Civil Aviation Bill
Jim Fitzpatrick Excerpts(11 years, 11 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Jim Fitzpatrick (Poplar and Limehouse) (Lab)
I begin by thanking all my colleagues who sat on the Bill Committee for their support, assistance and advice, as well as those who helped on Report, outside stakeholders who sent submissions and/or gave evidence and the Transport Committee for its scrutiny of the Bill.
We welcome and support the Bill. On Second Reading, my hon. Friend the Member for Garston and Halewood (Maria Eagle) said that we would support the Bill. That was no surprise. Much of it was drafted when we were in government, so there was a legacy. However, the timing of its arrival was a bit of a surprise, so the Transport Committee scrutiny was a little dislocated. Indeed, the Government’s response to the Select Committee was published only last Friday. It is good that it is out, but it demonstrates that there were surprises in the timing.
Not only was the arrival and timing a surprise but the inclusion of the security clauses, which were not in the original Bill, was not expected. Also, importantly from our point of view, the environmental protection measures, which were in the original draft Bill and mentioned in the Department for Transport press releases announcing the publication of the Bill, surprisingly did not appear in the Bill. That was a disappointment to the Opposition, and I shall return to it.
I do not want to appear too critical, however, although it might come across that way in due course, because, as I said, we support the Bill. In Committee, the Minister was as courteous as usual, although she and the Government did not accept a single amendment—she did so quite politely—even when she was injured and might have been a bit more vulnerable. The fact that Ministers did not accept any amendments was a matter of considerable disappointment to us, particularly given that we had the support of many stakeholders and recommendations from the Transport Committee.
The Minister has well covered two of the obviously key elements of the Bill—putting the passenger at the core of the CAA and updating the industry’s economic regulation. However, a number of other issues were raised in Committee, highlighting the strengths and weaknesses of the Bill, and I wish briefly to refer to some of them. We had a good discussion on security and the outcomes-focused, risk-based system. We support those arrangements, but, as my hon. Friend the Member for Bolton West (Julie Hilling) said, we were concerned about the arrangements for staff transfers and the certainty of their entitlements on wages, conditions, pensions and redundancy agreements. The staff side raised concerns that members of staff might be worried and often not accept or apply for transfers. The potential haemorrhaging of staff in such a sensitive area was of concern to the whole Committee, so it was good to hear the Minister provide additional reassurances before and after my hon. Friend’s intervention.
The Minister mentioned the ATOL reforms, which we all support, despite the delays. We will do what we can to help the Secretary of State and the Minister of State introduce and enact the reforms, because that is what we all want. Recent pronouncements have perhaps pointed towards more complications arising, which is obviously frustrating not only to the Department and the Government, but to all concerned.
Let me turn to the opportunities that were missed. On the environment, we proposed a duty, as the Minister mentioned. We also suggested including environmental aspects in the licensing conditions for Heathrow, which we think would be reflected right across the industry. On the passenger experience, we proposed that the responsibility for producing welfare plans should be a matter for the licensing arrangements for Heathrow, given the experiences in recent years of passengers being stranded, with all the difficulties that we have seen, heard about and, in some instances, experienced. It is interesting that the indicative licence produced for the Civil Aviation Authority suggested that the licence that it will produce for Heathrow ought to contain passenger welfare elements. We think that the Government could have given a firmer steer by referring to that in the Bill, which would have helped. We also made various suggestions about the efficiency and scrutiny of the Civil Aviation Authority, although I will return to those presently.
There are two additional areas that the other place will want to take account of: one was mentioned in Committee, whereas the other was not. The first is the honesty and accuracy of ticket prices, particularly from the bucket airlines, and the hidden surcharges. The CAA could clearly play a role in addressing that, and I am sure that the issue will be raised in the other place. The other issue, raised most recently, is the suggestion that certain passengers should be able to fast-track themselves through security and immigration for a price, which has caused quite a bit of consternation among passengers generally. Given that the suggestion has been made since Report, I suspect that the other place will want to see how things could be obviated to ensure fairness for everybody going through our airports.
Let me look briefly at the three areas I have mentioned. On the environment, we had a bit of banter with the Government about their mantra, which we hear all too frequently, of wanting to be the greenest Government ever. We obviously had quite a bit of disagreement about whether the Bill reinforces that claim. Indeed, the Minister for shipping, who is in his place, and I had a discussion this afternoon about this being the greenest Government ever in terms of environmental protection. However, I do not think that Mr Deputy Speaker—[Interruption]—if he was paying attention—will let me go there. [Hon. Members: “Ooh!”] My apologies, Mr Deputy Speaker: I wanted to ensure that you did not allow me to stray, because, seeing the hon. Gentleman in his place, I could easily have gone down that cul-de-sac.
On reporting and giving information to passengers, clauses 83 and 84, which we covered extensively, are welcome. However, we thought that there ought to be a duty on the Civil Aviation Authority, as there is on every other economic regulator, to take account of the environment. Reading between the lines, I am not sure whether the Minister’s comment that she expects the matter to be raised in the other place was perhaps an indication of more openness from the Government or that they might be prepared to look at this again.
One element of licensing to do with the environment that was raised by a number of my hon. Friends concerns protection for neighbourhoods, planning permissions and the rest of it. We think that including that in the licence would give communities greater strength and the certainty that airports and the aviation industry would take account of the sensitivities mentioned by the Minister of State.
The last thing we suggested—which the Government did not think it was appropriate to pick up—was the requirement for ticketing to show the environmental impacts of different modes of travel, thereby helping passengers to make decisions based in part, perhaps, on the difference between the environmental impact of going by air and the impact of travelling by rail or coach. I will be surprised if that suggestion is not examined further in the other place.
On the passenger experience, the reporting, information gathering and publishing will, again, be welcomed. However, as I have said, we think that the welfare plans should have been included in the licence, and that represents a missed opportunity by the Government.
Mrs Villiers
I feel that I ought to reiterate the reassurance I gave in Committee and on Report. We, too, are very supportive of a focus on passenger welfare plans. We just do not believe that the content of the licence should be hard-coded in legislation. We believe that the best approach is to give the independent, expert regulator the responsibility to decide what licence conditions are appropriate.
Jim Fitzpatrick
I fully accept that; we have a disagreement over whether this ought to be in the licence. We think that putting this in the Bill would strengthen the requirement and give a much clearer indication to the regulator that the Government expected it to look at this as a key area, particularly given the experience in recent years. We are talking about a difference in emphasis, rather than a difference in principle, because we all want passengers to be better protected against the vagaries of the weather or other factors detrimentally affecting them.
Labour Members raised the whole question of the information on queuing times, and not just in baggage-handling areas. The key area where we disagreed was on whether immigration queues could or should be counted and measured, with information given to the public. Obviously, the Government’s position is that immigration and the immigration service, the UK Border Agency and the UK Border Force are the responsibility of the Home Office, and therefore it is not appropriate to deal with them in this Bill. However, given the further recent confusion over what the queuing time actually is, particularly at Heathrow, and given the disagreements on measuring between the airports and the immigration service, we think that the CAA could have played a very constructive role in that area, authoritatively collating the evidence and publishing it. As with a number of the other amendments that we failed with, I am sure that the Lords will wish to return to that.
On CAA efficiency and National Audit Office scrutiny, we again agree to differ, but at least the Minister did come up with a proposal to strengthen the scrutiny, which, in some way, addressed the concerns we were raising. Obviously, we will monitor how the proposal works in effect. We hope that it will give greater reassurance to the airlines and other customers that the CAA will operate as we would all wish.
In conclusion, this was a good Bill in draft and, in essence, it remains a good Bill, but there is still much room for it to be even better. We hope that the other place will be able to make the improvements that we were, sadly, unable to make.
Dr Julian Huppert (Cambridge) (LD)
I welcome the Bill. For too long, regulation across Government has been too centralised in Whitehall and has not focused on its core consideration, which is the needs of the public. The general duty to passengers in the Bill is an excellent step forward.
For far too many decades, we have seen top-down central control of transport policy. Even if all we had was a general duty for passengers the Bill would be good, but it has more to it, as has been outlined by the Minister, such as the ATOL reforms. Under clauses 83 and 84, extra information must be provided for passengers so that they know what is going on, whether it is about transport options for getting to the airport or the environmental impact. It lets passengers know and lets them decide what they want. I particularly welcome the environmental information required under clause 84.
It is clear that we must tackle the growing environmental impact of aviation. Even if we simply stick with the framework set by the Committee on Climate Change back in 2009, by 2050 aviation is due to make up at least 25% of our allowed carbon emissions. Its relevance to the future of our planet is hard to quantify but also hard to overestimate. Aviation already has a huge impact on people’s daily lives. Hundreds of thousands of people live under the Heathrow flight path—indeed, a quarter of all people in Europe who are affected by aircraft noise pollution are under the Heathrow flight path.
I have made it clear throughout the progress of the Bill that I want an enhanced environmental duty and a strengthening of the Bill in that regard. I have been talking to the Minister about that point, as we have not yet reached a solution that works. I am optimistic that the Minister will be able to work out the exact wording before the Bill reaches the other place, but we are not there yet.
Dr Huppert
I was about to be nice about the shadow Minister, but I shall let him speak first.
Jim Fitzpatrick
In that case, my timing is appalling. It might have been the first time that the hon. Gentleman had been nice to me—[Hon. Members: “Aah!”] I am not getting this right at all tonight, Mr Speaker. I apologise for that.
In Committee, the hon. Gentleman and I had a very difficult exchange. He rightly said that our first amendment on the environment did not have the quite the right focus or the right wording, was not strong enough and did not mention the Climate Change Committee. We took his advice, changed all those points and tabled an amendment on Report that covered all those elements, but he still could not vote for it. Will he give us some indication whether he will be more successful with the Minister this time than we were last time?
Dr Huppert
I thank the shadow Minister for his praise and I am glad that he listened to my comments about the first version of the amendment. I was about to say that I welcomed its intentions and was very pleased that it was improved. I think that it is almost at a stage where it could be accepted. Unfortunately, it was not quite there.
I was wondering whether to use some of the criticisms that I had stored up, and I shall use one. One thing that concerns me about the shadow Minister’s position is his party’s overall position on the environment. The new shadow Environment Minister whose post was announced in the recent reshuffle—the hon. Member for Glasgow South (Mr Harris)—said on Second Reading that he hoped his party would support the third runway at Heathrow and argued that concern for the environment was really a form of class warfare, saying that we were coming up with environmental concerns because people with less money were able to fly. I am sure that that is not what the shadow Transport Minister, the hon. Member for Poplar and Limehouse (Jim Fitzpatrick), means and I hope that he will be successful in persuading his colleagues to take a more sensible approach.
Civil Aviation Bill
Jim Fitzpatrick Excerpts(12 years ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Jim Fitzpatrick (Poplar and Limehouse) (Lab)
I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
Mr Speaker
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
Amendment 8, page 13, line 17, clause 18, at end add—
‘(3) A licence must include an obligation on licence holders to procure and publish annual surveys of passenger satisfaction, including but not limited to—
(a) baggage handling services, and
(b) arrangements for delays affecting air passengers.’.
Amendment 9, page 13, line 17, at end add—
‘(3) A licence must include provisions requiring the holder of a licence to develop passenger welfare plans.’.
Amendment 10, page 13, line 17, at end add—
‘(3) A licence must include provisions requiring the holder of a licence to provide support for stranded passengers at airports.’.
Jim Fitzpatrick
Mr Speaker, it is a pleasure to see you still in the Chair. I think we can promise you a quieter ride than you experienced earlier in this session—[Interruption.] And it is a pleasure for me to welcome Mr Deputy Speaker to his place. It is nice to know that Mr Speaker left as a happy individual.
New clause 2 and amendments 8, 9 and 10 relate to the passenger experience and to the licensing system. On the Minister’s words about the programme motion, I note the great consensus on the Bill. There are still a few areas of disagreement, but I am sure that the House will generally welcome the Bill; Opposition Members certainly do.
New clause 2 deals especially with those with disabilities, and its provisions were ably spoken to in Committee by my hon. Friend the Member for Scunthorpe (Nic Dakin). The Civil Aviation Authority’s briefing on Report was sent to us by its Government relations officer, Ms Sandra Webber, and it states:
“The licence regime should minimise the distortions associated with regulatory intervention. In response to a request for advice from the Secretary of State, the CAA published an indicative licence to assist Parliament in its scrutiny of the Bill. It illustrates, for example, one possible approach whereby a licence could include provisions aimed at strengthening airports’ operational resilience to ensure they are much better prepared to avoid the passenger disruption previously experienced during severe weather.”
We very much agree with that approach.
My hon. Friend the Member for Scunthorpe, as I have said, led in Committee on the provisions of new clause 2, and we heard a number of moving speeches by colleagues on both sides of the House, relating to the embarrassment, difficulties and indignity experienced at airports here and abroad by constituents with disabilities, and encouraging the Government to address those issues and to ensure that best practice is rolled out right across the piece.
Amendment 8 states that a licence
“must include an obligation on licence holders to procure and publish annual surveys of passenger satisfaction”
on “baggage handling” and “arrangements for delays”. We included the words “but not limited to” because in Committee, the Minister rightly drew attention to the fact that the UK Border Agency is subject to the Home Office and would therefore have been outwith the scope of our original amendment. We have omitted that suggestion. However, we hope that the phrase
“including but not limited to”
will give licence holders the opportunity to collate the data that the hon. Member for Amber Valley (Nigel Mills) said it would be appropriate for the CAA to publish on behalf of airports or for airports to publish on their own behalf because they would be of interest.
Nigel Mills (Amber Valley) (Con)
I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for reminding us of the long debate that we had in Committee. Does he agree that recent news stories about delays at Heathrow have only strengthened the argument that it would be in the airports’ interest to publish those data, so that passengers know whose fault the delays are?
Jim Fitzpatrick
I could not agree more. I will discuss previous experience, but, as the hon. Gentleman says, recent experience underscores the expectation that the Government, the authorities or the airports will have to deal with the experience of passenger delays. The horror stories that are starting to come out about passengers experiencing delays of some hours because of shortages of immigration staff and the article in The Daily Telegraph on Monday or Tuesday of this week in which the previous chief executive of UKBA offered some analysis of the problem underscore the fact that there is an important matter to be addressed.
Amendment 9 is the generic proposal. It states:
“A licence must include provisions requiring the holder of a licence to develop passenger welfare plans.”
That is an all-encompassing proposal that we think would cover all the matters that passengers would expect airports and airlines to deal with, including stranded passengers, resilience, delays and all manner of difficulties that passengers might experience. Amendment 10 looks specifically at the position of stranded passengers and suggests that something should be done for them.
Graham Stringer (Blackley and Broughton) (Lab)
As ever and as was the case in Committee, I am following the logic of my hon. Friend’s contribution. Will he expand a little on why it should be the owners of airports who provide provision for stranded passengers and not the airlines, as has previously been established in law?
Jim Fitzpatrick
I am grateful to my hon. Friend for raising that point. Amendment 9 states that it should be incumbent on the licence holder to “develop passenger welfare plans”. That does not necessarily mean that the licence holder has to be totally responsible for delivery. There should be engagement with the airlines and a collective approach to that matter. Obviously, the CAA and the Government should be involved in that. I was not narrowing down the responsibility in the way that I misled my hon. Friend to believe.
Passenger welfare plans were a recommendation of the Select Committee on Transport in its pre-legislative scrutiny of the Bill. In Committee, the Minister did not give a good reason why she does not believe that those plans should be included in the licences for airports. She said that the CAA will draw up the licences and that it will be a matter for that organisation. We do not think that that provision is strong enough. Given that the primary duty of the Bill is to the passenger, as we have discussed for some months, we believe that the development of passenger welfare plans would reinforce the focus on giving passengers the best experience possible at our airports. They have clearly not had that in previous winters.
The Transport Committee also stated in its pre-legislative scrutiny:
“Where possible, airport licences should be structured so that they address key areas of passenger dissatisfaction.”
I do not need to repeat the statistics on the misery that has been experienced by passengers at difficult times over a number of years. The reports, particularly the Begg report, on what happened to passengers at Heathrow during the disruption of December 2010 make alarming reading, even if one looks only at the headlines. Nine and a half thousand people were sleeping in the terminal, passengers were seeking refuge in subways, a lorry carrying blankets for passengers had to turn back on the M25 because of traffic conditions and very few passengers were provided with water or refreshments. It was absolute chaos and confusion. I am not blaming anybody for that. It is matter of record and fact, and we all want to avoid it happening again.
I anticipate that the Minister will refer us to clause 83 on the collection of information and data, which we discussed extensively in Committee. We accept that clause 83 is drawn widely enough to include the proposals in new clause 2 and amendments 8 and 10, because the airports could be responsible for providing the relevant data. However, given the experience of recent years, we believe that amendment 9 should be a basic licence requirement. The fact that the CAA has suggested that such a requirement could be incorporated and has included it in the example for the Heathrow licence suggests that it thinks that it will do that anyway. We think that the Government should make it a duty on the CAA to make passenger welfare plans a licence requirement.
Nigel Mills
Presumably, the hon. Gentleman accepts that clause 83 will apply to all airports and not just to the three that are likely to have a competition licence. Amendment 9 would not be of any use to a load of passengers who do not use Heathrow, Gatwick or Stansted.
Jim Fitzpatrick
I accept that point. I suggested in Committee that there should be a delineation of the differences between licensed airports, given that all airports have a licence of some description. Given that the most difficult passenger experiences of recent years have been at Heathrow, given that an indicative licence has been published for Heathrow and given that Heathrow is the market leader and our only hub airport, whatever Heathrow does will be examined by everybody else. If the CAA says that it expects Heathrow to do something, that might be adopted by other airports. We therefore do not think that it would be inappropriate to include this requirement in the licence, even if it applies only to Heathrow, because it would be copied as best practice by the other first-class airports around the country.
We all want to ensure that there is a good passenger experience, especially for those with disabilities, as was discussed in Committee and as is outlined in new clause 2. We hope that the situation will be better as a result of the Bill and are confident that it will be. We congratulate the Government on bringing it forward. However, we think that it would be much better if, in addition to more and clearer data being published on the passenger experience, there was a simple licence requirement, as outlined in amendment 9. We will seek the view of the House on that if the Minister is not able to reassure us in the course of the debate.
Mrs Louise Ellman (Liverpool, Riverside) (Lab/Co-op)
This group of amendments draws attention to the importance of the passenger experience. The Transport Committee has looked at that theme a number of times over the years. Some improvements have been made, but there are still major questions, some of which are raised by the amendments.
Overriding the specific points made by the amendments is the general question of who speaks for passengers. The previous organisation, the Air Transport Users Council airport consultative committee, stopped being responsible for airing passengers’ views. It was suggested that Passenger Focus might take up that responsibility, but that did not materialise. When the Transport Committee questioned the CAA in our pre-legislative scrutiny, it told us that it was setting up a panel. When we asked what form the panel would take, how its members would be chosen and how it would operate, the answers were unclear. There is still a big question mark over whether there is effective representation for air passengers. Such representation does not seem to be enshrined in the Bill. I would like to hear the Minister’s comments on that.
Jim Fitzpatrick
Does my hon. Friend agree that the Opposition took the Minister’s advice that UKBA matters were for the Home Office, which is why we have decided to focus on passenger experience and welfare? As we have said, Mr Deputy Speaker, we would like to press those proposals to a Division if the Minister cannot reassure us. That is why UKBA has not been mentioned, and I am sure it is also why my hon. Friend did not table an amendment on UKBA.
Pat Glass
I said earlier that although UKBA cuts are primarily a matter for the Home Secretary, they have a significant negative impact on the passenger experience.
I agree with the premise in the Bill that the passenger must be put at the heart of the regulatory regime. The Bill is right to give the CAA a primary duty on air transport users. The Bill is not specific enough on how that objective will be met, whereas the new clause and amendments would provide such specificity.
Delays caused by UKBA checks, baggage handling and adverse weather cause huge passenger dissatisfaction and are made that much worse in times of crisis, whether that is caused by adverse weather conditions for which there should have better planning, or by volcanic ash—in the last such crisis, the needs of passengers hit an all-time low.
An Office for National Statistics omnibus survey conducted in February 2010—it came hot on the heels of the crisis caused by adverse weather conditions at Heathrow—revealed that although most passengers are largely satisfied with their experience at airports, they have different views on different aspects, and were not equally satisfied with all aspects of service. The aspects of least satisfaction included information provided on bringing goods into the UK, on which there has been some improvement; information on destinations served by the nearest airport; baggage collection; and the cost of flights.
The CAA discovered in its own survey of passenger satisfaction at airports that waiting at immigration was a concern. Fewer than 70% of passengers at London’s three major airports were satisfied with immigration services, and 8% of surveyed passengers waited more than 20 minutes. That impacts on our international reputation. I agree that the primary duty should be to promote the interests of passengers, but passengers are telling us that that does not always happen; that it happens better in some aspects of the service than in others; and that it can break down completely in times of crisis.
Following the Transport Committee inquiry into the failure of both the Government and the industry adequately to prepare and respond to the severe winter conditions in December 2010, the absolutely appalling experience faced by many passengers, particularly at Heathrow, demonstrated the need for the sector significantly to up its game in relation to passenger welfare. The Bill fails to deliver on that.
“Keeping the UK moving”, the excellent Transport Committee report on the impact on transport of the winter weather in 2010, recommended that airports
“be required to develop passenger welfare plans and to provide”
sufficient
“support to stranded passengers during periods of disruption.”
It is disappointing that the Government do not take the same view. Is the Bill not a perfect opportunity to ensure that airports provide assistance to passengers, even if only for elderly or disabled passengers, or for those travelling with small children, who could be stranded in airports for days at a time?
The UK’s reputation was damaged by scenes of thousands of stranded passengers in airports over Christmas 2010, and equally damaged by the aftermath of the Icelandic volcano eruption. I was contacted by a number of constituents, as I know other hon. Members were, who were trying to get back from airlines the vast amounts of money that they had been forced to spend while stranded. Members of the Bill Committee will remember that I entertained them with my family’s experience. I was trying to help my elderly and disabled parents who were stranded in Barcelona. Their experience was perhaps extreme, but it was by no means unique, and the Government need to ensure that in future, passengers—disabled or not—do not experience such a shocking lack of care.
In the light of such fiascos, the Bill is an opportunity to place obligations on airports to provide help for stranded passengers in similar situations, and to prevent a repeat of the past. The need for early, decisive action on whether to cancel services is particularly important. There has been some improvement in that respect. I was due to fly out of Heathrow a couple of months ago when planes were again stranded by snow. I got a text and then a phone call from the airport telling me that my flight was cancelled, which saved me trailing up to the airport and standing around all day. We should recognise that vast improvement. The value of knowing sooner rather than later whether a flight is cancelled should not be underestimated. It could mean that fewer passengers are forced to endure hours, and possibly days, in an airport. If they know earlier, they can make alternative, more comfortable arrangements.
The problems also included the supply of de-icing and anti-icing products, and road salt. We should ensure better liaison over the treatment of the appropriate public road network between airports and local highways authorities. There has been some improvement on that, too. In 2010, my local authority properly prepared for the winter weather. It bought and arranged delivery of salt, but at the last minute, in an absolute panic, the Government effectively took salt that had been paid for by local authorities and transferred it to parts of the country that had failed to plan. However, we must accept that there has been some improvement on that situation.
During the 2010 crisis, the then Transport Secretary, the right hon. Member for Runnymede and Weybridge (Mr Hammond), promised urgently to legislate to penalise airport owners for bad service, but passengers are still being left without the added protection such reforms should have brought. Airlines and airports are quick enough to take passengers’ money, but much less keen to step up and help in times of crisis. Damage has been done to our international reputation and to the needs of the air-travelling public, whether they are disabled or not, and it is time for the Government to step in and put passengers first.
Jim Fitzpatrick
Those who have been listening to the debate will realise that the Minister and I are not a million miles apart on the new clause and the amendments. Clearly, we have the joint objective of improving and protecting the passenger experience. However, as the hon. Member for Amber Valley (Nigel Mills) said, the UK Border Agency and UK Border Force experience has not improved over the past few months and years. I recognise that that is a Home Office matter and is not covered by the amendments, but we accept that clauses 83 and 84, which cover the CAA’s requirement to procure information and publish the data on the passenger experience, could deal with the matters that we have raised in new clause 2 and in amendments 8 and 10.
My hon. Friend the Member for Blackley and Broughton (Graham Stringer) said in an intervention on the Minister that resilience was absolutely critical at airports such as Heathrow that operate at 99% capacity. The CAA has published the indicative licence—a copy is in the Library of the House—and it incorporates a requirement to address resilience and passenger welfare plans. That completely satisfies us that the CAA understands that it ought to be part of its requirement to monitor those elements, and that requirement should therefore be part of the licence. Given the experience of recent years, we do not believe that our proposal would be over-burdensome in terms of bureaucracy or application. It should therefore be incorporated into the Bill. We will seek leave to withdraw new clause 2, but we are unconvinced that the Minister has given us adequate reassurance on amendment 9, so we shall take the view of the House on that at the appropriate time.
Clause, by leave, withdrawn.
New Clause 3
Risk-based aviation security regime
‘(1) The Secretary of State may direct the operators of airport areas to implement an outcomes-focused, risk-based aviation security regime to govern the exercise of their functions in relation to aviation security.
(2) When making directions under this section, the Secretary of State must by order set out the framework for the introduction of the outcomes-focused, risk-based aviation security regime.
(3) An order under this section must be approved by a resolution of each House of Parliament.’.—(John Woodcock.)
Brought up, and read the First time.
John Woodcock (Barrow and Furness) (Lab/Co-op)
I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
John Woodcock
I will seek the leave of the House to withdraw the new clause, but I hope that the Minister will continue to look at the staffing issue raised by amendment 13, given our concerns about the potential for problems further down the track. The Minister has given clear reassurances on religious clothing and headwear, and I hope that the strength of feeling expressed in today’s debate will strengthen her hand in achieving the necessary requirements.
On the issue of the parliamentary scrutiny of risk-based security, I continue to fail to see how our amendment could hold things up in an emergency, as the Minister suggests. We will withdraw the new clause, however. I simply urge the Government to continue to take the issue incredibly seriously, and to consider ways in which the House could properly scrutinise the issue, as and when she decides that a move would be appropriate and would enhance security. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the clause.
Clause, by leave, withdrawn.
New Clause 4
Accounts and audits
‘(1) Section 15 of the Civil Aviation Act 1982 (Accounts and audit) is amended as follows—
(a) In subsection (1), leave out paragraph (c) and insert—
“(c) to send copies of the statement of accounts to the Secretary of State and the Comptroller and Auditor General before the end of the November following the accounting year to which the statement relates.”.
(b) In subsection (2), leave out paragraph (a) and insert—
“(a) The National Audit Office shall examine, certify and report on each statement of accounts received under subsection (1) and shall lay copies of the statement of accounts and its report thereon before each House of Parliament.”.
(2) In the National Audit Act 1983, Schedule 4 (Nationalised Industries and Other Public Authorities) Part 1, leave out “Civil Aviation Authority”.’.—(Jim Fitzpatrick.)
Brought up, and read the First time.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dawn Primarolo)
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
New clause 5—CAA general financial duties
‘In section 8 of the Civil Aviation Act 1982 (General financial duties) after subsection (4) insert—
“(5) It shall be the duty of the CAA to conduct its affairs in such a manner as to fulfil a general duty of efficiency in the use of its financial resources.”.’.
Amendment 2, page 2, line 11, clause 1, after ‘economy’, insert ‘, effectiveness’.
Amendment 1, page 3, line 8, clause 2, after ‘economy’, insert ‘, effectiveness’.
Government amendments 14, 15 and 19.
Jim Fitzpatrick
I do not expect to detain the House for very long on the new clauses, as they are primarily probing, but we are interested in Government amendment 19, which deals with clause 77. The apostrophe and full stop in the amendment look very curious indeed, and we look forward to receiving an explanation of their significance.
In Committee, the Minister teased us about our change of position on the Pilling report and on our support for National Audit Office oversight of the CAA. We said, in justification, that the world had moved on, and that evidence was coming forward, particularly from the British Air Transport Association at that time, in respect of the Government’s explanation of the CAA’s audit arrangements. BATA stated that it in fact involved a normal company audit to ensure that there was no fraud, whereas we were proposing an NAO audit examination of efficiency and value for money.
Only this week, Members will have seen the correspondence from Virgin Atlantic citing the example of the Financial Services Authority. The CAA will be run along similar lines to the FSA. Although the NAO is tasked with keeping track of taxpayers’ money, it has oversight of the FSA, which receives no income from the taxpayer. The CAA will be in the same position. There are clear parallels between the two organisations, so why will the NAO not have oversight of the CAA as well? Other industry-funded regulators are subject to NAO oversight, including Ofgem, which is funded by the energy companies, Ofwat, which is funded by the water companies, and Ofcom, which is funded by broadcasters, the media and communications providers. We are trying to address that anomaly in new clause 4.
Moving on to new clause 5, the Minister stated in Committee that she had written to the leadership of the CAA to say that she expected it to
“lead the Authority in such a way that it: is run efficiently and effectively, thereby minimising the cost on the aviation sector, and providing value for money”.––[Official Report, Civil Aviation Public Bill Committee, 13 March 2012; c. 344.]
We received evidence at the time, however, from British Airways, which stated that
“the CAA has scope to make significant improvements in efficiency”.––[Official Report, Civil Aviation Public Bill Committee, 13 March 2012; c. 342.]
That statement was referring to the CAA before it got its new powers and responsibilities, which placed even greater pressure on it. My hon. Friends the Members for Liverpool, Riverside (Mrs Ellman) and for Blackley and Broughton (Graham Stringer) raised this matter in Committee several times, and they might well try to catch your eye again today, Madam Deputy Speaker, in order to reinforce the point.
In Committee, the Minister pointed out the technical flaws in our original amendment, so we have tidied it up. We have taken her advice and ensured that the new clauses are more appropriately worded. She also said that she would reflect on the matters that we had raised in Committee, and we would be grateful if she would share her conclusions with the House today.
Chris Heaton-Harris
Before I start, may I say in passing how much I admire the rulings of the Chairman of Ways and Means? He is a great gentleman and I apologise for having been told off by him earlier.
The Minister will know that in Committee I raised one point about regulation. As she will recall, I raised the concerns of a very big business and a large industry in my constituency—DHL and the industry trade body, the Association of International Courier & Express Services—about the information provisions. I thanked the Minister then and I thank her now for the positive comments she made about the express services sector. As she acknowledged, DHL is a very significant employer in my constituency, and obviously a key player in the wider UK exports market.
As the Minister knows, the express sector as a whole is broadly supportive of the Bill and wants to work with the Government and the Civil Aviation Authority to ensure that the security aspects are implemented effectively and in consultation with all stakeholders. However, AICES members are concerned that express services have been incorporated into the information on services provisions, which they feel are not appropriate to the sector.
First, express services operate in a different and a very competitive marketplace, and failure to provide the necessary information to their customers would simply result in those customers moving their account. It is a very fluid market indeed. As the Minister acknowledged in Committee, this is mainly a business-to-business sector rather than a business-to-consumer sector, which makes it very different from passenger traffic on airlines. In consequence, the level of regulation required is also very different. I know that the Minister has acknowledged this key difference in the sectors being regulated—between air passenger traffic and express—and it would be helpful to know whether she believes that the CAA shares her views.
Secondly, as I said in Committee, Ofcom already has the relevant powers on the provision of information on express services under the enabling provisions of the Postal Services Act 2011. I was concerned about a possible duplication here. The enabling provisions under section 51 of the 2011 Act could further extend to cover under subsection (3)(d)
“the information that is to be made available by postal operators to users of their services about service standards and about the rights of those users”,
and under subsection (3)(e)
“anything else appearing to OFCOM to be necessary to secure effective protection for those users.”
That is effectively duplicated in information terms in the Bill. Under this particular section, express services constitute postal operators.
Ofcom has judged that there has been no market failure in the provision of information and that the powers in the Act are not required to be used at present. They are still there, however, so conferring the CAA with the same powers will lead to regulatory duplication. Existing legislation already provides for the required “future-proofing” that we talked about so much in Committee.
Finally, but crucially, the express sector is different from air passenger traffic because the mode of transport is not relevant to the consumer. The key factor is the time required to get a package from A to B. How it gets there is completely irrelevant. Most of the time it will be done by air in this particular sector, but sometimes it will be done by truck—and sometimes, perhaps, on public transport. Obviously, the same cannot be said for air passengers unless they are unfortunate enough to land on the wrong runway at Heathrow and want to get to terminal 4. That fact means that the consumer would expect Ofcom, not the CAA, to be the relevant regulator. Making the CAA the regulator for the provision of information services in the express sector would be confusing, and unlikely to bring any benefits to consumers.
I hope that the Minister will comment, will look again at the issue, and will perhaps even consider meeting me, along with representatives of the Association of International Courier & Express Services, to discuss the association’s legitimate concerns.
Jim Fitzpatrick
We are very grateful to the Minister for her reassurances, and we certainly welcome the strengthening of the auditing arrangements for the CAA that she has outlined. We will be very keen to get the views of those who lobbied all the members of the Public Bill Committee to ensure that the CAA became even more efficient. From her explanation, it sounds as though it has been recognised that it needs strengthening. With the reassurances that she has given, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the clause.
Clause, by leave, withdrawn.
New Clause 6
Compensation for noise pollution
‘The CAA must ensure that airport operators establish and implement a scheme to compensate persons residing in or occupying business or community premises in an area designated in the licence conditions for the noise pollution arising from activities within the airport area, including the landing and taking off of aircraft.’.—(Seema Malhotra.)
Brought up, and read the First time.
Dr Huppert
The hon. Gentleman is quite right that we will agree on very little in this area, other than on the fact that we will disagree quite strongly. At the moment, we have a number of people travelling to the south-east, by road and all sorts of other means, in order to fly out. We can use some of the capacity in other areas, in the north. My contention is that by not expanding capacity in the way the previous Government wanted to, we will see less environmental degradation and we will better be able to stay within our carbon budget, which we can afford for the good of the rest of the world as well as ourselves. However, I do not think the hon. Gentleman and I are going to agree on this one, however many times we discuss it.
Turning to the amendments that deal with environmental issues, let me be clear what I would like to see. I would like to see lower emissions at every airport in the country. Some of that can be done technologically. Planes are coming out that are more and more efficient, which I very much welcome. I have mentioned some of the excellent work being done by Rolls-Royce, and some research has been done in my constituency specifically to enable that, which I very much welcome. I would also like to see more public understanding of the effects of climate change, and of what aviation does and how it compares with other things. I would also like to see some certainty that airports will be able to reclaim when they implement environmental measures—a point that was made very clear to me by AirportWatch, along with others concerned about a lack of certainty.
We had a number of discussions in the Public Bill Committee about the exact nuances of the amendments and their technical aspects. It is important to get things right for the longer term, rather than jumping to agree to half-baked or 99%-baked amendments. Although I recognise the spirit in which the shadow Minister will, I presume, be pressing some of his amendments, I do not think we are quite there yet. I hope that he will accept that concern, and I am sure he will take a different line when we come round to it.
Amendment 3 is definitely much improved. I am much more persuaded by it, but there is still the problem that it would apply only to the regulated airports. I am sure that the shadow Minister would accept that that is a concern, and if we could do something that affected all airports, that would go further—I will return to that point later. The same thing applies to amendment 7. I find it an interesting amendment, and I would be supportive of it, were it not for the fact that clause 84 already requires the same information to be published—I am sure that the Minister will correct me if I am wrong about that. That information should be published, as clause 84 says, so we do not need to move it to clause 83 merely to solve a problem. In Committee, I praised the Minister’s environmental credentials. She turned her party towards the Liberal Democrat position of supporting high-speed rail and opposing a third runway at Heathrow and a second runway at Stansted. She did a good job, and I again pay tribute to her. She made strong arguments that were more persuasive for Conservatives than those that we made.
It is not clear that the Opposition have made that leap, and I seek clarity as to why many Labour Back Benchers argued against the position adopted by shadow Ministers and why they are still hung up on providing more capacity and more runways across the south-east. When I raised that with the Minister she agreed to look further at what environmental benefits could be achieved. I am grateful to her for doing so, and for the time that she has spent with me discussing the matter. She understands quite well what I am trying to achieve.
My ideal is something that has not yet been included in the Bill, because there are some problems with the wording of my proposal, which was recommended by the Aviation Environment Federation. In paragraph 31 of its submission to the Bill Committee, it said that what it would most like to see was an
“amendment to section 4 of the Civil Aviation Act 1982 to clarify that CAA has a duty to the general public, rather than only to the aviation industry or its consumers, and that environmental impacts are as important a determinant of aviation policy as consumer demand”.
That is something that I would love to see. I understand that there are some technical problems with the precise wording of the proposal, which is why I have not been able to table a detailed amendment that I could persuade the Government to accept. I should like to get these things right for the longer term, rather than put on a small show now. However, I hope that such a proposal would be considered, and I look forward to hearing from the Minister as to whether there is any prospect of her doing so.
A key issue made clear to me by AirportWatch and others was the need for certainty for airports. We all agree that we do not want any predatory airlines—I will not suggest any that might fall into that category—to exploit a lack of clarity to avoid paying what we all believe they should pay towards environmental improvements at airports. I believe that the Minister has received legal advice that the Bill provides such certainty, but I hope that she accepts the concern expressed by AirportWatch, the AEF, others and me that there is a lack of clarity. If there is a risk that the Bill is not absolutely water-tight legally, I hope that the Government will table an amendment in the other place to ensure that we do not encounter that problem, as we all agree that we do not want to have that concern. I look forward to hearing the Minister’s thoughts.
How do we achieve the overall environmental progress that we would like? I believe that the Government will shortly publish a draft aviation policy framework. We expected them to publish it in March, but it has taken time to get it right. We welcome the fact that such work has been undertaken, and I hope that the framework looks at the possibility of environmental regulation across all airports. That would be the best solution, rather than fitting the measure into one particular route, and applying it only to regulated airports. I hope that the Minister will be able to confirm that the aviation policy framework, which we all anticipate with great excitement, will deal with those environmental concerns.
There is a prospect of the Bill doing some very good things by improving the information flow and making the CAA more aware, and by making sure that we deal with risks to airports. I hope that the aviation policy framework will offer a visionary solution that ensures that we have a sustainable aviation future.
Jim Fitzpatrick
It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Cambridge (Dr Huppert), who will not be surprised to learn that he features quite strongly in the opening passage of my speech. I perceive that he has an eye problem, and I am sorry if that is the case. I hope that he is not in too much discomfort: we would not wish to see anyone in pain.
This is probably the key debate of the afternoon, because the subject of whether an environmental duty should be included in the Bill invited the most disagreements in Committee. The amendments take account of our discussions in Committee. I am grateful to the hon. Members for Amber Valley (Nigel Mills) and for Cambridge for their advice on drafting amendments, and to the Minister for the guidance that the Government have given to the Opposition about how to address those issues.
In Committee, my hon. Friend the Member for Scunthorpe (Nic Dakin) said of the hon. Member for Cambridge:
“He seems to be arguing for an environmental duty, but he does not like the amendment.”
No change there, then. The hon. Gentleman does not like these proposals either. My hon. Friend went on:
“He has not tabled any amendments of his own”—
the hon. Gentleman was having difficulty writing one in Committee, and he is still having difficulty six weeks later—
“but he is looking for the Minister to come up with an alternative. Is that correct?”
The hon. Member for Cambridge replied:
“That is an extremely good summary of my position. I would like to see an environmental duty and I hope we will be able to work across all parties to find one that delivers the aims that we share. I have faith in the Minister’s ability to find that.”––[Official Report, Civil Aviation Public Bill Committee, 28 February 2012; c. 119]
Sadly, no such measure has arrived today, so he is going to have to wait.
The hon. Member for Cambridge criticised our proposal in Committee, just as he has done today. At that time, he said:
“First, it does not mention what the shadow Minister himself mentioned at the beginning of his speech—the Committee on Climate Change. It is a great shame that the amendment does not talk about working with it; it advises the Government on setting and meeting carbon budgets and has already done a huge amount of work.”––[Official Report, Civil Aviation Public Bill Committee, 28 February 2012; c. 117.]
The hon. Gentleman went on, rightly, to congratulate the Committee on Climate Change. I am sure that most Members would do the same. I would have hoped that our new amendment 3 would adequately address the points that the hon. Gentleman was raising.
A key recommendation of the Committee on Climate Change’s report on international aviation and shipping, which was published this month, states:
“Our report concludes that international aviation and shipping emissions need to be formally included in carbon budgets. Emissions from these sectors were initially left out of carbon budgets…when the Climate Change Act became law. However, they have been informally included in the 2050 target…Under the Act, a decision on the inclusion…is required by the end of 2012. Formal inclusion of these emissions will ensure a more transparent, comprehensive and flexible accounting framework under the Climate Change Act and provide more certainty for the future.”
I would have hoped that amendment 3, which now makes reference to the Committee on Climate Change and to greenhouse gas emissions, would cover the points that the hon. Gentleman was unhappy with in Committee. Amendments 4 and 5 cover issues similar to those that were so ably raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Feltham and Heston (Seema Malhotra).
Dr Huppert
I thank the hon. Gentleman for praising my consistency. I have made the same arguments throughout our proceedings. As I think I said earlier, the amendment that he has tabled today is a significant improvement on the one that he tabled in Committee. I think that we agree on the reasons for that. Does he accept, however, that it would still affect only the economically regulated airports, and not all of the rest of them? Does he accept that that is a genuine concern for those of us who wish to see the environmental regulation of all airports?
Jim Fitzpatrick
It is almost breathtaking that, when we are proposing an environmental duty that would cover the busiest airport in the UK, the hon. Gentleman should say, “No, let’s not do that. Let’s wait till we get Southend right.” That just does not make sense. We are arguing for the introduction of an environmental duty now. He is arguing that, although he wants one, this one just does not fit the bill. I was not praising him for his consistency, by the way, and just because he is consistently wrong does not mean that I agree with him.
Mrs Villiers
I do not think that the hon. Gentleman is in a position to lecture my hon. Friend the Member for Cambridge (Dr Huppert) on consistency. In theory, Labour opposes a third runway, yet every time one of its Back Benchers mentions the subject, they tend to be very supportive of the idea.
Jim Fitzpatrick
The Minister knows full well that the shadow Secretary of State made our position on the third runway quite clear when she invited Members to attend cross-party talks on the subject. To date, as far as I am aware, my hon. Friend has not even had an answer from the Secretary of State. Our position is clear.
Jim Fitzpatrick
I want to make some progress, given that other colleagues want to speak in the debate.
In Committee, the Minister said of environmental requirements:
“Such requirements should come with the sanction of Parliament and Ministers, rather than being delegated to the CAA in its capacity as economic regulator.”––[Official Report, Civil Aviation Public Bill Committee, 28 February 2012; c. 137.]
It is our view, however, that the CAA should have an environmental duty, given the new powers and duties that it is taking on. Why is no such duty being proposed? We would have put an environmental duty in the Bill. The initial drafting included an environmental duty, although I am not sure whether the hon. Member for Cambridge would have supported that one.
Mrs Villiers
It is important for the hon. Gentleman to appreciate that the difference with those bodies is that a universal jurisdiction applies across an entire sector or industry, whereas we are dealing with a situation in which economic regulation applies only to a few airports. That is why this is not the appropriate or right way to deliver environmental regulation.
Jim Fitzpatrick
I hear what the Minister says. In our Committee discussions, those we are having today and in discussions outside, transport consistently appears as a big contributor to greenhouse gas emissions. Aviation continues to grow. In a recent speech, I believe to The Times transport conference, the Minister quoted the statistics showing that transport will, year on year out to 2030 and beyond, make a bigger contribution to those emissions, simply because the sector is growing. It cannot be right not to address the question of having an environmental duty at a time when we are we are introducing the new powers and duties and the new regulatory authority through the Bill. Surely now is the appropriate time for it.
Julie Hilling
Does my hon. Friend agree that although the majority of the Bill deals with economic regulation of some airports, it also includes other measures, such as those on security, that affect all airports? It is thus a little disingenuous to say that the Bill cannot include environmental duties on those grounds.
Jim Fitzpatrick
I am grateful to my hon. Friend for her intervention, and I entirely agree that seeking to place an environmental duty in the Bill is in no way inappropriate. We think it is entirely in keeping with the new powers to confer on the CAA a duty to take cognisance of the environmental impact of aviation.
Concerns were raised in Committee about the inclusion of the regulatory asset base, and the Gatwick Express was mentioned, along with other aspects. The Opposition believed that stronger powers were needed—and that they were needed on the face of the Bill.
We ask the question once again: why is there no environmental duty for the CAA as a regulator? The Government say that they want to be “the greenest Government ever”—fine words. The Minister proudly says that she will “yield to no one” on environmental protection. I congratulate her on that, as these are more fine words. The Lib Dems say that we were not tough or focused enough and that our words were not appropriate—more fine words, if they mean anything. The time to take action, however, is now, because we have the opportunity to do so now.
With new clause 6 and amendment 7, we think that seeking to inform passengers about the environmental impact is wholly appropriate. The Minister agreed with the principle when she said that she shared with Opposition members of the Committee
“the goal of harnessing consumer power in our efforts to reduce the environmental impacts of aviation.”—[Official Report, Civil Aviation Public Bill Committee, 13 March 2012; c. 314.]
We all know that the tools exist commercially. Travel companies produce information on the environmental impact of different modes of transport, and this is advocated by the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs and by the Department of Energy and Climate Change—so why not by the Department for Transport?
We heard powerful evidence in Committee to suggest that passenger choice is based not on green issues—if that were the case, it would be welcome—but on the location of the airport, whether it serves their destination and on the convenience of getting there, as well, of course, as the cost. It is not based on the environment, but the environment does matter, and it will matter increasingly in the years ahead. Now is the time, and here is the opportunity, to encourage that type of decision making on the environment by including information about environmental impacts on ticketing and the CAA could do that. We will therefore seek to test support for new clause 6.
Yesterday my hon. Friend the Member for Garston and Halewood (Maria Eagle), the shadow Secretary of State, said:
“The Government has refused to recommit to the targets on reducing emissions from aviation set by the previous Labour government and has yet to respond positively to the Committee on Climate Change’s recommendation that this should be extended to include the UK’s share of international emissions, which is explicitly covered by the amendment.”
I look forward to the Minister’s comments on that. I cannot repeat what my hon. Friend said about the Liberal Democrats, unless the hon. Member for Cambridge (Dr Huppert) wants me to. [Hon. Members: “Go on.”] Well, she was not very kind to the Liberal Democrats. She said that they were “meekly” following the Government in rejecting our amendments. Clearly she anticipated their exact response, which is entirely inconsistent with their pre-election stance on dealing with the environmental impact of aviation.
We think that the Government should be bolder, cleaner and greener, and should accept the principle of environmental duty. If we do not receive the reassurance that we seek from the Minister—and I do not expect that we shall—we will seek to divide the House on amendment 3 and new clause 6.
Let me end by quoting recommendation 38 of the Transport Committee’s report. I see that the highly regarded independent Chair of the Committee, my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Riverside (Mrs Ellman)—for whom the whole House has regard—is present. Her Committee said:
“Without giving the CAA a supplementary duty on the environment in relation to its economic regulation role, there is some risk that airports may be reluctant to invest in improving environmental performance. Whilst, as the Minister says, there may be ‘absolutely no doubt’ about measures taken to comply with statutory environmental obligations, there remains a doubt about whether the costs of discretionary measures, such as improved public transport access, can be recovered by airports in charges to airlines.”
That is one recommendation that we solidly support, which is why we wish to press the new clause and amendment to a vote at the appropriate time.
John McDonnell
I support all the new clauses and amendments, and I am sure that when the Minister has explained what her amendment is, I will support it as well.
I thought that Members throughout the House had learned as a result of the debate on the third runway and overall aviation strategy that—as the Select Committee has said—it was necessary for proper account to be taken of the environmental impact of the development of aviation, and of airports in particular. As my hon. Friend the Member for Poplar and Limehouse (Jim Fitzpatrick) pointed out, this evening we have been presented with an opportunity to ensure that that happens.
Let me explain why this is important to my community. Tonight I am to attend the annual general meeting of the Harmondsworth and Sipson residents association, which will also be attended by representatives of each of the Heathrow villages, including Longford, Harlington and, I hope, Cranford Cross. The issues that will concern them are the issues in the amendments. They will be concerned about the noise from the airport itself and about the environmental impact of air pollution, but also about the future of their villages. In other words, they will be concerned about the overall impact of the airport on their local communities.
New clause 6—to which my hon. Friend the Member for Poplar and Limehouse has spoken so eloquently, both today and in Committee—highlights the fact that the measures taken so far to address the problem of noise pollution from the airport have simply not worked. There has been some improvement, but nothing like the improvement that we want as a local community, and certainly nothing that is acceptable. There is a voluntary agreement at Heathrow purely and simply to provide insulation for a limited number of properties—private houses, and some public buildings—but although that is welcome, it is a voluntary agreement and has had no impact in bearing down on the noise from the airport. I believe that posing the threat of a compensation scheme will focus the minds of the airport authorities and the aviation industry, and will constitute a promise to local residents of at least some compensation.
The hon. Member for Cambridge (Dr Huppert) asked how such a scheme could be devised. We arrived at the idea of the insulation scheme and devised it during our debates, and although there was no actual consensus, at least we secured agreement in some form. I am sure that we can use that as a model for our scheme, which is being consulted on at present. It is not beyond the wit of man or woman to devise an appropriate scheme and build upon it for the future.
A group of my constituents live in the most air-polluted area of the whole country, along with the City of London. That is reflected in the incidence of respiratory conditions and cancer in the area. We have been designated an air quality management zone, but that has had no effect whatever on the level of air pollution in the area, because of the increase in aviation. Therefore, I support the amendments that place a responsibility on the CAA and the Secretary of State to look at environmental impacts, including air pollution and emissions. They contribute to climate change as well.
The Bill provides us with an opportunity to make this a cross-party priority. That will send the aviation industry the message that we must address these issues. Air quality management zones and all the other policies of the past 20 years have had very little impact.
I welcome the amendments that would place a duty on the Secretary of State and the CAA to take into account the overall impact of aviation activities on local communities. That is important for my community. BAA and the aviation industry have taken no account of the impact of their activities on the village of Sipson. They have blighted the Heathrow villages for almost 20 years as a result of threats of expansion. They have brought in a bond scheme whereby they have bought up the village of Sipson, even though the Government have now said there will be no third runway, for which I thank them. The Labour Opposition have said exactly the same; we are opposed to a third runway now. There is cross-House consensus on this, therefore. I am not completely sure that that is written in blood, but it will be if there is any going back on the commitment.
However, BAA is still not giving up those properties. In fact, this month it has bought more, and it has housed people in them on a temporary basis—for 12 months or two years. That has destabilised Sipson.
London Local Authorities and Transport for London (No. 2) Bill [Lords]
Jim Fitzpatrick Excerpts(12 years, 2 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Bob Blackman
I thank the hon. Gentleman for his intervention. The reality, of course, is that this Bill is being promoted not by the Government, but by London local authorities and TfL. They have been subject to considerable pressure from the pedicab trade, and most of the people concerned are individuals who ply their trade.
Jim Fitzpatrick (Poplar and Limehouse) (Lab)
The hon. Gentleman is responding to a key question from my hon. Friend the Member for Ealing North (Stephen Pound). Notwithstanding the obvious disappointment that clause 17 is likely to be dropped when the Bill goes into Committee, does the hon. Gentleman share my disappointment that that means there will be no regulation of that industry, which many people say is an accident waiting to happen?
Bob Blackman
I thank the hon. Gentleman for his intervention. I think that a voluntary system of regulation is needed and should be attempted. If such a system does not work, I am sure that we will return to the matter in a further such Bill in future.
Jim Fitzpatrick (Poplar and Limehouse) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Bury North (Mr Nuttall), who has just completed a very tidy 60 minutes. I congratulate the hon. Member for Harrow East (Bob Blackman) on introducing the Bill. Unsurprisingly, I will be extremely brief. We support the Bill and will do so later this evening. The provisions on de-cluttering, damage to the highway, dealing with skips and electric vehicle charging points are all very positive, as detailed by the hon. Member for Harrow East. We had an exchange on the disappointment about the pedicabs issue, but that will go to Committee and we look forward to discussing it then.
I noted the comments by the hon. Member for Harrow East on football stadiums and litter, which was one of the issues discussed previously. When I read the report of the debate in another place, I noted the comments of my noble Friend Lord Rosser, who referred to Hammersmith and Fulham borough council’s concern about the litter around Chelsea football club. As a West Ham supporter, I have no problem whatsoever with criticising Chelsea. I am not entirely comfortable with agreeing with Hammersmith and Fulham, but for the sake of Chelsea I will make an exception. We are very supportive of the Bill and look forward to its going into Committee for further scrutiny.
Mr Chope
Perhaps. That might be because the hon. Member for Poplar and Limehouse did not want to draw the House’s attention to the fact that the issue of pedicabs was raised when his party was in government and the House was considering the London Local Authorities and Transport for London Bill 2004-05 to 2007-08. I think that I am right in saying that he was a member of the Government at the time. On that occasion, the Government said:
“The clauses relating to pedicabs did not address the concerns the Government had about passenger safety. The clauses made no provision for any minimum standards to be applied to or for any checks to be carried out on pedicabs, their riders, or their operators, nor for any training to be required or for a registration to be refused, suspended or revoked. The Government pointed out that the registration of pedicabs under these clauses could be mistakenly viewed by the public as an endorsement of the vehicle's basic roadworthiness and the character of the rider.”
The then Government took the view that there was a serious problem that needed to be addressed and that the private legislation was not going far enough. Tonight, the Opposition seem to be taking the line that it is probably a good idea to withdraw even the proposals in this Bill relating to pedicabs.
Jim Fitzpatrick
In my very brief comments, I said, as I did in my intervention on the hon. Member for Harrow East (Bob Blackman), that I was disappointed that the issue of pedicabs was not being addressed. There is a challenge here. Were pedicabs to be endorsed by the legislation, people might feel them to be safe, but were they to be scrutinised through the legislation, people would have every expectation that that would make them safe.
Mr Chope
I am trying to interpret what the hon. Gentleman has said. I know that he is probably walking a proverbial tightrope, but he seems to be saying that he would like the provisions on pedicabs to remain in the Bill and objects to their being taken out in Committee. Is that the right interpretation, or would he like the different interest groups, whether they be pedicab supporters or taxi drivers, to interpret his remarks as neutral?
Jim Fitzpatrick
I think that what I said was that we look forward to the Bill going into Committee so that we can look at these matters in some detail.
Oral Answers to Questions
Jim Fitzpatrick Excerpts(12 years, 2 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Justine Greening
My hon. Friend, for whom I have a huge amount of respect, demonstrates why we need to have a measured approach to the issue, and he is right to point out that we now have cross-party consensus on the fact that there should not be a third runway at Heathrow. The final point that I make to him, however, is that we need to realise that capacity and connectivity are not exactly one and the same thing. We absolutely need to ensure that we have the connectivity for our aviation sector not only nationally but, in particular, at the hub airport, and in many respects that is absolutely the most important thing—to make sure that we stay competitive.
Jim Fitzpatrick (Poplar and Limehouse) (Lab)
Given that my hon. Friend the Member for West Ham (Lyn Brown) has exposed the Government’s dilemma on aviation capacity, in that they say they want to explore all options but, as she reports, have ruled out all options, and given also the report in today’s Financial Times that Ken Livingstone is against Boris island in order, as he says, to protect east London’s environment and to defend the west London economy, why has the Secretary of State not responded to the offer of my hon. Friend the Member for Garston and Halewood (Maria Eagle) of cross-party talks to explore the possibility of a national aviation plan?
Justine Greening
The door is always open to talking with the Opposition on issues of national interest.
Civil Aviation Bill
Jim Fitzpatrick Excerpts(12 years, 3 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Jim Fitzpatrick (Poplar and Limehouse) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Rochester and Strood (Mark Reckless) in what has been an interesting debate with many informative contributions. As my hon. Friend the Member for Garston and Halewood (Maria Eagle) said in her opening remarks, however, the Bill’s arrival is something of a surprise and seems to have more to do with the lack of Government business than with anything else. It is timely none the less, and we welcome it and look forward to it reaching Committee.
The Select Committee on Transport has, with its report published on 19 January, furnished us with a good start on the Bill, and the four proposed evidence sessions should mean that we are better informed when the Public Bill Committee begins its work in earnest. As we heard from its Chairman, my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Riverside (Mrs Ellman), the Committee has made 12 different recommendations in its report and several other important points, and I am sure that the Bill Committee will want to see all those addressed, as well as the other points in the report which were not recommendations. They will be combined with the Library paper, the Department for Transport’s impact assessment, the explanatory notes, the Bill itself and the personal briefing last week from the Transport Minister of State and her officials, for which we were grateful. As my hon. Friend the Member for Garston and Halewood and others have said, we Opposition Members send our best wishes to the right hon. Member for Chipping Barnet (Mrs Villiers) for a successful operation and a speedy recovery. I am sure that the Under-Secretary of State for Transport, the hon. Member for Lewes (Norman Baker), also wishes to see her back in her place before Committee—otherwise he will be an aviation expert sooner than he might have suspected.
Justine Greening
I can report to the House that the Minister of State is watching the BBC Parliament channel in hospital at this very moment, so I am sure that she is following matters from afar.
Jim Fitzpatrick
I am sure that the House is grateful for that update and good news from the Secretary of State.
As I was about to say, we have a good idea about those aspects of the Bill that we will want to look at in particular, given all the background information, briefings and papers with which we have been supplied.
There have obviously been numerous briefings from industry stakeholders, community groups and others, mostly welcoming the Bill in general but asking for specific issues to be raised, and we will do our best to examine them; some we will be able to support, but all we will wish to look at more closely.
My hon. Friend spelt out several issues in some detail. There is a broad welcome for the general reform of the CAA and its role, but questions will need to be addressed about security, environmental duty, passenger welfare and protection, NATS and the role of the National Audit Office. As she said, we have interests in all those areas. She outlined our concern about security and the need for assurances that the proposed new arrangements will be able to respond quickly to events, and on the quality and experience of the staff who will have to be either transferred or recruited. There are also the questions of costs and ultimate decision making.
On the environment, there is a clear change of policy from that of the previous Government. The Transport Committee explored the issue with the Minister of State, and we will wish to return to it because, notwithstanding the fact that many airports are good neighbours to nearby residents, we want best practice to be adopted at all airports. It appears to us that a duty would have been the best way forward.
The passenger as customer needs to be assured that their position is protected at the airport and against companies failing, so we, like many hon. Members, welcome the ATOL changes. As my hon. Friend graphically recalled, however, her experience in the snow last year with the former Secretary of State was not a happy one for her, for him or, most importantly, for the passengers who were stranded, so we want safeguards against such situations. Passengers deserve the best protection against failure, but we recognise that airports are at the mercy of other forces outside their control.
The question about the role of airlines and secondary duties, which the Transport Committee raised, seems to be addressed in the Bill but warrants consideration, as do the various competition structures and appeal mechanisms outlined in the Bill and its schedules.
My hon. Friend raised several other issues, which the Bill Committee will I am sure be keen to discuss with Ministers, including how the aviation consumer advocacy panel will work, the lack of detail on the requirements to publish passenger welfare plans, the performance of the UK Border Agency and baggage handling, to mention just a few.
The Secretary of State opened the debate and clearly outlined the measures in the Bill: the greater accountability in the CAA reforms, the transfer of security and the extension of ATOL. I have mentioned the points that my hon. Friend the Member for Garston and Halewood made in reply. She welcomed the Bill but expressed the hope that we would improve it in Committee. She commended the Transport Committee, but expressed concern about the time it had been given to do its work. As I have mentioned, she covered comprehensively our concerns, especially on the security provisions.
The hon. Member for Crawley (Henry Smith), whose constituency covers Gatwick, is knowledgeable on aviation matters. He raised several relevant questions, including over the possible break-up of airports and the role of the CAA.
My hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Riverside, the Chair of the Transport Committee, made a useful and insightful contribution, in which she referred to a number of concerns that the Select Committee had registered. As I and other hon. Members have said, we will consider those concerns in the Public Bill Committee.
The hon. Member for Finchley and Golders Green (Mike Freer), who apologised that he would not be here for the winding-up speeches, spoke up for business travellers. He and my hon. Friend the Member for Garston and Halewood raised important questions about the UK Border Agency. He also spoke about regulation and security.
My former ministerial colleague at the Department for Transport, my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow South (Mr Harris), made the case for ministerial cars strongly. He expanded on the need for a vibrant aviation industry. He argued that aviation need not be and is not the enemy of the environment. He also made a powerful case about the capacity constraints at Heathrow.
The hon. Member for Spelthorne (Kwasi Kwarteng), who I do not think is in his place, confused the Chamber about his position on the third runway. He seemed to make points both for and against it. I wish him well in maintaining the ability to articulate opposite positions. He is in good company in this place. Perhaps he could send me a copy of his press release on his speech, as I am sure that it will be worth reading. He also made good points about the industry and the Bill.
My hon. Friend the Member for Sedgefield (Phil Wilson) and other hon. Members spoke about regional airports and asked about their role and capacity. He spoke specifically about the future of Durham Tees Valley airport and the impact of the value of Heathrow’s slots on UK aviation. He made a strong case for the continuance of his local airport, as did others. He has been lobbying on that issue for a considerable time.
The hon. Member for Cambridge (Dr Huppert) raised a number of issues that he wanted to be raised in Committee. I am sure that they will be. He apologised to the House and hoped that we would not be disappointed at his brevity. I assure him that we would never be disappointed at his brevity. I cannot imagine how he arrived at that conclusion.
My hon. Friend the Member for Luton South (Gavin Shuker) is another member of the Transport Committee and also has an airport close to his constituency. He drew on both aspects to raise some key points, including capacity.
The hon. Member for Congleton (Fiona Bruce) raised a number of issues about the extension of the ATOL scheme and its weaknesses at present.
My hon. Friend the Member for Bolton West (Julie Hilling) raised questions about timing, the level of scrutiny, the absence of an environmental duty in the Bill and security.
The hon. Member for Tamworth (Christopher Pincher) did not seem to accept that the Bill has arrived earlier than expected. Perhaps his ministerial colleagues could clarify that for him and reassure him, as did my hon. Friend the Member for Luton South. The hon. Gentleman raised European comparisons and the critical role that aviation plays in the economy.
My hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh North and Leith (Mark Lazarowicz) raised the need for environmental progress. He spoke about the environmental progress that has been made and about the absence of such a duty in the Bill. He raised the BMI takeover, as did a number of other colleagues.
The hon. Member for Milton Keynes South (Iain Stewart), another member of the Transport Committee, gave us the benefit of his examination of the key issues. He confirmed that Milton Keynes neither has nor needs its own airport.
My hon. Friend the Member for Feltham and Heston (Seema Malhotra) made her maiden speech. It was warmly received on both sides of the House, as maiden speeches generally are. Her contribution demonstrated a confidence and self-assurance that I am sure will serve her constituents well in the years ahead. Her description of her constituency and of the significance of Heathrow underpinned the relevance of her contributing to this debate. I hope that her mention of various local media outlets will ensure that her speech is covered well. I would be very surprised if it was not. She undoubtedly has the prospect of a long and distinguished time in this place. I look forward to watching her progress in the years ahead.
The hon. Member for Folkestone and Hythe (Damian Collins) was generous in his praise of my hon. Friend’s maiden speech and made a number of points, particularly about how to reduce the environmental impact of stacking by increasing capacity rather than constraining it. I strongly recommend that he talks to his party’s Front Benchers to suggest that they take up the offer of cross-party talks made by my hon. Friend the Member for Garston and Halewood. His contribution was very thoughtful and covered the role of his local airports, and I agreed with much of what he said.
In contrast, I disagreed with many of the points made by my hon. Friend the Member for Luton North (Kelvin Hopkins), who is not in his place. He spoke briefly about security and his opposition to increased capacity, and argued for more regional airport usage. His local airport is already very successful, and he argued that it could do more.
I have to report that, as the hon. Member for Amber Valley (Nigel Mills) rose, the batteries in my hearing aids ran out, and sadly the spare batteries were also flat. Some would say that that was good timing, but that would be very cruel. He is very softly spoken even with the amplification at the back of the Benches, but he spoke of the need, or rather lack of it, for regulated competition and of the five airports within 50 or 60 miles of his constituency. He raised questions about the ATOL provisions which I am sure will be asked in Committee, whether he is with us or not.
The hon. Member for Stockton South (James Wharton) mentioned Durham Tees Valley airport and powerfully supported my hon. Friend the Member for Sedgefield in the cross-party campaign for it to maintain its position. He was generous to my hon. Friend the Member for Feltham and Heston; in fact, I believe he was the first Conservative Back Bencher to own up to having been a recent visitor to Feltham and Heston. A number of colleagues repeated that afterwards.
The hon. Member for Thurrock (Jackie Doyle-Price) argued for less regulation and more market influence, and consequently a better deal for the passenger, but she also called for clarity in decision making and for a more mature debate—something that Labour has been offering and would very much like to take place.
The hon. Member for Witham (Priti Patel), another visitor to and admirer of Feltham and Heston and its new MP, accepted that she was making a number of points that had already been raised, but wanted to cover them again. She also raised the important point of investment in aviation across the globe and our falling behind our international competitors in developing our infrastructure.
The hon. Member for Daventry (Chris Heaton-Harris) explained how important aviation was to his constituency in particular, and agreed that the regulations covering the industry needed updating. He made a strong pitch for a British Airways business lounge pass, and I sure The Daily Telegraph will be very keen to report his progress. He might want to keep us all posted on how he gets on with that one.
The hon. Member for Rochester and Strood (Mark Reckless), who was the final Back-Bench speaker, raised the question of the fitness of the regulations for the 21st century.
As many Members have mentioned, the aerospace and aviation sectors are vital elements of the UK economy. Collectively, the industry is a major earner, manufacturer and exporter. Aviation’s role in connecting us with the rest of the world is key to growth, which has sadly been lacking in the Government’s economic performance since they came into office.
Aviation has made huge strides in addressing its environmental sustainability. At a recent aerospace reception here in the House, it was stated that the new A380 was 25% cleaner and quieter than its predecessors. In fact, it was said to be more fuel-efficient than a Toyota Prius. If someone drove it down the M4, they would not have to pay the London congestion charge.
Aviation is worth £11 billion to UK gross domestic product and employs 200,000 people directly and 600,000 indirectly. It is a critical industry, yet Government policy is in disarray. My hon. Friend the Member for Garston and Halewood offered cross-party talks to address the critical need for a national plan, and it is a very sad comment on the coalition that the Government did not respond positively. The offer still stands.
The CBI, London First, the British Chambers of Commerce, the TUC and industry stakeholders are seeking a plan—a strategy to map out how aviation will develop and contribute to our economic recovery. They will clearly have to wait for that, for as my hon. Friend pointed out, “better not bigger” is a slogan, not a policy. At least we have the Bill.
Dr Huppert
The shadow Secretary of State promised me some ideas in her speech. Has the hon. Gentleman had a chance to ask her what they are? If so, could he tell us, because she failed singularly to come up with any?
Jim Fitzpatrick
The hon. Gentleman was not listening. My hon. Friend held out the prospect of cross-party talks to see whether there is a way forward to develop a national plan. Labour proposed a third runway at Heathrow but lost the election. We recognise that it would be unrealistic to continue with that proposal. To demonstrate that there were no preconditions to cross-party talks, she said we are dropping the plan for the third runway, so let us talk about options, and about how we increase capacity and whether we need to do so.
As the treasurer of the all-party group on road passenger transport, my hon. Friend the Member for Central Ayrshire(Mr Donohoe) asked whether Northolt was the answer. Is the answer the Thames estuary, which has been raised by a number of colleagues, including the Mayor of London? Is it Gatwick? The Opposition, supported by industry, say that there is a capacity issue in the south-east that needs to be addressed. It is all well and good if we come up with a consensus, but let us sit down and talk about it. That is the invitation from my hon. Friend the Member for Garston and Halewood.
As I said, at least we have the Bill. We look forward to the Public Bill Committee and engaging with the Government to improve the Bill. We are happy to support it on Second Reading, and I look forward to the Minister’s reply.
National Policy Statement for Ports
Jim Fitzpatrick Excerpts(12 years, 3 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Dr Thérèse Coffey (Suffolk Coastal) (Con)
I am pleased to be able to contribute briefly to the final part of a debate on which the House embarked back in November. There could be no better port with which to end it than the port of Felixstowe, which is in my constituency.
I support the Government’s market-based approach to ports, but I want them to receive one message loud and clear, namely that ports should be treated consistently and allowed a level playing field. I believe that the Minister supports that view. Liverpool recently secured £30 million of regional growth funds for help with dredging. I do not resent the recognition that my home city, where I grew up, needs a bit of support to bring about regeneration and create jobs. We must make sure, however, that such—how can I put this?—gifts are targeted so that they do not discourage private investors at other ports around the country.
It is also important that we have joined-up thinking with other policy statements on rail and road. We have some great ports in our country, but we need to ensure that once the containers and so on come off the boats, we have great networks to move the containers around the country.
Jim Fitzpatrick (Poplar and Limehouse) (Lab)
I am very grateful to the hon. Lady for giving way. She raised similar points yesterday in Westminster Hall in a debate on the port of Southampton and I was very reassured by the Minister’s comments in response. Was she also reassured?
Dr Thérèse Coffey
I was very reassured, but I am merely trying to re-emphasise that we must ensure that Departments work together, whether that means that the Department for Transport works with the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs or with the Department for Communities and Local Government, to ensure that the UK economy as a whole can benefit from fantastic ports. I also support the coastal shipping initiative, which I know my hon. Friend the Minister is championing.
In the adjourned debate, my hon. Friends the Members for Thurrock (Jackie Doyle-Price) and for Dover (Charlie Elphicke) mentioned nature issues and habitat directives. I share many of their sentiments, as we need to have an appropriate balance, but that does not mean that everything should be swept aside. Just next door to my own port is an area of outstanding natural beauty: 1% of the world’s sea pea happens to be right there alongside a heritage asset, a Napoleonic fort. Although we must be mindful of the need to ensure that such things do not get in the way of port development, successful ports can have both. In fact, birds are attracted to the cranes and so on, so the area has become a rather distinguished twitching zone where people can go and spot rare birds.
I want to emphasise today the significant concerns about the implementation of marine conservation zones and reference areas. Those are new ventures for our country and although I am not against them at all, we hear that DEFRA and Natural England want to work with existing businesses but are very quiet when it comes to talking about new business and replacement activities.
We have great champions for shipping in the Minister and in the shadow Minister, as I know from his previous service. Long may that continue, because ports are what keep this country going.
Thames River Crossings
Jim Fitzpatrick Excerpts(12 years, 3 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Jackie Doyle-Price
I do agree. That is why I am so keen to see another crossing in east London. It has always been my view that many of the journeys across the Dartford crossing take place because there is no other crossing between Blackwall and Dartford. A new crossing would alleviate some of the congestion at Dartford, because it would no longer be the only show in town for London orbital journeys. We need to look at where demand comes from. A big user category is HGV traffic from Dover and we need to look creatively at how we can divert some of that traffic away from Dartford and alleviate congestion there.
As I was saying, the congestion that is caused when one of the crossings is closed is causing misery for motorists, but more importantly it results in significant costs for businesses; they count the costs of the consequences of congestion. That is a particular concern in Thurrock, which is becoming a major logistics hub. It is interesting that this debate follows one on ports, because the growth of the port sector in Thurrock is phenomenal and hugely exciting. In addition to the new port at London Gateway, we have the port of Tilbury, which has gone through 125 years and is expanding, and the Cobelfret port at Purfleet, which has a roll-on/roll-off facility that is expanding. That is supporting a massive increase in job opportunities in the logistics sector and highlights the importance of getting Thurrock’s road network moving.
Jim Fitzpatrick (Poplar and Limehouse) (Lab)
I congratulate the hon. Lady on securing this important debate. There is consensus across the House that there are not enough crossings east of Tower bridge. Given what she has just said about the London Gateway port mentioned by the Minister in the previous debate, as well as the idea for a Thames estuary airport, which is all over the papers this morning because of Boris Johnson’s comments in The Daily Telegraph, and given that the centre of gravity in London has been moving east for the past 20 years and will continue to do so, does she think that, if we have the money, two crossings just would not cut it and that we would need four or even six?
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)
Order. Before the hon. Lady responds may I remind the shadow Minister that any interventions in an Adjournment debate should be made from the Back Benches?
Jackie Doyle-Price
I am grateful for the opportunity to address that point. I have been less than compromising in my attitude towards the Thames estuary airport, but I think the hon. Gentleman's point about more crossings is that we need a much more long-term approach to our national road infrastructure. I remind him that his Government looked at this issue in 2009 but parked it because it was too difficult. When we consider road infrastructure issues, there is often a natural nimby tendency. We all want to represent our voters’ interests, but we need the courage to have the debate and think about what is really important for the long term. If we do not have that, we will be putting much-needed jobs at risk, and we cannot afford to do that right now. Generally, I accept the hon. Gentleman’s point that we must look at where the traffic need is likely to be in the long term.
However, as my hon. Friend the Minister said in his statement on ports policy, taking into account where shipping will arrive in the future can open up opportunities to reduce road journeys. We need to look creatively at how we move things around, taking a joined-up approach. The issue of the airport is interesting because, if truth be known, that debate has been taking place, championed by its enthusiasts, without any thought as to the impact on shipping and wider infrastructure outside London.
Port of Southampton
Jim Fitzpatrick Excerpts(12 years, 3 months ago)
Westminster HallRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Jim Fitzpatrick (Poplar and Limehouse) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to see you in the Chair this morning, Mr Gray. I am delighted to be here for the debate, and congratulate my right hon. Friend the Member for Southampton, Itchen (Mr Denham) on securing it, ably supported by my hon. Friend the Member for Southampton, Test (Dr Whitehead) and colleagues on the other side of the House. Both my right hon. Friend and my hon. Friend are former distinguished Ministers—indeed my right hon. Friend was a Secretary of State—and they both have considerable experience in the matters under debate. The speeches of the hon. Members for Isle of Wight (Mr Turner), for Gosport (Caroline Dinenage), for Romsey and Southampton North (Caroline Nokes) and for New Forest East (Dr Lewis) supported the case being put to the Minister, and the only dissenting voice—and even then, only slightly dissenting—was that of the hon. Member for Suffolk Coastal (Dr Coffey), who used a football analogy to outline her slight difficulty. As a West Ham supporter, in a debate on Southampton, I was not sure how I would get into the debate the fact that those teams are joint top of the championship, but the hon. Lady has provided me with the opportunity.
The role of a shadow Minister is sometimes puzzling, especially for someone who has been a Minister—not making the decisions and not having the intensity of programme or the diary pressures that the Minister experiences. As Her Majesty’s Opposition, our job is to challenge, which does not, of course, always mean opposing, especially when some of the things that the Government will eventually decide to do were left to them by us. I know that the Minister will refer to that fact in due course. I think that he was ably assisted by my right hon. Friend the Member for Southampton, Itchen, who put me somewhat in the frame for this situation. In debates such as this, the local knowledge of my right hon. Friend and other colleagues is so comprehensive that there is little for me to add. I will therefore be brief, and I am sure that the Minister will use the time to respond to specific points that have been raised in this important debate.
I am sure that we will all agree on one point: shipping and the ports industry are great assets to our country, doing sterling work efficiently, well and almost invisibly. It is only when there is a tragedy, such as the one this week in Italy, that shipping ever makes the national headlines. However, we know how important shipping is to the UK economy in all its aspects, and many hon. Members have made the case for that view this morning.
I should be grateful if the Minister reassured us about the general working of the MMO overall, about issues of implementation, and, in passing, about the impact on other ports besides Southampton—especially London. However, we are here to deal with specific questions raised by right hon. and hon. Members during the debate. My right hon. Friend the Member for Southampton, Itchen raised with us serious questions about the procedures adopted by the MMO—the errors, failures and delays, compounded by legal challenges from commercial competitors. My hon. Friend the Member for St Helens North (Mr Watts) raised the broader question of the planning process for major developments, and in passing I would say that it was a mistake by the Government that the coalition decided to abolish the Infrastructure Planning Commission, which was specifically designed to deal with the problems of unnecessary delays to national infrastructure projects.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Southampton, Itchen outlined in some detail why time is so critical in the present instance, and what he said was reinforced by hon. Members across the Chamber. Time will tell whether it will be possible for private sector finance to be invested, as many hon. Members discussed. We have heard that the issue is about ABP versus Hutchison and Southampton versus Felixtowe; we have also heard that it is about Southampton versus Liverpool. My right hon. Friend said that Southampton wants a level playing field on the cruise terminal question, and the Opposition support that view. I know from my hon. Friends that Liverpool is offering to pay back grant that it received. We welcome that. That issue is secondary to today’s debate, but none the less it is with the Minister and perhaps he will tell us when and how it will be resolved.
As an aside, I will mention that, like many other colleagues, I have used the port of Southampton on several occasions. Most recently I was on the Cunard liner the Queen Mary 2, coming back from New York, and I will be sailing with Fred Olson from Southampton to Liverpool and Belfast on a Titanic mini-cruise in April.
As has been mentioned, the conclusion of the important ports policy statement debate will be tomorrow, in the Chamber. The Minister is held in high regard by the shipping industry and he knows that the Government need to get behind British shipping rather than in its way, and to try to remove obstacles placed in its way by others. I know that he wants to be helpful, so I look forward to his response, in the hope that he will offer clear reassurance to hon. Members and to the port of Southampton, about bringing the issue of timing and the MMO to a speedy conclusion.
Oral Answers to Questions
Jim Fitzpatrick Excerpts(12 years, 4 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mrs Villiers
We have made it clear that it is vital to get the costs of running the railways down, and it is also vital that the benefits of those cost reductions be shared by both taxpayers and fare payers so that we can give both better value for money. If we can achieve savings on the scale contemplated by McNulty, we could, we hope, see the end of the era of above-inflation fare increases.
Jim Fitzpatrick (Poplar and Limehouse) (Lab)
Costs impact on fares, as the Minister has just said. In London, Conservative Mayor Boris Johnson—[Hon. Members: “Hooray!”] I expected a more Pavlovian response, Mr Speaker. Mayor Johnson has approved rises on average of nearly 6%, yet Labour mayoral candidate Ken Livingstone—[Hon. Members: “Hooray!”] Much better, Mr Speaker. Both sides of the House appreciate the Labour candidate; I am sure he would be very reassured. Ken Livingstone says he can cut fares by between 7% and 11% because of Transport for London surpluses. Has the Minister had any discussions with Mayor Johnson about the rises?
Mrs Villiers
The hon. Gentleman is completely naive in his approach to Ken Livingstone’s proposals on fares. Livingstone’s numbers simply do not add up, and his track record shows that he promises fare reductions and ends up delivering fare hikes.
Coastguard Modernisation
Jim Fitzpatrick Excerpts(12 years, 5 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Mike Penning)
With your permission, Mr Speaker, I should like to make a statement on the Government’s final decisions about coastguard modernisation in the light of responses received to the second round of consultation, which ended on 6 October 2011.
I should first like to remind the House that the plans for coastguard modernisation announced by my right hon. Friend the Member for Runnymede and Weybridge (Mr Hammond) in his statement on 14 July, following the first round of consultation, are not about altering the arrangements for front-line rescue services around our coasts. Rescue activities will continue to be carried out as they are today by the 3,500 community volunteers in the Coastguard Rescue Service; the lifeboats operated by the Royal National Lifeboat Institution; independent lifeboats operated by volunteer groups; and our search and rescue helicopters. The bravery and commitment shown by those providing front-line services have served this country well and will continue to do so.
The plans we have announced specifically include an increase in the number of regular coastguard officers who provide operational leadership to support the 3,500 volunteers in the Coastguard Rescue Service, whom I mentioned. These plans therefore reflect the importance we attach to continuing the delivery of a first-class local rescue service directly serving citizens and recreational mariners.
The decision announced on 14 July, and the further details I am announcing today, are about modernising the coastguard co-ordination function only. Modernisation is needed to address the limited resilience of current rescue co-ordination arrangements, which have changed little since the removal of the visual watch in the 1970s. Modernisation will provide the operational resilience needed; distribute work more effectively and efficiently around coastguard centres; make the most of the professional skills of our regular coastguards with levels of reward that match their responsibilities; and deliver improved support and co-ordination for our Coastguard Rescue Service and our search and rescue partners.
The original proposals, which we consulted on last December, had been discussed and developed over several years by the previous Government. We said at the outset that we would have a genuine consultation and that we expected the outcome of the process to be improved and more resilient plans.
We made it clear in July that we had listened to the views expressed in the first consultation. As a result, we announced that, in implementing a nationally networked system, we would retain more coastguard centres than originally proposed; keep all these centres operating 24/7; and retain more regular coastguard jobs. These plans will keep open at least one of each of the paired coastguard centres. Operational pairs have experience and knowledge in managing incidents across their shared geographical areas. Keeping at least one centre from each pair will therefore ensure that that experience and local knowledge is retained. In addition, as we explained in July, the operational costs of retaining the 10 centres overall plus a small centre in London will be offset by operating only one national maritime operations centre—MOC—with an unmanned back-up in Dover, rather than the two that were previously planned.
The second consultation exercise, which is what this statement is about, invited views on four specific issues: the retention of both the centres at Stornoway and Shetland and their operation on a 24/7 basis; the change to a single maritime operations centre with an unmanned back-up in Dover; the retention of Holyhead rather than its paired centre at Liverpool; and the retention of Milford Haven rather than its paired centre at Swansea.
The second consultation closed on 6 October. I should like again to thank all those who engaged in the process, including those in the service, members of the public and Members from both sides of the House. All responses were read and examined by an independent team, which has helped to develop the modernisation proposals. I am making its report on the issues identified in the consultation available today on the Maritime and Coastguard Agency website, and it will be available in the Library of the House.
Let me now turn to the specific questions we posed in the second consultation. The support for keeping open both the centres at Stornoway and on Shetland was overwhelming, so I can confirm that we will keep them both open on a 24/7 basis.
On the move to a single maritime centre, concerns were expressed about having both an unmanned centre and its back-up in the south, when they should be geographically separated, and about the possible reduction in capabilities at Aberdeen to co-ordinate oil or gas incidents if there was not to be a second main centre in Aberdeen. However, we continue to believe that with more centres remaining open on a 24/7 basis, there is sufficient cover not to need a second nationally networked system. Consequently, there will be one network in the south.
We also believe that the back-up at Dover is sufficiently distant from the maritime operations centre in the Portsmouth-Southampton area—I shall return to that later—to provide the necessary resilience while minimising costs. However, we will retain additional specialist staff in Aberdeen to maintain the Maritime and Coastguard Agency’s close links with the oil and gas sector. Those jobs will remain.
On the choice of Holyhead rather than Liverpool, representations were received stressing the scale and proximity of maritime and tourist activities at both locations; questioning the importance of the Welsh language considerations highlighted in the first consultation; and concerning the running-cost advantages and higher disposal costs for Liverpool. We considered the responses carefully, but as we made clear in July, we have identified no operational or financial reasons for preferring one location to the other. In particular there are no significant differences in running costs.
In the light of comments in the first consultation, it is also our view that familiarity with Welsh place names, rather than speaking Welsh, must be an important consideration supporting the retention of Holyhead. As a result, I have concluded that Holyhead should form part of the nationally networked system and that the co-ordination function at Liverpool will close. We plan to maintain a marine office, coastguard rescue team, coastal operational hub and a radio mast at the Liverpool site.
Representations were also received about the proximity, particularly of maritime activities, at Milford Haven and Swansea. The representations concerned the perceived risks of having a centre so close to liquefied natural gas terminals at Milford Haven; better transport links in Swansea; and the wider potential recruitment pool in the Swansea area. I must reiterate, however, that within the nationally networked system, which will co-ordinate incidents in this area, there are no operational reasons for choosing one or other of these sites. Similarly, as was explained in July, we are satisfied that there are no considerations that favour either location.
In addition, we have not recently experienced any recruitment problems at Milford Haven. As a result, I have concluded that it remains right that the choice of Milford Haven as the site for a continuing coastguard co-ordination centre should reflect the Department for Transport’s continuing substantial levels of employment in Swansea. This means that we will no longer have a coastguard co-ordination function at Swansea, but we plan that the building will remain in use as a coastal operations hub for the volunteer rescue teams. It will be at that site.
Having reached these decisions, I am today publishing a short summary document that sets out a clear blueprint for the operation of the nationally networked coastguard co-ordination service comprising a single national operations centre in the Portsmouth area—again, I shall return to that—a back-up national operations centre at Dover; and centres at the MCA sites at Humber, Aberdeen, Shetland, Stornoway, Belfast, Holyhead, Milford Haven and Falmouth. This blueprint also sets out the previously announced provisional timetable for the closure of the other existing co-ordination centres before 31 March 2015. The centre at Solent will be replaced by the new maritime operations centre. This timetable remains our best estimate of when these centres will close, although clearly it will need to be kept under review to match operational requirements.
The document also explains—and I stress this point—the strong commitment to the coastguard presence that will be retained at the existing MCA sites at Liverpool, Swansea and the Thames, even after the co-ordination centre function ends. There will be a similarly strong presence in the Clyde area, but not at the existing site.
Finally, I would like to say something about the location of the new national maritime operations centre. With the full support of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government, I am pleased to inform the House that the maritime operations centre will be housed in the vacant fire control centre building in Fareham—the significance of that with a former fireman standing here will be obvious. The building’s existing facilities mean that the maritime operations centre can be established quickly, allowing for an extensive programme of tests and trials to prove and refine the new concept of operations for maritime rescue co-ordination. Those tests and trials will be an important element in addressing the understandable concerns from many professional coastguards about the operation of the new system and will ensure no reduction in capabilities in the transition period. The choice of Fareham also makes best use of the Government’s existing estate and minimises up-front costs, offering best value for money.
I understand, of course, that the closure of some existing co-ordination centres and the loss of some coastguard jobs will come as a disappointment to those directly affected. However, the decisions that I have announced today will deliver the modernised, nationally networked and fully resilient coastguard service that we require for the future, while also reducing costs. Critically, these decisions will enable us better to support our coastguard volunteers and the front-line rescue capabilities on which the public and mariners depend. I commend this statement to the House.
Jim Fitzpatrick (Poplar and Limehouse) (Lab)
I thank the Minister for an advance copy of his statement. I would expect no less a courtesy from a former fellow fireman, but it is especially generous coming from someone who served with the Essex brigade to someone from London. I apologise to the Minister and to you, Mr Speaker, that my hon. Friend the Member for Garston and Halewood (Maria Eagle), the shadow Secretary of State, is not present. She has pursued the issue vigorously, as have the shadow Secretary of State for Education and the shadow Leader of the House. She is particularly frustrated at being unable to be here today, especially as her own station is to close.
I also thank the Minister for making today’s statement, ending the prolonged concern and uncertainty in coastguard communities. These exercises take time, and I know that the Minister made a considerable personal effort in travelling to various parts of the country to meet and engage with staff and others. That is to his credit. He will also have listened to the respected chief executive of the MCA, Sir Alan Massey, and the highly regarded chief coastguard, Rod Johnson. I, too, would like to take this opportunity to express our support for them and the entire coastguard service, which so professionally co-ordinates the first-class search and rescue capability around our coast.
As a member of the Worshipful Company of Shipwrights, as former shipping Minister and now as shadow shipping Minister, I, like the Minister, am proud to wear the red ensign badge, in solidarity with and respect for British shipping in all its aspects. I have no doubt that the Minister has done his best within the limits set by the Treasury and his departmental budget; but equally, I have no doubt that these proposals are at least partly driven by financial constraints. He knows the concerns out there about shipping safety owing to the loss of Nimrods, the ending of the emergency towing vessel contract and the outstanding review of the air-sea search and rescue service. The Select Committee on Transport, under the excellent chairmanship of my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Riverside (Mrs Ellman), echoed that concern when it said:
“The evidence…raises serious concerns that safety will be jeopardised if these proposals proceed.”
In that case the Government were right to look again and amend their original proposals.
I would be grateful if the Minister responded to a few questions. In the original plan he envisaged two operational centres, we assumed for resilience. Can he reassure the House that the non-staffed back-up will be able to do the job if the main centre crashes? Can he also say how quickly it would be up and running under such circumstances? Can he tell us how many coastguards will remain in full-time employment after this modernisation programme? I think he said that there would be more, but I assume that that is against the original consultation document, not the present establishment. Part of our review in government was about addressing low pay among coastguards historically, compared with similar staff, with similar duties, in the other emergency services. Given that remaining staff will be undertaking more work with more responsibilities and that we anticipate they will need to be upskilled, will this modernisation address that historic anomaly? My last question is when we can expect a statement on the future of the air-sea search and rescue service.
In conclusion, we welcome the Minister’s acceptance of the need to keep both Shetland and Stornoway, and we are relieved that the Department proposes 24/7 cover at all the remaining stations. His decision to retain one of each pair of twinned stations is an acknowledgement that the question of local knowledge weighed heavily on him and his officials. I am sure he will understand, however, that in a number of communities out there now, there will be real disappointment and even anger today. I look forward to hearing the Minister’s answers.
Mike Penning
I thank my friend for his comments: we agree on most things, but occasionally disagree; perhaps we will disagree a little bit today. Let me answer the hon. Gentleman’s four specific questions.
In the original proposal, which we inherited from the previous Administration, two MOCs were required, not least because the majority of the stations would have gone part time. They are no longer going part time; they are 24/7, so the resilience within the system, which is not there today, will give us the communications resilience that we need. If we need to move into the unmanned MOC we will do so. We looked at this carefully and found that in 99.9% of cases we would not have to do this, even if the MOC went down initially, because the other stations will pick it up, and we are moving towards the Dover MOC.
Pay is a real issue: £13,500 as a basic salary for someone working in the emergency services is a disgrace. I know that the shadow Minister looked at this carefully when he was in my position, which is why the original proposals were on his former desk and on the desk of the Minister before him and the one before that. We have done something about it so that we have pay, conditions and promotion opportunities for the people who serve so well.
In the original proposals I inherited, coastguard staffing levels would have gone down to 244. Under the proposals I have announced today, the staffing level will be 314. The shadow Minister will have to wait for the Secretary of State to make her announcement on search and rescue helicopters.