or disprove this, I suspect that significantly more people do not bother to get health insurance to go across the Atlantic than either of us might think, particularly those who go for only a short period and try to wing it, believing that nothing will happen to them. However, that is a slightly different point.

Let me now move on to the European angle that the report covered. The Committee called for a clearer distinction between the consumer protection and the repatriation functions of ATOL. Much depends, however, on what happens at the European level with the planned reforms of the package travel directive. The ATOL scheme implements in part the PTD requirement for insolvency protection for consumers. We expect the Commission to announce its reform proposals in spring 2013, and the Government will consult on what position the UK should take. The form of the Commission’s proposals will help determine how we implement further changes to the ATOL scheme, so we will not consult on the new ATOL regulations until the Commission has announced its proposals, because, as both the hon. Lady and the hon. Member for Poplar and Limehouse will accept, it would be rather pointless to put the cart before the horse.

The scheme is financed by the air travel trust fund. For historic reasons, the ATTF has a deficit and requires a commercial borrowing facility, backed by my Department, of up to £20 million. The introduction of the ATOL protection contribution and the increased number of protected passengers have, thanks to our recent reforms, brought more money into the fund, and the deficit now is on track to being eliminated in the next year or so. That presents an opportunity to reform the finances of the ATOL scheme.

The Government will consider broader changes to the scheme and invite comments on its funding and management to ensure its continued effectiveness. Our aim is to ensure that the scheme is equitable for consumers, the travel industry and the taxpayer.

The hon. Lady raised a number of matters during her contribution. On some, for the reasons that she is aware of and that I am acutely aware of, I will have to write to her to give her the answers. She asked whether airlines and tour operators based in other countries will be covered by the scheme. All sales of package holidays in the EU are covered by the protections in the PTD, but under EU law we cannot require airlines or tour operators established in a European economic area state, other than in the UK, to have an ATOL licence to protect sales of flight plus holidays. That is why we want to examine the Commission’s proposed reforms to the PTD before consulting on any new ATOL regulations, as that might extend protection to all or some flight- plus type holidays. We want to understand the impact on UK airlines and other businesses as part of that consultation, and, as I say, we will engage in that once the Commission has published its proposals.

The hon. Lady also asked about the discussions on travel insurance between the EU and the Government. All I can say is that they are ongoing. The most appropriate time to discuss them is within the whole consultation process on the PTD in due course next year.

In conclusion, as might be clear by now, ATOL reform is not a simple process, but at each step of the way, the Government have acted to create an effective and financially self-sustaining scheme. To ensure effective protection for travellers and holidaymakers, the Government have increased the extent of coverage, improved consumer clarity and moved to bring more holidays into the scope of the ATOL scheme. We shall keep the principle of effective protection in mind as we consider further changes to the ATOL scheme in the near future.

Once again, I thank the Transport Committee for its constructive comments and I am glad to have had the opportunity to debate this important issue. Again, I offer my sincere and deepest apologies to the members of the Committee for the position that I put them in at the beginning of the debate.

Civil Aviation Bill

Jim Fitzpatrick Excerpts

Tuesday 20th November 2012 Commons Chamber

[Mr Burns]

In an increasingly globalised world, air travel is fundamental to the long-term competitiveness of the United Kingdom. However, much of the legislation that governs aviation dates from the 1980s, and it is therefore imperative for the legislative framework to be brought up to date. The Civil Aviation Bill introduces, and makes possible, reform in four key areas: the economic regulation of airports, the legislative framework of the Civil Aviation Authority, the air travel organisers’ licence scheme, and aviation security. The Bill has secured wide support, and we have worked hard to address issues that have raised concern in this House, in another place, or in the industry.

The vast majority of the amendments made since the Bill was last in this House are minor and technical, including Lords amendments 23 to 27, 29 to 36 and 44 to 71. I shall refrain from entering too deeply into the details of those amendments at this stage; suffice it to say that they are predominantly concerned with improving the drafting, clarifying the wording, removing areas of ambiguity, or excluding doubt to ensure that our policy intentions are properly met and delivered in full.

Let me deal briefly with three notable issues on which amendments have been agreed in another place: the imposition of environmental duties on the CAA, the efficiency of the CAA, and the Secretary of State’s powers to make regulations relating to the ATOL scheme.

The environmental impact of aviation has been raised during the Bill’s passage through both Houses, and the Government take it very seriously. In particular, there has been a great deal of focus on giving the CAA additional duties to take account of it. Lords amendments 1 to 4 respond to that concern by giving the CAA a supplementary environmental duty to which it must have regard in performing its airport economic regulation functions. The amendments are intended to make it clear that in conducting those functions, the CAA must have regard to the ability of the regulated airport operator to take reasonable measures to reduce, control or mitigate adverse environmental effects that are generated by the activity of the airport—and aircraft using the airport—to which the licence relates. For example, a reasonable measure could be a cost-effective energy saving investment project, such as the installation of solar-powered lighting in terminal buildings, which would lower the airport’s future energy costs. Environmental issues in this context would include noise, vibration, emissions and the effects of works carried out at the airport. The amendments also provide clarity that reasonable costs of environmental measures undertaken by licence holders may continue to be taken into account in the regulatory settlement, where the measures are in the interests of passengers and owners of cargo and to do with the provision of airport operation services.

We have always been clear that airport operators, whether or not they are subject to economic regulation, should be able to invest in appropriate environmental measures. For example, if an unregulated airport undertakes investment in environmental measures that benefit passengers, the Civil Aviation Authority will be able to look to this and approve a reasonable similar investment in the regulatory settlement at a regulated airport.

The Government do not believe that the absence of an environmental supplementary duty would prevent the CAA from approving environmental investment where that is in passengers’ and cargo owners’ interests. However, following detailed consideration of the matter, the Government decided there is a benefit to making this clear in the Bill. Certainly, the Bill should not be seen as placing a restriction on investment in environmental measures at licensed airports where they benefit passengers and freight owners in the provision of airport operation services.

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

I am sure departmental officials will have briefed the Minister that we debated at length in Committee whether an environmental duty should be placed on the CAA in respect of the operation of airports. There was a subsequent debate about the suggestion of the Minister’s predecessor, the right hon. Member for Chipping Barnet (Mrs Villiers), that such a measure would apply only to Heathrow. There is therefore a debate to be had about whether the environmental duty should cover all airports, or just Heathrow. Will the Minister confirm that the proposed CAA environmental duty that the Government have accepted will operate across the entire aviation industry?

[Mr Burns]

The hon. Gentleman is right: I have been extremely well briefed by some excellent civil servants, who have had to play catch-up, because I am a Johnny-come-lately to this debate as a result of the events of 4 September this year. I confirm that this duty will apply not just to Heathrow, but also to the other regulated airports of Gatwick and Stansted. I hope that reassures him.

A regulated airport should not be required to spend on environmental measures where a competitive airport would not do so, because that could create market distortions by placing greater burdens on regulated airports than non-regulated airports. Furthermore, not only have the Government sought to address these concerns through their own amendments, but on Report in another place Opposition amendments to the proposed Government amendments strengthening the wording of this duty were also accepted. I hope the House will recognise that as a genuine effort to reach an agreed position on including appropriate environmental considerations in the Bill. We are confident that we have struck the right balance on the environment, and that the CAA will be better placed than ever before to take environmental matters seriously.

On CAA efficiency, we agree with industry stakeholders that it is important to hold the CAA to account. There are a number of provisions in existing legislation that require the CAA to carry out its activities efficiently. Lords amendment 22 inserts a new clause that will provide for greater transparency and accountability in the CAA’s efficiency measures. Section 21(3) of the Civil Aviation Act 1982 already requires the Secretary of State to lay before each House of Parliament a copy of the CAA’s annual report on its performance and its functions in that accounting year. If Lords amendment 22 is accepted, in future this annual report laid in each House will include an efficiency statement by the CAA and an assessment by the independent auditors of that efficiency statement. The provisions will give the CAA a further incentive to secure value for money and to be as efficient as possible in performing its functions. I am pleased to say that the amendment was welcomed in the other place, where the Opposition commended it, saying:

“This is an excellent proposal, which will guarantee that the efficiency of the CAA will be subject to scrutiny”.—[Official Report, House of Lords, 7 November 2012; Vol. 740, c. 1062.]

I hope that the new clause will enjoy a similar level of support in this House.

Lords amendments 17 to 20 provide the Secretary of State with further powers to close down potential ways around the ATOL scheme. The Secretary of State already has the power to regulate businesses that make available flight accommodation and, under clause 94 of the Bill as introduced, will have the power to regulate businesses acting as an agent for the consumer. However, after the Bill was introduced, the Government and the CAA found possible loopholes that needed to be addressed in further powers.

The first loophole concerns a potential business model whereby a business argues that it is neither making available flight accommodation nor acting for the consumer but is instead merely facilitating making available flight accommodation. That business could then argue that it is not in the scope of either the existing ATOL regulation-making power or those in the Bill as introduced. Lords amendments 17 and 18 address that loophole by giving the Secretary of State powers to include businesses that facilitate making available flight accommodation in the ATOL scheme.

Secondly, amendments 19 and 20 give further necessary clarity to the regulation-making power in instances where goods and services sold alongside flights, such as accommodation or car hire, can be protected under the ATOL scheme. By closing potential avoidance approaches, those four amendments will help the Government meet our stated objectives of providing greater clarity for consumers about what holidays and flights are included in the ATOL scheme as well as a more consistent regulatory framework for businesses.

I have dealt with the main substantive issues covered by the Lords amendments. The remaining amendments, as I alluded to, are the majority and are technical and drafting amendments that clarify issues so that there is no shadow of a doubt about the Bill’s intentions.

[Jim Fitzpatrick]

Like the Minister, we welcome the Bill and the Lords amendments. We supported much of the Bill in Committee and continue to do so today. This is my first opportunity to welcome the new Minister of State to his position and to face him across the Dispatch Box, so I wish him well in his new role. It is probably good to be meeting on relatively friendly terms on our first outing.

We are very pleased that the Government have accepted a number of amendments. In the other place, the noble Earl Attlee said:

“The noble Lord, Lord Davies of Oldham, is very insistent and persuasive. He is clearly convinced that his amendments will improve the Bill. My Bill team manager will probably kill me, but I can accept”.—[Official Report, House of Lords, 7 November 2012; Vol. 740, c. 1003.]

Clearly, I need to take advice and lessons from my noble Friend on how to be insistent and persuasive, because we tabled those amendments, a number of which were accepted in the other place, in Committee and raised the subject again on Third Reading. We were spectacularly unsuccessful in persuading the Government to accept a single amendment, so we obviously need to speak closely to our colleagues in the other place to see how they were able to secure agreement.

[Huw Irranca-Davies (Ogmore) (Lab)]

It might be some consolation to my hon. Friend if I say to him that it might not be his powers of persuasion. It sometimes takes time for things to sink in.

[Jim Fitzpatrick]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his understanding of the difficulties that the coalition sometimes has, and I am sure coalition Members are also grateful for that empathy.

I will not speak for long. I know that there is an important debate on autism to follow, and that a number of colleagues want to get in on this brief debate. I refer specifically to amendments 1 to 4 and 22, which cover the environmental issues and the CAA duty of efficiency. It is disappointing that the eloquent Lord Davies was unconvincing on the issue of emissions, especially as the European Union emission trading scheme has folded. We had a discussion in Committee about emission targets. In his closing remarks the Minister might want to comment on where we go on that. Aviation emission targets were a matter of some concern, but the amendments in the other place were not accepted. There is also nothing on passenger welfare, which we pressed in a number of ways.

On amendments 1 to 4, we spent considerable time in Committee, from column 112 onwards in the Official Report, trying to persuade the Government of the merits of the environmental duties. Fortunately, they have seen some of the light. On amendment 22, at columns 343 and 344, we argued the case, for the aviation industry, that the Civil Aviation Authority should have a duty to operate efficiently.

In response to our requests, the Minister’s predecessor said:

“Sadly, the shadow Minister will think me hard-hearted, because I cannot support new clause 2”.

She went on to say:

“I can only re-emphasise that my understanding and interpretation of the Bill is that it does indeed require the CAA to act in an efficient way.”––[Official Report, Civil Aviation Public Bill Committee, 13 March 2012; c. 343-44.]

Fortunately, it seems that she was wrong, and we welcome the Government’s change of heart.

We welcome the Government amendments on ATOL and the opportunity to debate the subject, and the Government’s intentions, more thoroughly in Westminster Hall on Thursday. As I said, this is essentially a good Bill. It could have been even better, but as a result of the good sense of our noble Friends in the other place, it is at least in better shape now than when it left here, and we support the amendments.

[Mr Alan Reid (Argyll and Bute) (LD)]

I welcome the Bill and the amendments before us today, particularly amendments 1 to 4, which deal with the protection of the environment. For the Liberal Democrats it is extremely important that a duty of care for the environment is written into the Bill, and the amendments achieve that. This was an issue that my hon. Friend the Member for Cambridge (Dr Huppert) raised on Second Reading and continued to raise as the Bill went through its Commons stages, so I am delighted that the Government have listened to him and to the Liberal Democrats and tabled their own amendments in the Lords.

[Jim Fitzpatrick]

I hate to disillusion the hon. Gentleman, but we had some good exchanges with his hon. Friend, who managed to wriggle out of supporting any of the environmental duty amendments that we tabled. I would have referred to him in my speech, but I had not given him advance notice and I would not do him the discourtesy. We give credit to the other place for the amendments, not to the hon. Member for Cambridge.

[Mr Reid]

An interesting intervention from the hon. Gentleman. I discussed the Bill with my hon. Friend the Member for Cambridge before today, and I understand that he felt there were some technical deficiencies in the amendments tabled by the hon. Gentleman in Committee. It is important to stress that Liberal Democrats are in government, and we are able to influence the Government because we are part of the Government. It was the Government who tabled the amendments in the Lords. Having spent nine years on the Opposition Benches, I can understand the hon. Gentleman’s frustration. Without civil service advice, it is difficult to get an amendment right. Being on the Government Benches, Liberal Democrats are achieving successes and this is one of them. As a result of our influence, care for the environment is now on the face of the Bill.

[Mr Reid]

The amendments in question are not on the amendment paper today. What we have before us today are the amendments made in the Lords, and I would probably be out of order if I spoke to amendments that have not been tabled. The hon. Gentleman could have tabled amendments to the Lords amendments, but chose not to do so, so we cannot discuss them.

[Jim Fitzpatrick]

I may be wrong, but I doubt I am. I quoted Earl Attlee accepting amendment 2 and adding:

“My Bill manager will probably kill me”.—[Official Report, House of Lords, 7 November 2012; Vol. 740, c. 1003.]

Amendment 2 was tabled by Lord Davies and accepted by the Government. We tabled that amendment in Committee and on Report. The hon. Member for Cambridge had ample opportunity to table his own amendment, but nothing was forthcoming.

--- Later in debate ---

The hon. Member for Poplar and Limehouse mentioned emissions and referred to what has happened in the past week or so with regard to the European dimension. The UK welcomes the Commission’s proposal to, in effect, stop the clock in return for progress on global agreement in the International Civil Aviation Organisation. We think that it is right that we give the United Nations process time to make progress on a global deal, and we look forward to receiving more detail on the substance of its proposal, and sight of the formal legislative proposal, which is due, I believe, later this month. We hope that the constructive atmosphere in which Friday’s international meeting took place can continue and that the UN is able to build on the current momentum to deliver a successful and ambitious outcome next year.

[Jim Fitzpatrick]

rose—

[Mr Burns]

I am beginning to regret giving such a detailed response because it has invited an intervention, to which I am more than happy to give way.

[Jim Fitzpatrick]

I am grateful to the Minister. In the absence of the European emissions trading scheme and of an international agreement in the ICAO, but with ongoing dialogue, will the Government engage with the Committee on Climate Change to look at aviation and, for that matter, shipping emissions, because they are not incorporated in UK targets although people naturally feel that they are significant?

[Mr Burns]

We will engage wherever necessary to seek to reach solutions that are viable and will achieve the objectives set out, provided that they are the right course of action and the correct way forward.

Let me pick up the points made by the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) and my hon. Friend the Member for Bury St Edmunds (Mr Ruffley), because I think that I dealt with the matter raised by the hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington (John McDonnell) in my intervention. [Interruption.] Well, I thought I did; I hope that he will be generous so that we can make progress. As the hon. Member for Strangford and my hon. Friend the Member for Bury St Edmunds will know, the context for dealing with the environmental issues surrounding Heathrow, Gatwick and Stansted, for example, are all fully dealt with in the Bill.

I felt at times that the hon. Member for Strangford was going a little further on to the wider issue of hub airport status. I have to say to him, in the nicest possible way, that that is obviously beyond the scope of this Bill. However, I hope that he will take reassurance from the fact that in order to look at the whole area of the future of aviation policy, to meet our commitments and to protect our position as the significant hub airport presence for western Europe, we have set up, under my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State, the Davies inquiry, which will look across the range at the best way forward on aviation policy, the best way to deal with capacity and connectivity issues—

HGV Road User Levy Bill

Jim Fitzpatrick Excerpts

Tuesday 20th November 2012 Commons Chamber

[Huw Irranca-Davies]

Regrettably, I have to inform the House that I am on another Committee.

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

rose—

[Mr McLoughlin]

I give way to the hon. Member for Poplar and Limehouse (Jim Fitzpatrick).

[Jim Fitzpatrick]

We are grateful to the Secretary of State for trying to recruit our members of the Committee. Much as I would love to see my hon. Friend the Member for Ogmore (Huw Irranca-Davies) on it, I think that the Secretary of State should leave it to us and the Whips.

[Mr McLoughlin]

I apologise to the Opposition. I was going back to my old territory, which I must not trespass on any longer. I am glad that we have managed to smoke out the hon. Member for Ogmore (Huw Irranca-Davies) as to his willingness and availability. I am sure that he gives distinguished service to the other Committee. I must check which it is after this debate.

The level of vehicle excise duty evasion among UK hauliers is extremely low at less than 1% of vehicles. I have no reason to anticipate that that will change once the levy is introduced. To reduce the administrative burden, the levy will be paid at the same time as VED. We have looked at ways to make the introduction of the levy cost-neutral for UK hauliers. To do that, we will reduce the level of VED to take account of the new charge. That reduction will mean that an estimated 94% of UK hauliers will pay no more than they do at the moment and that 98% will pay no more than an additional £50 a year. Clause 15 allows the Secretary of State to refuse to issue a tax disc when the appropriate levy has not been paid. That will lead to vehicles being unlicensed, which brings the associated penalties of immobilisation, removal and disposal.

For foreign-registered hauliers, a system will be procured to allow the levy to be paid online before the vehicle enters the country. The levy is based on the length of time, so visiting hauliers will have to select the period for which they will be using UK roads. The options will go from a single day to a year. Once a haulier has paid the right fee, the payment record will be entered automatically into a database, allowing enforcement agencies to check the status of any HGV using UK roads. Information relating to whether a vehicle has paid the levy will be made available publicly.

There is a risk of foreign hauliers evading the new charge. We will ensure that the Vehicle and Operator Services Agency, which will enforce the charge in England, Wales and Scotland, and the Driver and Vehicle Agency, which will enforce the charge in Northern Ireland, are properly equipped to do the job from the start.

--- Later in debate ---

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

It is good to see the Secretary of State in his place for this Second Reading debate, and my hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham South (Lilian Greenwood) and I are delighted to see all three Conservative Ministers from the Department for Transport here this afternoon. By leaving a Liberal Democrat Minister in charge of the shop, the coalition Government have made a statement of their trust and confidence—or perhaps he has been given the afternoon off.

[Mr McLoughlin]

I think the hon. Gentleman will find that the Under-Secretary of State for Transport, the hon. Member for Lewes (Norman Baker), is responding to a debate in Westminster Hall.

[Jim Fitzpatrick]

I am sure he would be under suspicion—no, I beg your pardon—I am sure he will be watched wherever he goes, because of the excellent job that he does as the senior and longest-serving Minister in the Department for Transport, having survived from 2010. I welcome his new colleagues to their places.

The Secretary of State took something like 18 minutes to move the Second Reading, which is par for the course. According to Hansard from 23 October 2012, column 861, the Under-Secretary, the hon. Member for Lewes, took a minute to move the Ways and Means motion—it actually felt like a lot less than a minute, but he was just procedurally introducing that debate.

The Secretary of State graciously said that both main parties have wanted to introduce this legislation, and I am sure he is aware that in my speech on the Ways and Means motion, I commended the coalition Government for finding a way to introduce this welcome measure.

I do not want to detain the House too long, because I spoke for 18 minutes during the debate on the Ways and Means motion—that was my Second Reading speech and is contained in columns 861 to 865 of Hansard from 23 October 2012, should anybody wish to look at it. We covered a lot during that debate, including road exemptions that the Secretary of State is implementing in clause 3(2). We covered hypothecation at length, and I am sure we will return to that in Committee. We spent a bit of time on road safety—particularly cycle safety—and whether the money raised from the scheme could be devoted to that. We also raised the Secretary of State’s discretion in clause 7(9), and asked questions about short sea shipping and moving freight from road to rail—we will continue to ask about that. We asked questions about the contract for running the scheme, the technology involved, and who is making the arrangements. Cross-border enforcement, which my hon. Friend the Member for Ogmore (Huw Irranca-Davies) raised a moment ago, was also part of the discussion.

A number of issues were raised during that debate. The Under-Secretary of State for Transport, the hon. Member for Wimbledon (Stephen Hammond) answered most of those points, although some were left without a response on the basis that they were detailed matters. I am sure we will look at those in Committee. In principle, however, the Opposition support this measure. We will want to look at the detail when the Bill goes to Committee, but we welcome its arrival in the House this afternoon.

HGV Road User Levy Bill (Ways and Means)

Jim Fitzpatrick Excerpts

Tuesday 23rd October 2012 Commons Chamber

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

It is good to see a number of Members in the Chamber for this debate, especially the distinguished Chair of the Transport Select Committee, my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Riverside (Mrs Ellman), who is in her place, as ever. I am grateful for the Minister’s brief introductory remarks.

We support the motion in principle. Given that it is relatively unusual to debate the Ways and Means motion, which paves the way for the Second Reading debate, I hope that my comments will be in order. I will make some brief introductory comments and then look at the measures in the draft Bill—I would be surprised if the Bill did not closely follow the draft Bill, but judging from the written ministerial statement, that will become clear later today.

The Eurovignette directive covers this legislation. I must confess that I was tempted to look up the dictionary definition of “vignette”. I was pleased to see that it was

“a small illustration…which fades into its background without a definite border”.

That is clearly not a definition of the United Kingdom and does not take us any further forward.

Both main parties have promised these measures for more than 20 years, however, so I commend the coalition for bringing this one forward. We will be dealing with it over the next few months. I read recently, on the subject of the coalition, that the Lib Dems introduce the nice legislation and the Conservatives introduce the nasty legislation. I am not sure whether that is reflected in the surviving Lib Dem Transport Minister opening the debate and his Conservative colleague concluding it. The Under-Secretary of State for Transport, the hon. Member for Wimbledon (Stephen Hammond), might have something to say about who has been pushing this measure within the Department. None the less, it is good that it is here.

The unfairness felt by the UK road haulage industry is well documented, and it has long pressed for this measure in order to defend British industry, protect UK roads and create a level playing field with European competitors. As colleagues will know, road haulage covers 68% of all goods moved within the UK, is represented by 34,000 workplaces and employs more than 220,000 people. The Freight Transport Association and the Road Haulage Association both support the measures—the RHA strongly and the FTA broadly, as its support is a little more qualified.

I shall come shortly to the questions of hypothecation and whether the money raised will be used for transport spending, which I understood was the original intention of the directive; of the impact on the Government’s policy of moving freight from road to rail; and of the implication for short sea shipping and using that to move freight around the country. I will want to make reference to the Road Safety Foundation reports, including the annual report launched in the other place last week by the noble Lord Dubs, the organisation’s chairman. I will also want to raise questions about how this role will impact on The Times cycling safety campaign, of which I know the Government are very supportive, as well as about the Government’s policy for the introduction of longer and heavier lorries, and how that fits in with the plan. I shall also deal with whether or not this measure might act as a disincentive for road haulage firms to employ green measures or procure green or greener vehicles. I shall come back to these issues later. Even in the proposed measures facilitated by this Ways and Means motion and the Bill to follow, as read in the draft Bill, there are some anomalies, which I shall come to in due course.

Will the Minister clarify, if he can, some of the proposals in the draft Bill and in the written ministerial statement? For example, clause 3(2) of the draft Bill says that the Secretary of State can delegate exemptions for “specified roads”, but there is not much information without the actual Bill before us or in the Library. The Minister might wish to explain which exemptions the Secretary of State will make for which specific roads; if not, we will certainly raise the issue in Committee.

Clause 4 of the draft Bill says that the levy is suspended

“if a vehicle is stolen”

until such time as it is recovered. It is not quite clear whether the recovery is by the police or the owner, or whether, if a vehicle is damaged or unable to be used, it means that the levy will be suspended or re-instigated when the vehicle is recovered—or whether that is entirely fair. These are points of detail.

In respect of the rebates that are covered in clause 7, three matters are worth mentioning. Subsection (5) states:

“The Secretary of State may specify conditions with which a person must comply before making an application for a rebate.”

The implication is that the Secretary of State is going to preview all applications, which is obviously never going to be the case, as it would not be possible for the Secretary of State to do that. The clause mentions that an administrative fee will be levied, again saying that the Secretary of State will determine each case—and happily that is going to be the case—so will the Minister outline the thinking behind the administrative fee and how much it would be? Finally on clause 7, subsection (9) states:

“Matters specified under this section must be published in whatever way the Secretary of State thinks appropriate.”

That is very wide, so I am sure the Minister will have some information about what that means.

Clause 9 provides that money

“is to be paid into the Consolidated Fund.”

Originally, there was an expectation in the European directive that the money raised would be hypothecated, at least in some way, for transport purposes. The Minister will know that the Road Safety Foundation published its annual report last week. It clearly indicates that road engineering can have “an extraordinary effect”—those are the words it uses, which I cited to the Secretary of State at Transport questions last Thursday morning—in reducing deaths and serious injuries. Simple measures such as road markings, traffic lights and barriers to prevent vehicles from careering down off different roads are ways of saving lives. The hypothecation of the levy into road safety measures was very much anticipated, but it is not quite clear whether that is going to be the case under the Bill or whether the provisions saying that the money will go into the Consolidated Fund mean that it will go into the Treasury, so that the Department for Transport will have to bid for its share in due course.

On other safety issues, the Government have clearly indicated that they want to introduce longer and heavier lorries on Britain’s roads. There is a system through which longer and heavier vehicles will pay a greater levy, so that poses the questions of whether some of this money will go to pay for the upkeep of Britain’s roads and how this will impact on the safety campaign that the Government strongly support. I know that the Under-Secretary made a strong speech in support of road safety last week, and particularly cycle safety. His hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Transport, the hon. Member for Lewes (Norman Baker), who is no longer in his place, spoke at the “Love London, Go Dutch” cycling safety conference in Church House immediately after Transport questions last week. The Times campaign to which all parties have signed up says that we should spend more money on cycling safety. The question arises whether some of the money raised through this levy will go towards making cycling safer, particularly given that many more people are cycling today.

I would like to raise a question of principle about rail freight and short sea shipping. What are the Government’s policies on promoting rail freight and taking lorries off our roads whenever possible? What are the Government going to do to promote short sea shipping as an alternative to HGVs on our roads moving freight across the country as happens at the moment?

Clause 10 provides a power to stop by the Vehicle and Operator Services Agency. I went out with VOSA when I was the Minister with responsibility for road safety, so I know that it uses that power efficiently, effectively and diligently. I particularly remember being on the A13 when the inspector I was travelling with in his VOSA vehicle indicated that he was going to stop a particular vehicle and asked me whether I knew why he intended to stop it and take it into the inspection centre. As a good West Ham United supporter with one of my West Ham ties on, I said, “I think I know the reason. He’s got an Arsenal flag in the back of his cab.” The inspector looked at me and said, “No, Jim, that is not why we are stopping him.” I thought that was a fairly reasonable assumption; it certainly worked for me. VOSA is very effective at keeping our roads as safe as they are; the power to stop is a very important one. It is good to see it included in the draft Bill so that the levy that the Government intend to introduce can be enforced.

Clause 11 deals with the offence of

“using or keeping heavy goods vehicle if levy not paid”.

Subsection (3) states:

“A fine imposed under this section that would not otherwise be paid into the Consolidated Fund is to be paid into the Consolidated Fund.”

That reinforces my point about how the money raised is likely to be spent.

A written ministerial statement was published this morning by the Under-Secretary of State for Transport, the hon. Member for Wimbledon, which says:

“A private company will be contracted by the Department for Transport to administer the payment scheme for foreign-registered HGVs. The contractor will be required to maintain an electronic database of foreign-registered HGVs for which a levy has been paid.”

I wonder whether the Minister is in a position to clarify some of the details of the expected size of the organisation that he anticipates will be needed to do this task. How will the costs be calculated? Does he view the tendering arrangements as a bonus to the Treasury, or will it be cost-neutral? Have companies already indicated interest such a contract or do they already exist? Importantly, what technology might it be anticipated will be used for identifying foreign HGVs when they come into this country?

Let me conclude with six key questions. The background papers indicate that 98% of UK hauliers will see no more extra costs than around £50 a year, and that 94% will see a zero increase in their costs. Does the Minister have any information on the likely cost for the 2% for whom there is no information? At £1,000 per vehicle per annum, some haulage firms might be expected to pay a considerable amount of money. I hope the Minister can tell us whether any assessment has been carried out of the impact on the UK’s road haulage industry.

Secondly, the introduction is being phased between UK and non-UK vehicles. Is any loss of revenue to the Treasury expected as a result of the staging of the introduction of the levy, as and when it happens?

Thirdly, will the lower VED for UK vehicles act as a disincentive for haulage companies to procure greener or green vehicles, or it is anticipated that the size of such vehicles will mean that they would not be covered by the reduced VED? Has the Minister conducted an assessment for the industry in that regard?

Fourthly, will the Government’s decision last year to opt out of the European directive on cross-border enforcement of traffic offences impact on these new measures? I do not think we opposed that, but we were certainly worried about it at the time. Will not sharing that cross-border enforcement data make implementing, monitoring and enforcing the levy easier, harder or neither?

My fifth question is more general. Is the introduction of the HGV levy charging scheme likely to lead to the wider use of road charging schemes? Is this just a taster of Government policy for the future?

Finally, UK companies involved in haulage on European routes will be charged for a six-month or annual purchase of VED, which will incorporate the levy. European hauliers coming into the UK will be charged by the day, by the month or however else, so if UK companies have vehicles on the continent that are being charged to use European roads will they be able to apply for a rebate when those vehicles are not using UK roads? If the principle that one should be charged for using the roads is adopted, which I am sure it will be, it seems unfair that UK hauliers should be charged for using UK roads when they are using European roads and being charged over there.

In conclusion, we intend to support the motion and certainly hope to be able to support the Bill on Second Reading. We will want to examine some of the issues I have raised today in Committee. I do not expect the Minister to be able to respond to every point I have raised today, as this is obviously an unusual way of doing business. I was advised by the appropriate authorities, however, that I could raise issues that I would be likely to raise on Second Reading. Having done so, I do not anticipate raising them again on Second Reading and, given that you have not stopped me making any of my remarks, Madam Deputy Speaker, I must assume that I have been totally in order. I look forward to the Minister’s response in due course.

--- Later in debate ---

[Huw Irranca-Davies]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. I think that I can understand the Government’s opposition; they do not want to put undue burdens on the haulage industry, which, now as always, is suffering stress. I suggest that the Government should not have a closed mind on the subject, but should be open to the idea that, working with the industry, we could roll the technology out over time—and not a long period of time, either. Hauliers frequently renew their fleets; as fleets are renewed, we can roll the technology out. What we are talking about is eliminating blind spots. In London, one sees cyclists in the established blue cycle lanes; someone driving a lorry cannot see the fact that as they turn left, they veer right across that blue lane. Unfortunately, as my hon. Friend says, occasionally they injure a cyclist badly, or even cause a fatality. The technology is there, and there are not massive costs. I think that we could roll it out as fleets renew.

[Jim Fitzpatrick]

My hon. Friend is making a powerful speech. To reinforce his point, some companies have done sterling work in advancing the technology that he mentions. I know that the Minister is familiar with Cemex; after one of its drivers was involved in a fatality, it pioneered technology that it uses in the warning and alarm systems in its cement vehicles. It is doing everything that it can to prevent a recurrence of such an incident. Some in the industry are working hard to achieve aims that the whole House would support.

[Huw Irranca-Davies]

I thank my right hon. Friend for that.

[Jim Fitzpatrick]

I should just correct my hon. Friend: I am not right hon. The Transport Committee Chair kindly promoted me. The Minister may want to put a word in for me, but I am not right hon.

[Huw Irranca-Davies]

As a full-time politician, I am more than happy to over-inflate anybody’s ego at any moment, but I will certainly put a word in for my hon. Friend, right as he was in his point. Rolling out improvements through fleet modernisation would create jobs in the UK relating to the manufacture and installation of those technologies. It is a win-win.

That is not my main point. My main point is that I welcome the Bill, but the Minister could do more, by tweaking and refining it, to make sure that there are not people who lose out while others gain from a level playing field; in so doing, he could take the opportunity to think bike.

--- Later in debate ---

[Stephen Hammond]

Yet again, the hon. Gentleman tempts me down a line that is grounded in speculation rather than anything else.

[Jim Fitzpatrick]

rose—

[Stephen Hammond]

I hope in a moment to respond to the hon. Gentlemen’s detailed remarks, and to those of the hon. Member for Poplar and Limehouse (Jim Fitzpatrick), and I will invite them to intervene on me again if I do not do so.

--- Later in debate ---

[Stephen Hammond]

I think that my hon. Friend will find that the levy will reflect some fluctuations in the exchange rate, but the level of VED is a matter for the Treasury and it is usually set annually. As to the change of name, we would like to get the Bill on the statute book with this name first before considering anything else.

We will ensure that hard-working hauliers do not face an additional administrative burden, so the levy will be part of one payment when they renew their vehicle excise duty. To ensure that all the benefits of the levy are felt as soon as possible by carriers, the Government intend to bring forward the implementation date for foreign hauliers by almost a year to April 2014. Due to the time needed to change systems for UK hauliers’ payments and to hold a robust procurement of the provision of the payment facility to foreign-registered hauliers, it is not possible to bring the overall levy introduction date any further forward than April 2014.

I should make it clear that this legislation is not designed as a precursor to increased charges on business. The charge has a clear, focused objective. The introduction of the levy is entirely separate from any other reviews that my Department might be undertaking. Whatever the outcome of those reviews, we will ensure that HGVs are not charged twice for using the UK road network.

[Jim Fitzpatrick]

I apologise for interrupting the Minister’s remarks. He has referred to two of my questions, one of which concerned the impact on HGV hauliers who are not covered and who will be paying extra, and the point that he has just made also reflects a question that I asked. I do not want to intervene on him repeatedly, so will he confirm that, as he said, he will answer my questions later?

[Stephen Hammond]

indicated assent.

[Jim Fitzpatrick]

I am very grateful to the Minister for that clarification.

[Stephen Hammond]

We believe that the database developed as a result of collecting charges from foreign-registered hauliers will help us to understand their patterns of road use better and will contribute to our efforts to improve the safety and compliance of all commercial vehicles travelling on the UK’s roads.

Finally, I should like to return to and, I hope, clarify some of the questions asked by hon. Members. The hon. Member for Poplar and Limehouse opened his remarks with a welcome for these measures, and I am pleased that he did so. His speech was the sort of speech that we expect from him; it was intelligent and inquisitive. He asked a whole range of questions about the draft Bill.

First, the hon. Gentleman asked about clause 3(2)(a). The clause allows us to consider the future exemption of roads. For example, Wales might want to introduce charging or we might agree with Northern Ireland that certain roads that cross the border should be exempted. On the administrative fee, I hope that my earlier remarks gave him confidence.

The hon. Gentleman asked about clause 9 and the rebate. The Bill allows us to set the administrative conditions that will pertain for rebates. For UK vehicles, charged rebates will be allowed on the same basis as those for vehicle and excise duty. An administrative fee, if introduced at all, will only be set at a level to cover the administrative cost.

The answer to the hon. Gentleman’s question about hypothecation and the money being paid into the consolidated fund is twofold. First, normal taxation rules apply and, secondly, the directive states:

“Member States shall determine the use of revenues generated by this Directive.”

I also point out to the hon. Gentleman that this Government’s spending review committed £30 billion for roads, rail and infrastructure. I should also like to highlight the other transport settlements and, indeed, the good news that we gave to local pinch-point schemes only 10 days ago.

[Jim Fitzpatrick]

I am sorry to interrupt the Minister again, but does that mean that the consolidated funds will not be hypothecated for transport issues, as has been requested by a number of his hon. Friends? Will the Department have to make a bid to the Treasury to get some of that money back?

[Stephen Hammond]

I have said that the normal rules will apply and that the directive allows the UK Government to spend the money in the way that they consider appropriate. The money will go into the consolidated fund. The Department for Transport has enjoyed robust discussions with the Treasury and got an excellent settlement for the infrastructure of this country. I have no doubt that we will continue to have robust discussions in the future and I am sure that we will continue to receive a good settlement for transport.

The hon. Gentleman asked about the number of hauliers paying more per year. The analysis so far shows, as he has pointed out, that 98% of hauliers would pay no more than £50 a year and that 94% would pay nothing at all. My understanding—I am sure that we will explore this and I may be able to inform the hon. Gentleman later of the latest numbers—is that the maximum loss for conventional HGVs that are either articulated or rigid and do not have a trailer would be £79 a year, based on current exchange rates. Unfortunately, however, our analysis of 7,000 rigid vehicles that tow a trailer has found that 40 vehicles would probably suffer a penalty of some £300, but that is only 40 out of 7,000, which is a significantly small part of the overall haulage fleet of the United Kingdom.

The hon. Gentleman also asked about the rebate that might be applicable to UK hauliers using foreign roads. As is the case with vehicle and excise duty, it is not possible to get such a refund, so the charge would be cheaper than any daily charge. UK hauliers are unlikely to benefit from such a refund.

The hon. Gentleman then asked some general questions, some of which I tackled earlier. On the staging of the levy, he will have heard me say that we have brought the date forward so that there will be a simultaneous introduction in April 2014. He will have also heard me set out the conditions for paying VED at the same time as the levy, so they will net each other out.

My Department does not believe that the opt-out from the European directive on traffic law enforcement will have any implications. We have a robust strategy of enforcement. Vehicles must pay before using a road in the UK and we can stop any that do not and immobilise them until a fine is paid. Again, I am sure that we will explore that matter in Committee.

The hon. Gentleman made some closing remarks about the environment. There is no change to the incentives for greener vehicles. We are committed to considering charging based on polluting carbon vehicles in the future, but for the moment the charging that will be put in place is practical and enforceable. I believe that there will be no disincentives for the green lobby.

I listened carefully to my hon. Friend the Member for Brigg and Goole (Andrew Percy). I thank him for his welcome. He echoed the remark from my hon. Friend the Member for High Peak (Andrew Bingham) about the complex way in which we are doing this, because of the EU rules. However, I am sure that he, like me, is delighted that we are doing it anyway and will raise a cheer for that.

The Chair of the Transport Committee raised a number of points. We will tackle cabotage and the safety issues that she raised on Second Reading and in Committee. However, I say to her directly that we will ensure that the Vehicle and Operator Services Agency has all the necessary resources to ensure that its enforcement procedures are workable. We believe that the measures will ensure that the collection procedures are completely workable.

Marine Navigation (No. 2) Bill

Jim Fitzpatrick Excerpts

Friday 19th October 2012 Commons Chamber

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

May I offer my apologies, Madam Deputy Speaker, for wearing my “Malcolm Wicks Vote Labour” sticker in the Chamber? As a number of hon. Members have said, it was his memorial today, so it is appropriate that he is with us in the Chamber, where he did such great work over 20 years. I also apologise to the hon. Member for South East Cornwall (Sheryll Murray), whose Bill we are debating, for missing her speech. Naturally, I will read her comments in Hansard, and I am sure I will hear her voice when I do so.

I am grateful to the shadow deputy Chief Whip, my hon. Friend the Member for Tynemouth (Mr Campbell), for his assistance, for allowing me to be absent to go to Malcolm’s memorial, and for nursing my prepared remarks in the hope that he would not have to deliver them, which fortunately he will not.

I congratulate the hon. Lady on introducing the Bill. The Commons Library note, which was produced by the excellent Ms Louise Butcher, states:

“The Bill recreates many of the provisions in the Labour Government’s 2008 draft Marine Navigation Bill”.

The Opposition would therefore look a bit foolish if we opposed it, although, as the hon. Member for Worthing West (Sir Peter Bottomley) said, the measure has aged and improved.

Our only concern with the Bill is on pilot exemption certificates. I have had discussions with the hon. Lady and my hon. Friend the Member for Ellesmere Port and Neston (Andrew Miller) about this issue. Having arrived in the middle of my hon. Friend’s remarks, I know that the Minister was able to give strong reassurances about the concerns raised by the UK Maritime Pilots Association, and I am grateful to Captain Cockrill and his colleagues for their assistance in preparing for this debate. On the basis of the assurances that the Minister has given, I am sure that we will be able to support the Bill and reassure those who are worried about retaining and maintaining the skill and qualification levels of those responsible for the safe passage of vessels in and around the UK.

The Library, in the notes on page 5, gives a clear background to this critical issue, explains the development of pilot exemption certificates and reminds us that, at the time of their introduction, the Transport Select Committee expressed some concern. I greatly welcome the reassurances that the Minister has given today on these serious matters. We will, obviously, have the chance to return to the issue in Committee so that those reassurances can be reinforced, but it is helpful to know the Government’s position today.

On the other clauses of the Bill, we look forward to examining the clauses on harbour authorities further in Committee. The hon. Member for Worthing West has adequately dealt with those and raised questions from the Royal Yachting Association and the British Marine Federation, but the measures appear to represent positive steps forward. Clause 7 looks like a sensible move to acknowledge a better way of working for ports police, where they exist, and the hon. Member for Thurrock (Jackie Doyle-Price) ably explained to the House why this is needed. Had we been able to do so, we would have done this in government, so we are grateful to the hon. Member for South East Cornwall and the coalition.

In clauses 8, 9 and 11, general lighthouse authorities would be given added freedoms and responsibilities, which are overdue and supported by Trinity House. I am grateful to Deputy Master Captain Ian McNaught for his briefing. Anything that addresses the industry’s angst about the charges levied for light dues and allows the GLAs to continue with their excellent work is very welcome.

My only pedantic point is on clause 10, and I wish to mark my discomfort with the word “manning” in the 21st century. We are talking about crew numbers here, and if it were not for the fact that the Bill quotes previous Acts, I would suggest that “crewing” would be a much better and more accurate term. Given the number of women at sea these days, “manning” is very 19th and early 20th century language. I am not known for being overly politically correct, but sometimes we need to look at our language and bring it into the 21st century.

We support the Bill, although we will want to look at every clause in Committee. I look forward to hearing from the Minister. The last time I saw him was yesterday evening at the champagne reception to mark the opening of the excellent new headquarters of the Chamber of Shipping in SE1 next to London bridge. He gave a good speech on behalf of the coalition and I look forward to his remarks in support of the Bill.

Oral Answers to Questions

Jim Fitzpatrick Excerpts

Thursday 18th October 2012 Commons Chamber

[Mr McLoughlin]

I sympathise with the obviously frustrating experience that my hon. Friend’s constituents are having. I know that he has been in correspondence with the Under-Secretary of State for Transport, my hon. Friend the Member for Lewes (Norman Baker), who leads on the matter in the Department. The Government have provided an extra £10 million of funding this year to help kick-start the development of community transport services in rural areas, and west Yorkshire received £385,000 of that. I am interested in hearing about the experiences of my hon. Friend’s constituents, however, and we will look into the matter.

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

On Tuesday the Road Safety Foundation, chaired by Lord Dubs, launched its annual report. It stated:

“Simple attention to safety engineering detail has resulted in extraordinary cuts in road deaths and serious injuries”.

Other leading countries in road safety are committed to improving the safety star rating of their national road networks. What emphasis are our Government placing on that?

[Mr McLoughlin]

We place a lot of emphasis on it. I spent a morning a few weeks ago with road traffic officers in the west midlands, looking at how they operate their managed motorways. They have had great success in reducing accidents on the M42 since it has become a managed motorway. Road safety is incredibly high on our agenda, and as I said, we have announced £170 million for relieving pinch points, which I hope will also help safety.

Select Committee Inquiry (Aviation Strategy)

Jim Fitzpatrick Excerpts

Thursday 13th September 2012 Commons Chamber

[Mrs Ellman]

I thank my hon. Friend for his comments, but I have to confirm that the Committee has an open mind and that it will be willing—and, indeed, keen—to receive evidence on a diverse range of options, all of which will be considered.

The terms of reference for our inquiry will be published on our website today. We want to hear a wide range of views on the Government’s aviation policy, and we are asking a number of questions. I would like briefly to outline some of the issues on which we would like to receive evidence. I emphasise, however, that this is not an exclusive list.

We will consider what the objectives of Government policy on aviation should be. We want to hear about the benefits aviation brings to the UK economy and how important the issue of international aviation connectivity is to UK industry. We are also interested in hearing about where aviation should fit in the Government’s wider transport strategy, as well as about the impact of air passenger duty. Should there be a step change in aviation capacity? How should we make best use of existing capacity? The Government hope that their current strategy will make the best use of capacity in London, but are their current plans sufficient or appropriate? Are airports situated in the regions outside the south-east sufficiently supported, and do they have a proper place in the Government’s strategy?

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

My hon. Friend the Member for Kilmarnock and Loudoun (Cathy Jamieson) and I had meetings this morning with representatives of Britain’s regional airports, which are advocating a differential for air passenger duty as a way of stimulating greater use of regional airports, taking the pressure off both London Heathrow and Gatwick. This is an interesting suggestion that has recently come forward. My hon. Friend mentioned air passenger duty; will this be an issue that her inquiry will look at?

[Mrs Ellman]

That issue will be considered, as the terms of reference for our inquiry specifically include it.

We would like to hear about how we could improve the passenger experience and operational resilience at UK airports. We invite views on the constraints of increasing UK aviation capacity and on environmental concerns.

Aviation

Jim Fitzpatrick Excerpts

Wednesday 4th July 2012 Westminster Hall

[Mark Reckless]

It would certainly help. There are other ways in which the issue could be addressed; for instance, the air passenger duty regime. Many lobbyists are against the size of air passenger duty, but in operating conditions where there is an almost perfect monopoly at Heathrow and, at peak and to an extent shoulder periods, a monopoly at Gatwick, what happens through the increase in air passenger duty is that some of the monopolised value of those slots and the power of the grandfather rights are given instead to the public purse. It is not a situation of perfect competition in which costs are passed on. To the extent that costs rise, whether they are landing fees or APD, that will largely be absorbed into the price, giving greater public benefit, and possibly driving some of the marginal leisure stuff out of Heathrow and Gatwick.

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

Would the hon. Gentleman mind running past me again how the treaty of Rome is an obstacle to more liberal air service agreements with other countries? When I was aviation Minister, we signed agreements with a variety of countries to allow more liberalised flight access to both countries, and the treaty of Rome was not an obstacle then. Given Gatwick’s recent expansion into five new routes, the treaty does not seem to be an obstacle. How will tearing up the treaty of Rome solve our aviation competitiveness questions?

[Mark Reckless]

There are two problems: first, the treaty of Rome gives property rights in-slot to airlines that have traditionally had them, which prevents new airlines from coming in with marginal routes to new emerging market countries, due to the cost of buying out the monopolist. Only more and more fights to New York or Hong Kong make such routes work. Secondly, the previous Government protected the monopolistic BA with restrictive agreements that prevent Brazilian airlines from flying here, saying that there should be no more than 35 passenger services a week and allowing only 31 a week to China. If we want more flights to emerging markets, we should just let Brazilian and Chinese airlines fly to any UK airport they want, without insisting on reciprocal rights for BA. That is what is holding the country back; the interests of Britain are not the interests of BA.

The final section of my speech is about our other airports. In 2010, we rightly said no to an estuary airport and to extra runways at Gatwick, Stansted and Heathrow. That was the right policy for this Parliament. I do not know the Liberal Democrat position on when or if there should be future runway capacity in the south-east, but it is right that the Conservatives at least look at the case for new runways as and when demand requires. A lot can be done with existing capacity. Gatwick is expanding strongly and setting up point-to-point routes in new emerging markets, which I welcome. That would be helped if Gatwick were allowed to invest in the A380 facilities by charging more and coming to its own arrangements with new airlines to build those facilities without existing suppliers having a veto. I would support greater deregulation of Gatwick in that regard.

I understand that the option now being promoted by the Mayor of London is Stansted. Since the previous White Paper and the Labour Government’s view, usage at Stansted has fallen off significantly and intercontinental flights there have stopped. The Mayor says that we should expand Crossrail to Stansted, and I am keen to discuss that. He may have ideas that I have not appreciated fully, and that are certainly a lot more constructive than his pie in the sky proposals for a Thames estuary airport.

--- Later in debate ---

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

It is a pleasure to see you in the Chair, Mr Dobbin. I congratulate the hon. Member for Rochester and Strood (Mark Reckless) on securing this important debate. We all keenly anticipate the publication of the Government’s consultation documents—a subject that I will come back to later. If they had already published them, we might not have needed this debate. None the less, this is a great opportunity for the Minister to update us on the documents.

As many Members have said, aviation is a success story, whether we are talking about the Scottish airports, Manchester, Birmingham, East Midlands, or the other regional airports. The focus of this debate, and the focus generally in recent years, has been on London and the south-east. The third runway debate has overshadowed the excellent work, which a number of colleagues have mentioned, being done at Gatwick, London City, Luton and Stansted, but the capacity of the south-east remains the big issue.

Our aviation industry is central to our economic prosperity and should be a key driver of growth, without which we have no prospect of emerging from the dangerous economic situation that we are in. The industry contributes at least £11 billion to UK GDP—more than 1% of the total—although briefings for this debate state that the figure is £23 billion. It also supports up to 200,000 jobs directly and 600,000 indirectly across the UK. However, just as the Government do not have a credible strategy for growth, they have not yet managed to set out a credible strategy for aviation, let alone the role that it could play in our economic situation. Aviation is a crucial sector on which our economy depends, and the reaction from business to the Government’s decision not to set out an aviation strategy until the latter part of this Parliament has ranged from incredulity to plain bemusement.

[Mrs Villiers]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[Jim Fitzpatrick]

If the Minister will allow me to get to end of my remarks, I will be happy to give way to her. I hope that I will be able to give way, but I am constrained by time.

The chairman of the Airport Operators Association, Mr Ed Anderson, has said that, while the industry knows what the Government are against,

“we are not sure yet what it is in favour of”.

He went on to describe “better, not bigger” as an “election slogan”, saying:

“Better not bigger doesn’t constitute a strategy.”

Sir David Rowlands, a former permanent secretary at the Department for Transport, has described the Government’s policy as “mildly extraordinary”. Baroness Valentine, who speaks for London First, said earlier this year that the

“government seems content for aviation policy to drift.”—[Official Report, House of Lords, 24 March 2011; Vol. 726, c. 872.]

She has also said, most damningly, that

“the Government’s aviation strategy is damaging our economy and enhancing that of our EU rivals.”

Seventy-four business leaders wrote to The Times, saying that setting a long-term strategic direction for aviation in London, the wider south-east and across the country is a vital part of delivering the growth and jobs the country needs. They concluded that all options must be considered—short term and long term—to address growing demand. Only last week, John Longworth, the director general of the British Chambers of Commerce, said:

“The Government must stop tiptoeing around on aviation because of short-term political considerations. Unless politicians grasp the nettle and make some tough decisions, both our export and inward investment potential will suffer.”

I hope that the Minister will indicate when we will be able to see the consultation documents.

[Mrs Villiers]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[Jim Fitzpatrick]

I assure the Minister that if I finish what I have to say by 10.47 or 10.48 am, I will give way to her, but I want to get my points on the record.

The hon. Member for Orpington (Joseph Johnson), who is no longer present, gave a couple of quotes from the Mayor of London’s briefing. To save time, I will not repeat what he said, but he did not cite two points—although others have mentioned this—relating to the loss of visitors to the UK. The Mayor’s briefing states:

“While France and Germany each managed to attract between 500,000 and 700,000 visitors from China in 2010, the UK had only 127,000. In total, France earns £1.3bn per year from Chinese tourist spending on visits in the country, compared to the UK’s Chinese tourist spending receipts of £115m.”

It also notes:

“France’s hub airport, Paris Charles de Gaulle (56 departures per week), has better connections to Brazil than Heathrow (27 departures per week). In 2009, inward investment from Brazil totalled $800m in France, and only $1.7m in the UK.”

The Mayor has a strong argument on those figures.

The Government seem to accept that there is a capacity issue. In the Budget statement, the Chancellor referred to south-east capacity, as did the Prime Minister in response to a question from the hon. Member for Richmond Park (Zac Goldsmith) during Prime Minister’s questions. As I have said, we are waiting for the Government’s consultation document to indicate their likely direction of travel. Constraints on aviation, whether from a lack of capacity or lack of investment, will not stop flights happening—or increasing. As Members have said, those constraints will simply displace flights from the UK to Schiphol, Charles de Gaulle or elsewhere.

The hon. Member for Rochester and Strood effectively articulated the arguments against the proposed estuary airport. He made some interesting points about EU competition law, and I will consider them carefully.

My hon. Friend the Member for Blackley and Broughton (Graham Stringer) spoke with great authority on the issue, as he always does. He mentioned in passing other factors that affect aviation, such as air passenger duty, which was also mentioned by other colleagues. Nobody developed the argument, but APD is a huge factor in whether people decide to go to the UK or elsewhere in Europe. Given that it brings in between £2 billion and £3 billion for the Treasury, it will not surrender APD, but that is a factor and it needs to be looked at.

Another big issue that affects our economic performance is visas and the obstacles we place in the way of people who want to come to the UK, particularly from China. Moreover, as we discussed at length during deliberations in the Civil Aviation Bill Committee, the performance of the UK Border Agency—I accept that it is not the Minister’s responsibility—is harming the way that potential tourists and business visitors perceive the UK, because of what they read and hear in the media.

Lack of time meant that we did not have the opportunity to hear a lecture by the hon. Member for Blackpool North and Cleveleys (Paul Maynard) on hub dynamics. I would be interested to read it, so perhaps he could send me a copy. He made the point about the decline in our aviation industry and the rise of Schiphol and Charles de Gaulle.

The hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) reinforced the points about connectivity and regional access, and the hon. Member for Cambridge (Dr Huppert) raised the issue of emissions. That issue has to be addressed, and we were addressing it when we were in government. The industry was confident that it could meet the levels set, but it meant using the emissions trading scheme, with the expectation that emissions would rise and that the industry would have to offset them elsewhere within the industry.

[Dr Huppert]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[Jim Fitzpatrick]

I assure the hon. Gentleman that I have nearly finished—I have three minutes left—and will give way to him when I have done so.

As I was saying, the industry was confident that it could meet the levels set, but the bottom line is that Lib Dem policy on aviation is the obstacle to the Government having any policy at all, certainly before 2015.

The hon. Member for Poole (Mr Syms) mentioned the need for more capacity and made the case for Stansted, and the hon. Member for Amber Valley (Nigel Mills) asked how we can give more support to regional airports and proposed deregulation.

The aviation industry and Britain’s wider business community came together last week to call for a cross-party consensus on aviation that lasts beyond the term of one Parliament. For several months, the shadow Secretary of State, my hon. Friend the Member for Garston and Halewood (Maria Eagle), has repeatedly offered to take the politics out of aviation, put party differences aside and work together on a joint aviation strategy for the good of the nation. It is a clear, unambiguous offer, with no catch. Aviation matters to the country, the economy and businesses and families throughout the country. It is an industry that needs stability in the long term and a long-term plan that straddles Parliaments and Governments. We must not repeat the party political wrangling that turned the proposed third runway at Heathrow into a political football, and we must agree to stick to the agreed strategy, whatever the outcome at the next election.

[Mrs Villiers]

These issues are very important, so why have the Opposition not suggested any ideas for dealing with the long-term capacity challenges in the south-east? They have suggested nothing at all.

[Jim Fitzpatrick]

The Minister knows that we had a game plan in place, but we lost the election. Then, as a gesture, to try to achieve national consensus on this important issue, we said that we would drop support for the third runway so that we could have cross-party talks. We have not even had the courtesy of a reply from the Secretary of State for Transport about engaging in talks. Until the Government introduce their consultation—it is they, not the Opposition, who are responsible for creating aviation policy—it is a bit rich of the Minister to ask me about policy.

[Dr Huppert]

The hon. Gentleman said that the Labour party dropped its support for the third runway as a gesture. Will he be clear on what his party’s policy is now? Is it against a third runway, or is it merely in favour of having a blank page that can be filled with anything in future?

[Jim Fitzpatrick]

The hon. Gentleman tempts me to respond but, given that I fully explained our policy during a five-minute discussion only two days ago, I think that he knows what it is, and that he is just playing games to try to throw me off. He knows that we are in the throes of devising our aviation policy, and I assure him that it is likely to be formulated way before the coalition reveals its policy, which we do not think will be published until 2014, or even 2015.

Finally, I have the following questions for the Minister. What is it that the Government will publish? How long have we been waiting for the documents? What exactly will they consult on in the documents and—the most important question of all—when will we see them?

--- Later in debate ---

[Mrs Villiers]

I am sorry, but I do not have time. If I have time at the end, I will give way.

We have an extensive programme of surface access improvements under way. Hon. Friends were right to raise that as being important for our aviation competitiveness. Manchester is getting a new Metrolink extension and will benefit from Northern Hub improvements. Gatwick station is getting a major upgrade; Thameslink will benefit Gatwick and Luton; Luton is getting improved access from the M1; and tunnelling has started on Crossrail. That project will ultimately see Heathrow connected to the City and Canary Wharf by train directly for the first time.

In the longer term, High Speed 2 will provide greatly improved surface access to Heathrow and Birmingham. As my hon. Friend the Member for Amber Valley (Nigel Mills) mentioned, that is a real game-changer, bringing Birmingham within easy travelling distance of many more people across the country. Of course, our HS2 plans will also provide an attractive rail alternative to thousands of short-haul flights coming into our south-east airports. That will potentially free up even more space for the long-haul destinations that hon. Members have rightly identified as crucial to our economic success.

However, good government is about not only tackling the problems of today, but preparing for the future. That is why the Chancellor announced in last year’s autumn statement that we would explore the options for maintaining the UK’s aviation hub status, with the exception of a third runway at Heathrow. The coalition is clear that it does not support a third runway at Heathrow. The airport is unique in Europe, in terms of the magnitude of its noise impact on densely populated areas. Thousands live daily with a plane overhead every 90 seconds, and have more planes that wake them up at 4.30 in the morning. The quality-of-life impact of a third runway and up to 220,000 more flights over London every year would be massive, and there is no technological solution in sight to ensure that planes become quiet enough quickly enough to make that burden in any way tolerable. We do not support mixed mode, which would see the end of the much-valued respite period that means so much to those who live with Heathrow noise daily.

We need a better solution. Last year, we kicked off the process of deciding what that will be, with the publication of our scoping document on aviation. The 600 or so responses we received are being used to prepare our draft aviation policy framework consultation, which will be published shortly. We plan to adopt the final framework in March next year, as set out in our business plan. It will set out the overarching economic and environmental framework within which we want to see aviation grow. We also intend to issue an open call for evidence on maintaining the UK’s international aviation connectivity. We will fully consider all representations to that consultation. The shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Poplar and Limehouse (Jim Fitzpatrick), wants us to go faster, but had no ideas whatever to share in today’s debate.

[Jim Fitzpatrick]

When will we see the documents, Minister?

[Mrs Villiers]

The consultation will be published shortly.

[Jim Fitzpatrick]

Does “shortly” mean before the summer recess?

[Mrs Villiers]

The consultation will be published shortly. The decision is a crucial one that requires objective, thorough and evidence-based analysis of our connectivity needs and how best to meet them in a sustainable way. We do not want to make the mistake that the previous Government made of coming up with the wrong solution and seeking to reverse-engineer the evidence. Put simply, that landed them in court and ensured that they failed to deliver any new capacity. We need to get this right. We need to base our decisions on the evidence, and on a process that allows the communities affected by any of the options fully to take part and ensure that their voice is heard.

Oral Answers to Questions

Jim Fitzpatrick Excerpts

Thursday 28th June 2012 Commons Chamber

[Justine Greening]

There is a significant piece of work under way to look at what we can do to improve rolling stock across the network, including looking at what additional new rolling stock we need, and how the existing rolling stock can cascade to improve services for others on the line. I have no doubt that my right hon. Friend the Minister of State, who is responsible for railways, is listening closely and will look into the issues that he has just raised.

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

I understand that the road casualty figures for 2011 were published this morning and, sadly, show the first increase since 2003 in deaths and serious injuries. Road casualty reduction targets commanded cross-party support for nearly three decades and played a big part in sending a strong message from Government about how committed they were to reducing deaths and serious injuries on our roads. Those targets were scrapped by the Secretary of State’s predecessor. Is she prepared to revisit that decision? Many in the road safety sector felt that that was a mistake, and the figures this morning tend to suggest that bringing back targets would help in the battle to reduce deaths and serious injuries.

[Justine Greening]

I can assure the hon. Gentleman that as far as I am concerned, one accident is too many. The figures are disappointing. We are concerned to make sure we improve our road safety record. Many of the things that we are doing, including managed motorways, can help with that. I think he is wrong to draw too many conclusions from the latest figures, because we know that we had some exceptional weather in that period. That is one of the reasons why there was such a change, but I am happy to look at what we can continue to do to work with all sorts of stakeholders to improve road safety. It is an issue that this Government take incredibly seriously.