Rail Investment

Julian Huppert Excerpts

Monday 16th July 2012 Commons Chamber

[Justine Greening]

Yes it will. The more freight we can get off the road, the better. The more options we can give people to get off the road, the better.

[Dr Julian Huppert (Cambridge) (LD)]

I congratulate the Secretary of State and her team on this excellent announcement. In 13 years, the previous Government managed to electrify nine miles—a distance that a garden snail could cover in 15 days. They also allowed rail fares to go up by 66%. Does the Secretary of State agree that rail fares are too high, and that it is time to end above-inflation rail fare increases?

[Justine Greening]

I have to say that I did not know that snails were that fast, but I believe we need to try to get off this hook of above-inflation rail fare rises every year, which is one reason why we are looking at the efficiency savings programme that Roy McNulty first outlined. Today’s investment in electrification will be a key part of that as well.

Aviation

Julian Huppert Excerpts

Wednesday 4th July 2012 Westminster Hall

[Mark Reckless]

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

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

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

[Dr Julian Huppert (Cambridge) (LD)]

I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on securing the debate. When I spoke to those at Stansted recently, they made it clear that, given that the airport was at only 50% capacity, they want no more discussion of a second runway—that just messes up their relationship with the local community. Stansted wants a better rail service. I hope that he will support that.

[Mark Reckless]

That is certainly the position in the short-term. I am keen to see better surface travel into Gatwick. The deterioration in the train service there is most unfortunate. Investment is strongly in the national interest.

The British Chambers of Commerce initially proposed a “Heathwick” arrangement. There are some issues with the economics of it, but the existing system is the reason why it could be attractive. If we allowed Gatwick to invest £5 billion in a super-fast railway to Heathrow—by the way, BA, it would take 15 minutes airside, rather than an hour to connect them—it would be regulated capital and would lead to higher slot prices at Gatwick, which is a good thing anyway. Our problem with aviation in this country has been that we have held down the cost of landing fees at Heathrow and Gatwick, which means that they are operating at near capacity with all the problems mentioned. If we allowed landing fees to rise and entirely deregulated Gatwick and Heathrow, there would be a big transfer of economic value from the airlines to BAA.

Another way to do it would be differential APD, particularly on short-haul flights at Heathrow. Because we could get the cost back from higher landing charges at Gatwick, Heathwick, although not ideal, might make sense within the existing system; it would press out some of the leisure point-to-point flights from Gatwick and allow intercontinental flights to come there.

From Heathrow’s promoters, we hear that it is a great hub, that we need just one hub and that Paris Charles de Gaulle has more destinations than us, but those destinations are in French west Africa—Mali, Bangoui and Ouagadougou. I do not think that there is any suggestion that that should happen from Heathrow. Most demand is leisure, not business. Heathrow still flies more people and planes than other airports, even those with four or six runways.

We do not necessarily need a hub that is ideal for those who happen to operate that hub. There is a suggestion that a dual-hub is not ideal. That is true, but it is an awful lot better than no expansion and forcing more and more people to use European airports. According to the constrained Department for Transport forecast, which I find questionable in a number of ways, if we do not allow expansion in the south-east, 25 million rather than 4 million people will fly from Belfast by 2050 and 12 million people rather than 700,000 will fly from Exeter by 2030.

I question the plausibility of those forecasts, but if we deregulate air travel and allow a second runway at Gatwick in due course, after the agreement runs out in 2019—I agree with the hon. Member for Cambridge (Dr Huppert) that it should not be immediately—it will make it more attractive for the airline to expand in the airport. At some point, the Liberal Democrats may think that we will need at least one runway in the south-east. The strongest demand from the vested interests is for that to be at Heathrow, but there is a strong argument for the country as a whole for it to be at Gatwick. It would benefit from being there because we would then have competing hubs, with potentially another airline alliance based at Gatwick. It would drive down prices, serve more destinations and operate for the benefit of UK consumers as a whole, rather than just those who happen to have the strongest vested interests and shout loudest in current consultations.

--- Later in debate ---

[Dr Julian Huppert (Cambridge) (LD)]

I congratulate the hon. Member for Rochester and Strood (Mark Reckless) on securing the debate.

We are world leaders in the aviation industry. London is the best connected city in the world, with seven runways operating at six airports, and Birmingham, Manchester and Edinburgh all pose formidable regional challenges to the dominance of the south-east. Gatwick is opening new routes to China, Vietnam and South Korea. British Airways has global alliances for massive hub operations. Airlines are competing to make use of the capacity we have, particularly since the BAA monopoly was broken.

However, there are constraints. By 2050, the UK must cut its carbon emissions by 80%. That is an important and challenging task, and if we allowed unconstrained expansion of aviation, as has been suggested by some Members, I believe that it would be all but impossible to achieve it. Given the environmental constraints, what kind of growth can we manage to have?

In 2009, the independent Committee on Climate Change said that if we are to meet our 2050 target, the aviation industry must not emit more than around 37.5 million tonnes of carbon dioxide a year by 2050. Allowing for increased plane loads, new technology and fuel improvements, that allows for a 60% increase on current passenger numbers to around 368 million passengers per annum. That is the carbon budget that we can have.

What is the capacity constraint? We have enough spare capacity in this country already. We can get to the limit imposed by our environmental obligations without any new runways anywhere: not at Heathrow, not at Gatwick, and not at Stansted. That is why the Liberal Democrats oppose the expansion of the airports in the south-east. We have spare capacity, and if we were to build more capacity and make use of all of it we would do irreparable damage to our global environment.

It is very hard to forecast demand, as the old “predict and provide” approach of the previous Government tried to do. Even in the US, the Federal Aviation Administration says that it is not possible to make reliable forecasts beyond 2030, so I simply do not understand how any Government think they can forecast demand to 2050. That is particularly true given that, with the possible exception of the Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills, people are very bad at forecasting recessions and other economic changes.

We also have local environmental problems that make a huge difference to our nation’s well-being. One in four of all those in Europe who are affected by aviation noise live under the Heathrow flight path. I find it astonishing that so little has been done about that, and that the previous Labour Government were so keen to keep blindly increasing Heathrow. Now Labour are completely and utterly unclear as to what their policy on Heathrow expansion is; if the hon. Member for Poplar and Limehouse (Jim Fitzpatrick), the shadow Minister, wants to try to say what it is, I would be delighted to hear from him. No?

Aviation planning has categorically failed to take account of the north-south divide, and how we can ensure that we provide decent air quality and access to decent public transport. About half of all emissions from aviation are actually caused by the ground access to the airport rather than by the planes themselves. Rail access, which is being called for by so many airports now, is critical in reducing those emissions.

This is a very abbreviated speech so I cannot go through all the detail. What is the way forward? I have been very clear about Heathrow, Gatwick and Stansted; I say a big “no,” and I am delighted that that is what the coalition agreement says. I have also been very clear about what we need to do to control UK aviation policy. We need to get the greatest hubbing potential that we can and achieve the greatest economic benefit possible, given all the constraints.

We should support growth, such as we are seeing at Gatwick; a fifth of Gatwick’s capacity is still free. Gatwick is doing well and it wants a new rail service. Stansted is half-full; its big call is for a new rail service, not a new runway. Birmingham is looking to expand and Manchester already has two runways. We need to provide the rail links to make those airports work.

We also need to reform air passenger duty. It is poorly designed, has a number of anomalies and favours short flights for which there are overground alternatives. We should be moving towards a per-plane duty. We should introduce new noise limits in population centres to incentivise quieter planes, and tough requirements for low-emission surface access, to reduce the overall impact. We also need to support the European Union’s emissions trading scheme, to promote the “polluter pays” principle.

What about the hub? Although the Government have done well to rule out proposals for a third runway and other expansion, we should also put an end to talk of mixed-mode operations at Heathrow. They cause damage to the air and through the noise they create; they are a non-starter and provide very little benefit. Heathrow is badly located, and mixed-mode operations would give all the pain with little of the gain. We need to move point-to-point flights elsewhere, as has been discussed, reform the EU allocation rules and perhaps consider a departure tax. Heathrow is not the place for a hub airport, but as Members have said, Boris island is certainly not right either, for a whole range of reasons; it is expensive, there is a higher risk of bird strike and it does not serve the north.

Our consideration of where to have a new hub needs to be subject to some serious constraints: a strategy for removing excess capacity above the climate change cap outside the airport; no net increase in the number of UK runways, so that we would have to close some to make up for new openings; greater recognition of the need to serve both north and south; and significantly lower noise impacts than at Heathrow. We could have something that is better both economically and environmentally, and I hope that the Government will consider the matter very carefully.

--- Later in debate ---

[Jim Fitzpatrick]

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

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

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

It also notes:

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

The Mayor has a strong argument on those figures.

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Dr Huppert]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[Jim Fitzpatrick]

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

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

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

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

[Jim Fitzpatrick]

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

[Dr Huppert]

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

[Jim Fitzpatrick]

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

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

Oral Answers to Questions

Julian Huppert Excerpts

Thursday 28th June 2012 Commons Chamber

[Justine Greening]

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

[Dr Julian Huppert (Cambridge) (LD)]

Will the Secretary of State confirm that the Government will stand by the whole of the coalition agreement in this area? Will she confirm that they will stand by the cancellation of the third runway at Heathrow, as she has said, will refuse additional runways at Gatwick and Stansted, and will rule out mixed mode at Heathrow?

[Justine Greening]

I think I have been very clear: the coalition agreement, in its entirety, stands. That is the position.

--- Later in debate ---

[Justine Greening]

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

[Dr Julian Huppert (Cambridge) (LD)]

T3. The latest figures from Sustrans show a 40 million increase in the number of cycling trips in 2011 compared with 2010—a very welcome 18% rise. I and many others, including British Cycling, welcome the funding that has been provided by the Government, particularly most recently the £15 million that has been provided towards dangerous junctions around the country, a key feature of the safer cycling campaign in The Times. What steps is the Secretary of State taking to make sure that local authorities match this money to do even more work on more junctions, rather than ducking their responsibilities when the Government step up?

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Norman Baker)]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for this support for our measures, which include large sums of money allocated yesterday through the local sustainable transport fund, which will also benefit cycling. The sum of £50 million will be available to local authorities on a match-funding basis. We are encouraging them to contribute, and the more they contribute, the more likely it is that they will be successful in securing money from the Government for their dangerous junctions.

Civil Aviation Bill

Julian Huppert Excerpts

Tuesday 22nd May 2012 Commons Chamber

[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.

[Jim Fitzpatrick]

rose—

--- Later in debate ---

[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.

[Mr Peter Bone (Wellingborough) (Con)]

I refer the House to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests. Is the hon. Gentleman arguing for an additional runway at Heathrow? The impact of flying to Heathrow and flying around until the plane can land—stacking—must be environmentally wrong. He is right to argue for an additional runway.

[Dr Huppert]

I do not think anyone here believes I am arguing for a third runway at Heathrow. If the hon. Gentleman has misunderstood that, I am sorry. This highlights the problem that there are people on the Back Benches on the Government side who are in favour of a third runway at Heathrow. I wish Ministers good luck in persuading them. Unfortunately, it seems that Back Benchers and Front Benchers on the Opposition side hold such views, although I realise that is not the shadow Minister’s official position.

I hope we will be able to get the outcome that we all want, party political bickering aside, and that the Minister and the Secretary of State will be able to deliver that in the other place. One concern that has been raised is that the current proposals will tackle only regulated airports. I would like them to go wider than that. For example, the Aviation Environment Federation suggested amending section 4 of the Civil Aviation Act 1982. That would be a more general approach and would not hit just particular areas, so that is one possibility. This is a good Bill. It could be tweaked to be even better, but it should be greatly welcomed on both sides of the House. It will give us a sustainable future for civil aviation in this country, with open data, proper regulation, support for sustainable transport and proper passenger-led reforms. I am delighted to support it.

Cost of Living

Julian Huppert Excerpts

Wednesday 16th May 2012 Commons Chamber

[Caroline Flint (Don Valley) (Lab)]

I beg to move an amendment, at the end of the Question to add:

“but believe that the Gracious Speech fails to help families, squeezed households and pensioners to deal with the cost of living crisis and the double-dip recession; regret that cuts to feed-in tariffs and the Warm Front scheme mean that families and pensioners who are paying higher electricity and gas bills have been abandoned by the Government; call on your Government to ensure that energy companies meet their obligations and provide the cheapest tariffs for over 75s, to protect small business owners, to ensure the Green Deal is offered fairly to all consumers and cuts bills to increase competition in the energy market to drive down energy bills for all; urge your Government to reverse their out of touch decision to increase rail fares by three per cent above inflation in 2013 and 2014, and to allow train companies to increase train fare prices by a further five per cent; call on your Government to ensure that train operators cap all regulated fares fairly across all journeys so that no regulated train fare increase is more than one per cent above inflation, to reform the bus market by extending to the rest of England London-style powers to regulate fares, protect services and to require operators to provide a concessionary scheme for young people; and further call on your Government to help hard pressed motorists by temporarily reducing VAT to cut fuel prices and boost the economy.”.

This Government promised recovery, but they have delivered recession—a recession made in Downing street: the worst unemployment in 16 years; 1 million young people out of work; the first double-dip recession since the 1970s; a lost decade for Britain’s families and pensioners, who are being subjected to the most sustained assault on their living standards in living memory; and a Government who are hurting, not helping.

Unfolding day by day in kitchens and living rooms in every town, village and city up and down this country is a cost-of-living crisis. Two of the biggest pressures on family budgets are rising energy bills and soaring transport costs, so my hon. Friend the Member for Garston and Halewood (Maria Eagle), who will close the debate for the Opposition, and I could not let the Queen’s Speech pass without addressing those vital concerns.

The VAT hike will cost a family with children an extra £450 this year and push the price of petrol at the pumps even higher. Just when the costs of child care are rising twice as fast as wages, this Government have cut the child care element of working tax credit. While bankers have seen their taxes slashed, cuts to front-line services will mean fewer police on the beat, longer NHS waiting times and more families pushed to the brink because of the costs of social care and the closure of Sure Start children’s centres and other vital support for families.

We have a Government who stand up for the wrong people, with a Budget in which millions are asked to pay more so that millionaires can pay less; a Government who do more for the rail companies than for hard-pressed commuters; and a Government who put the energy companies before families struggling to make ends meet.

[Dr Julian Huppert (Cambridge) (LD)]

I am sorry to interrupt the rhetoric with some facts, but will the right hon. Lady remind the House what happened to rail and bus fares during 13 years of Labour Government, and can she confirm that Labour’s policy is that rail fares should continue to increase above inflation?

[Caroline Flint]

We saw what was happening and put a cap on those fares. This Government have decided to remove the cap and to let fares rise way above inflation, but we have said that when they do rise above inflation they should do so by no more than 1%, so we are not going to take any lectures about supporting families from the Tories and Liberal Democrats in this Government.

The truth is that in every corner of the country families have huge worries when they look at depressed and frozen wages, more part-time work and more people who are long-term unemployed; and every week families worry about energy bills.

Energy bills have now risen up the agenda for families and are one of the biggest worries that they face. The latest figures from Ofgem put the typical annual energy bill at £1,310, so what is the Government’s answer? At their energy summit last year, they told people:

“Check, switch and insulate to save.”

But, in an answer on 18 April to one of my parliamentary questions, we found out that fewer people switched energy supplier in the final month of 2011 than ever before. I do not remember seeing that in one of the departmental press releases.

The Government said that energy efficiency was a no-brainer, but the Warm Front scheme has collapsed, the energy companies are not delivering the measures that they were meant to and the green deal is in chaos. In last week’s Queen’s Speech the Government promised

“reform of the electricity market to deliver secure, clean and affordable electricity and ensure prices are fair,”

but the irony of the Government’s electricity market reforms is that one thing they do not do is reform the electricity market. There is no change to the way in which energy is bought and sold, nothing to open the books of the energy giants and nothing even to improve competition in the energy market and break the stranglehold of the big six: no change, no hope and, I am afraid, not a clue how to help families affected by those pressures on the cost of living.

Our energy market is not working in the public interest. Confidence in the energy companies is at a near-record low, complaints have soared and today five of the big six energy companies are under investigation by Ofgem. Yet they see fit to award themselves huge bonuses totalling millions of pounds and even discounts on their own energy bills, while leaving their customers to struggle.

Last winter, more than 6.6 million families and pensioners across the UK could not afford to heat their homes properly. The number of pensioners dying from hypothermia has doubled in the past five years. Yet four out of five people are paying more for their energy than they need to. Energy prices are already at near record levels, and last year, when wholesale prices rose, every energy company put up its gas and electricity prices, in some cases by as much as nearly 20%. Yet when wholesale prices fell this year, none of the companies cut both their gas and electricity prices. British Gas, for example, cut only its electricity prices, even though it has twice as many gas customers. On the other hand, EDF, which has significantly more electricity customers, cut only its gas prices. Now, with increases in wholesale prices on the horizon again, British Gas, Britain’s biggest energy supplier, is threatening yet another round of price hikes.

These are not the signs of a healthy, functioning competitive market; they are the symptoms of a market that works in the interests of the energy companies, not of the public. There is a reason the market works like that. We have companies that both produce and retail power. They generate the power and sell it to themselves, and then on to the public. When wholesale prices are high, the generation side of the business makes big profits; when wholesale prices are low, the retail side of the business makes big profits. Either way, the energy companies always make big profits and customers always foot the bill.

That was exactly what the respected Institute for Public Policy Research think-tank found a few weeks ago. Its research shows that if the market were truly competitive, efficiency savings alone would knock £70 a year off the average bill. It reckons that over 5 million households in the UK are currently being overcharged and that if something were done about it they could see savings of at least £300 a year. That is why we have said that all energy suppliers should have to sell the power that they generate into an open pool from which anyone could bid to retail to the public. That would allow new firms to enter the market, increase competition and help to drive down bills. Of course it would not be popular with the big energy companies, but unlike the Government, Labour Members are putting the interests of the public ahead of those in the energy industry.

--- Later in debate ---

[Malcolm Wicks (Croydon North) (Lab)]

Welcome to our debate, Mr Deputy Speaker; it is good to see you again.

My intention today is to talk about aspects of family life and how they relate to the “cost of living” theme. However, as a former Energy Minister, I am bound to say that I have been stimulated by the debate to make a few other remarks. Let me offer some friendly advice to the Secretary of State: his soundbite of the speech—that he is in favour of the “solar many” rather than the “solar few”—may not go viral. Indeed, I think it represents a formidable rewriting challenge for his speechwriters, if I may say so.

I will not get too cross with the Secretary of State for saying, as a bit of political knockabout, that the last Labour Government made no strategic decisions at all. Empirically, that is incorrect, as I think of the formidable legislation on climate change, which was supported throughout the House. For the first time, Parliament—the Labour Government were in power—decided to legislate to reduce carbon emissions. That is probably the most radically ambitious piece of legislation ever to go before this House. As I recall—I do not work for News International, so I do have a memory—it was also the Labour Government who set renewable energy targets, although they were more than just targets. [Interruption.] I hear a Member mumbling “Europe” at me from a sedentary position. I do not know whether it was a Eurosceptic, but yes, of course Europe is relevant; our party believes in Europe. We subscribe to European targets and during the period of the Labour Government we became the biggest country in the world in terms of investment in offshore wind. So much for us not having any strategic direction!

[Dr Huppert]

rose—

[Malcolm Wicks]

I will give way in a moment—if the intervention is a good one.

As a Government, we also tried to push forward carbon capture and storage—a formidable endeavour, and I congratulate the Norwegians on the progress they have made. It would be good to hear from the Government at some stage where they think we are on CCS because it is a vital part of our low-carbon objectives, given that despite renewables and nuclear, we will continue to invest in and use a great deal of fossil fuels in the future.

We also need to talk about nuclear energy. The withdrawal of the German consortium has been a formidable blow to our plans for nuclear energy, but I put it to the Secretary of State that, despite what he says, the last Labour Government’s decision to allow a new generation of civil nuclear reactors was a crucial strategic decision. As I recall—again I draw on my memory—one reason why Parliament took rather a long time to reach that decision was that one of our major parties, and I think it was the Liberal Democrats—

[Malcolm Wicks]

I am a kind person, and I suppose it was major until recently. That party was adamantly opposed to nuclear energy. I ask the Secretary of State whether he has now made a strategic realignment in his own mind to support nuclear energy. I hope he has. I think the fact that the Prime Minister has appointed Liberal Democrat Members to this important role of Secretary of State for Energy and Climate Change shows that he maintains a sense of humour—one that he will need in the weeks and the trials, which is a term I use in the generic sense, to come.

While I am speaking about energy policy rather than family policy, which I shall come to in a moment, I want to emphasise the importance of the global context. We cannot discuss this issue only domestically. If I am right, the International Energy Agency projects in one of its central scenarios that global energy demand, mainly from non-OECD countries, will rise by about 40% by 2035. We must view our issues within that global context, we have to take energy security seriously and we have to build up what I have always called home-grown energy as much as we can, alongside reducing energy demand—hence the importance of nuclear and of renewable energy.

[Dr Huppert]

To rewind, let me say that the Climate Change Act 2008 was an excellent Act, and it had cross-party support. I am delighted that it was enacted. Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that Governments have to take a lead in showing that they can use less energy? He will remember the 10:10 campaign, designed to persuade people across the country to reduce their energy usage by 10%. Does he regret the fact that his Government voted down a Liberal Democrat proposal that the entire Government should sign up to that? Will he congratulate this Government on signing up to it and on reducing energy usage by 14% in their first year?

[Malcolm Wicks]

What I am proud of is that across a range of fronts, including transport, where we saw the development of hybrid cars, for example—I do not say that the Labour Government were responsible for them, but we encouraged them—energy demand reduction in industry and in the service and retail sector, and, of course, literally on the home front, with our domestic dwellings, we made many efforts to reduce energy demand. We need to do deal a great deal more. Irrespective of what party we come from, the first item on the agenda for energy policy has to be energy efficiency. It is the cheapest and cleanest solution and the most secure, as we are not dependent on foreign shores for reducing energy demand. That is vital.

--- Later in debate ---

[Sir Gerald Kaufman (Manchester, Gorton) (Lab)]

It was deeply refreshing to listen to the hon. Member for Gainsborough (Mr Leigh) make—literally—a reactionary speech. We do not often hear such sentiments openly expressed in the House of Commons.

Although the hon. Gentleman claimed that he was seeking to bring us into the real world, he was actually creating a world of fantasy. He gave us two exemplars of countries with lower taxation rates. The first was Russia, one of the most corrupt economies in the world, and a country run to a large degree by corrupt oligarchs, where democracy is only marginal. In the United States, under their posturing President, taxation may be lower, but such is the extent of poverty that many, many millions of people live in abject poverty in slums, without jobs and food, under a Democrat President—something I never thought I would live to see. Statistically, the hon. Gentleman may claim those countries as exemplars, but I fear that in the real world not one of us would want to live in the United States or in Russia under the conditions that prevail there.

The hon. Gentleman talked about education, and young people rising from the ghetto. I represent a constituency that has some of the greatest deprivation in the kingdom. None of my constituents, whatever their income, would wish to be described as living in a ghetto, but the result of what the Government have done in two years, and what they propose in the Queen’s Speech, will be to turn parts of my constituency into a ghetto. I do not believe that the people I represent deserve the fate of living in such conditions.

The hon. Gentleman talked about cutting waste. Yes, of course all of us are strongly in favour of cutting waste, but it depends how we define waste. What the hon. Gentleman might regard as waste, large numbers of my constituents would regard as essential. For example, one of the best high schools in my constituency has opened a new kitchen—with finance from the Labour Government and Manchester council, although the building was completed under this Government—and the head teacher told me that for many of the children the meal they get in school is their only solid meal that day. We have to look at contexts.

I do not say this rudely. Just as the hon. Gentleman is an avowed reactionary, I am an avowed Keynesian. I believe in spending our way out of recession—while of course cutting out waste, as the hon. Gentleman recommends—because recession and poverty mean people out of work. According to today’s figures, just announced, 10.7% of people in my constituency are out of work. We have to give them benefits, however miserable they are to be, whereas if people had jobs they would be taking home money and paying taxes in order to fund the essential public services that the Government are attacking, downgrading and in some cases destroying.

In response to an intervention from one of my hon. Friends, the Secretary of State alleged that shameful scaremongering was coming from the Labour Benches, but the most shameful scaremongering of recent months was when the Prime Minister and the Minister for the Cabinet Office created a totally unnecessary panic about petrol supplies, which had appalling effects throughout the country. The Session that the Queen’s Speech covers will take us beyond the halfway point of the Parliament and into the run-up to the next general election, so one might think that the Government’s programme would deal with the problems and challenges of the present while looking to the future, including the cost of living issues referred to by my right hon. Friends the Members for Don Valley (Caroline Flint) and for Croydon North (Malcolm Wicks). No such luck.

The Queen’s Speech proposals are a combination of irrelevance and actual damage. The Government have no more idea how to deal with the cost of living problem and the severe economic problems they have created than before they created them. Instead, they are making the poor and deprived, and average families, pay the price for the massive handouts they are providing for their rich cronies, including big business and the banks. Their cronies do not worry about the cost of living. Sir Philip Green, an adviser to the Government, whose money is stowed away in Monaco through tax dodges, and Lord Ashcroft are not interested in what anything costs; they are only interested in how much tax they can dodge and in what they can buy with the money on which they pay little or no tax.

From young children to pensioners, from Sure Start to winter fuel payments—one of the most valued innovations of the Labour Government, but which the Conservatives opposed—this Government are already deliberately inflicting grave harm. Public service pensions, including those of the police, are being wrecked. Massive unemployment is being created; as I said, in my constituency, the figure announced today is 10.7%—the 47th worst constituency for unemployment.

The policing cuts are having devastating consequences. Inspector Damian O’Reilly, one of the greatest police officers in this country, and a recipient of the national award for community police officer of the year, told me that in my constituency the ability of the police to prevent and pursue crime, on both of which they have a first-rate record, will be harmed irreversibly. No wonder he and other police officers took part in the march last week. Today in Bournemouth the Home Secretary is being told by the chairman of the Police Federation that because of her policies, we are

“on the precipice of destroying a police service that is admired throughout the world”.

That is the situation under this Government.

Meanwhile, not only are the cruel cuts continuing while the cost of living continues to rise, but we are told that further cuts are planned—that this Government are planning £25 billion-worth of cuts, all targeting the most vulnerable in our society—and all this comes from Ministers who themselves will not in the slightest feel the impact of those cuts. The whole ethos of this Government was demonstrated a few days ago when it was disclosed that the Prime Minister had sent a text message—one of a barrage of such messages—to a wealthy and controversial crony, saying that they must avoid being seen together. And where? At the Heythrop point-to-point. It almost makes one laugh out loud—or should I say, lots of love?

This, in terms of cost of living, public services, creating unemployment and not creating wealth, is not only the most incompetent Government of my political lifetime, but the most right-wing that this country has had, with the connivance of the Liberal Democrats, since Neville Chamberlain in the 1930s—the most corrupt, but the most arrogant. The Prime Minister, the Deputy Prime Minister, the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the Home Secretary all refuse to sully their lily-white hands by replying personally to letters from Members of Parliament. The Prime Minister threw an infantile tantrum when he was called the other week to this House to respond—incompetently, inadequately and offensively—on a further example of current Government corruption.

The contrast with previous Conservative Governments is stark. Conservative Cabinet Ministers such as Douglas Hurd, Michael Heseltine, Willie Whitelaw and Margaret Thatcher all made themselves available to MPs seeking access on behalf of their constituents. Indeed, Margaret Thatcher issued an open invitation to MPs to come to No. 10 and discuss employment problems in their constituency with her. This Government, neither party of which has a majority and neither party of which has a mandate, are behaving in a far more right-wing way than Margaret Thatcher did when she had an overall majority with big electoral victories, which she scored over the Labour party at its worst.

If the Home Secretary, the worst in my experience, had been willing to take a hands-on approach to immigration problems, we might have avoided the awful crumbling mess in border control that she personally has created and which is in danger of humiliating this country as the Olympic games approach.

Meanwhile, the Liberal Democrats pursue irrelevancies, seeking always to advance not the interests of our constituents, but their own party’s self-interest, with an obsession with constitutional change which is irrelevant to the lives of our constituents, such as the alternative vote, on which happily they were defeated, and now the House of Lords, their action on which would gum up the parliamentary works—which might not be a bad thing, considering what damage the Government would otherwise seek to legislate.

[Dr Huppert]

I hope the right hon. Gentleman realises that he is the one who has raised this obsession. It was in his party’s manifesto as well, so I am sorry he feels that way. We have been focusing on things such as giving 24 million people who are poorly paid a tax cut, lifting the lower-paid people up. Will he welcome that as a Liberal Democrat obsession that will help many constituents across the country for all of us?

[Sir Gerald Kaufman]

What I would welcome would be for the hon. Gentleman, as parliamentary representative for a university city—the second university as between Oxford and Cambridge, naturally, but not a bad university in its way—to go to his constituency or stand up here and apologise for the deception of the Liberal Democrats on the issue of university fees.

[Dr Huppert]

I will make no apology for the fact that I voted against fees. I will make no apology for the fact that I campaigned against them when Labour introduced them, having a large majority and having promised not to do so, and when they tripled them, having promised never to increase them again, and claimed that they had legislated against them. Will the right hon. Gentleman apologise for that deceit?

[Sir Gerald Kaufman]

rose—

--- Later in debate ---

[Dr Julian Huppert (Cambridge) (LD)]

It is entertaining to follow the speeches from the hon. Member for Gainsborough (Mr Leigh) and the right hon. Member for Manchester, Gorton (Sir Gerald Kaufman), who have shown that there is an obsession about House of Lords reform, at least in trying to stop it, among certain people who have been in this House for a very long time. It is a project that has been going on for a long time, too. It was in all three party manifestos. We can achieve it; it does not have to be an obsession for any of us.

[Mr MacNeil]

rose—

--- Later in debate ---

[Dr Huppert]

If the Deputy Speaker does not object, I will happily take an intervention.

[Mr MacNeil]

Does the hon. Gentleman agree that House of Lords reform will not be meaningful in this place while there are a number of people hanging around who view the House of Lords as a political lifeboat when their careers here are finished?

[Dr Huppert]

I do agree, and at some point we can have the debate about why we need that reform to have a properly democratically accountable Chamber in the other place, but now is not that time.

We heard an interesting take from the hon. Member for Gainsborough on how the Government would be doing much better if they were a pure Conservative Government—they would be cutting much more—and we heard from the right hon. Member for Manchester, Gorton that they are cutting far too savagely. The truth is that a pure Conservative Government probably would be cutting more and we are acting as a restraint on that and trying to achieve the correct outcome, which lies somewhere between the—in my view—excessive cuts advocated by one side and the continued overspending advocated by the other.

There is often a debate about Keynesian economics. Keynes was a good Liberal and a good Cambridge man, and he said a number of very sensible things. One was about making sure that we spend in recessions, but the flip side of that is that we do not spend as much during the boom years, so that we have money left. We cannot spend in the boom and also have money to spend in the bust; it simply does not work. Keynes was also clear about how much could be spent and, indeed, the high priority on keeping bond yields low so all that could be afforded. He was a very complex man and his work should not be reduced to a simple catch phrase.

I want to talk about the cost of living in relation to transport, because it is one of the areas I focus on in this House and on which I lead for the Liberal Democrats, but also because it is one of the few parts of Government activity that affects most people pretty much every day of their lives. Transport has a huge effect on us, and the cost of travel affects a huge amount of what we do throughout our lives. Governments for many decades, when focusing on the cost of transport, have thought principally about cars; too little thought has been given to cycling, walking and public transport.

[The Minister of State, Department of Health (Mr Simon Burns)]

And train spotting.

[Dr Huppert]

Let us consider the railways, as the Minister suggests. We know about the cuts. The length of our railway network has halved since 1950, but ever since 1980 the number of people using the network has doubled, resulting in a crippling downward spiral in which fare rises have been used to prop up a creaking system while services have declined. British railways are now 30% less efficient and 30% more expensive than their European counterparts. Under Labour, fares rose significantly above inflation year on year. The shadow Secretary of State for Energy and Climate Change did not seem to know the figures when I challenged her on this earlier, so let me give them to the shadow Secretary of State for Transport. Rail fares during Labour’s 13 years in government went up by 66%—inflation over that period was 17% in real terms—which is a huge increase. Even now their policy has not changed; it is still to have rail fares going up above inflation. Even the amendment to the motion calls for rail fares to go up 1% above inflation.

[Maria Eagle (Garston and Halewood) (Lab)]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[Dr Huppert]

I would be delighted to hear the shadow Secretary of State say that Labour accepts that fares are too high but, if she will not, will she confirm that her policy is still to have rail fares going up above inflation?

[Maria Eagle]

The hon. Gentleman fought the last general election on a promise to cut rail fares. His party and the Government whom he supports now support rail fare rises of 3% above the retail prices index. He voted for that. He is being just a tad hypocritical.

[Dr Huppert]

I am sorry that the shadow Secretary of State is not prepared to defend her party’s record in government or the fact that it is still calling for fares to rise above inflation. I would like them to go below inflation—[Interruption.] If the hon. Lady listened more and spoke less, she would hear what I am going to say. I think that rail fares need to come down, but we do not have a majority Government. As we heard earlier from the hon. Member for Gainsborough, this is not a pure Conservative Government, but it is not a pure Liberal Democrat Government either.

[Mr Simon Burns]

Thank God!

[Dr Huppert]

On that point we are all united.

[George Freeman (Mid Norfolk) (Con)]

Does my hon. Friend agree that it was the Labour-led Transport Committee that produced the analysis revealing that the Labour party had shown “breathtaking complacency” towards value for money on customers’ rail fares?

[Dr Huppert]

The hon. Gentleman is absolutely correct, as he so often is on rail matters. The Labour Government failed on trains and, rather than trying to patch it up now, are looking for short-term political advantage.

Let me move on from trains to buses. We talk a lot about trains, but buses are used hugely. What is Labour’s record on buses? Bus fares during Labour’s years in government went up by 76%—24% in real terms—which is a huge amount, and that affects the cost of living for people who try to travel by bus. We know that there is a different socio-economic distribution for people who take buses, compared with those who take trains, so this is very tough.

In 2008, Dr Iain Docherty of Glasgow university and Professor Jon Shaw of the university of Plymouth reviewed Labour’s 10-year transport strategy and said that it was a failure. Bus services were described as “poor” compared with the rest of Europe. They said that the Government had pursued the

“wrong kinds of transport policies”.

To their credit, we saw some success in London, but that was the only part of the country that saw the sort of devolution and innovation that we would like to see across the country. Outside London, from 1997 to 2008, when the report was written, the number of bus trips fell by 10%, which is not exactly a resounding victory for Labour’s centralising 10-year plan, and something that the Under-Secretary of State for Transport, my hon. Friend the Member for Lewes (Norman Baker), is taking steps to change.

We all know that our roads are utterly unsustainable. We have not yet managed to decarbonise our cars adequately. We failed to support the basic principle that road users should have to pay to use the roads, and the tax system has problems. Treasury Ministers are already nervous about how they will fund road infrastructure in future as we manage to reduce the use of fossil fuels.

I am proud of much of what the Government are doing on transport, although not absolutely everything, and pleased about the work being done by the Under-Secretary on issues such as cycling and bus use, which I will say more about later. I am also proud of the work being done by the other Transport Ministers. However, we need more radical and liberal thinking to heal our sclerotic transport network. What we need are bold reforms, but I am sad to say that what we have from the Opposition is short-term politicking, not long-term and evidence-based public policy making.

Let me give an example. The shadow Secretary of State made an interesting series of comments to The Guardian recently. She said that she accepted two thirds of the coalition’s transport spending cuts. I think we all agree with her when she said:

“Labour will not be elected unless it has credibility on the deficit and recognises the new economic reality.”

She said that she was committed to two thirds of the cuts. The interesting question is this: which two thirds? It is a nice game to keep whichever third of things seems politically sensible and cut the things that are not popular. I have been trying to find out from the hon. Lady—

[Maria Eagle]

I have replied to the hon. Gentleman’s letter, but I can tell him that Labour supported the entire £1.7 billion of efficiencies that Ministers have required across the transport expenditure. We have not opposed cuts beyond those efficiency savings in the Highways Agency totalling £3 billion or in Transport for London totalling £1.7 billion, a total of £4.7 billion, so we have not opposed £6.4 billion of cuts, which is more than two thirds of the efficiencies and cuts that the Government are making. But we would not have made the other £3 billion of cuts, which would have given us extra money so that we could cap annual fare rises, protect local bus services and deliver additional investment. Our plan is quite clear.

[Dr Huppert]

The hon. Lady is absolutely correct. I wrote to her in February asking for the figures and it took her over a month to respond—

[Caroline Flint]

Pathetic.

[Dr Huppert]

I absolutely agree with the right hon. Lady that that is pathetic—[Interruption.]

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)]

Order. This is not a general conversation; it is a debate and Dr Julian Huppert has the Floor.

--- Later in debate ---

[Dr Huppert]

Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. It took the hon. Lady over a month to direct me to a speech in which a shadow Minister outlined some of those figures. I do not know how much was made in the London election about the fact that Labour proposed taking £1.73 billion out of the TfL budget, which is interesting, but the key point is that she is yet to reply to a letter I wrote to her a month ago asking, of the £3.36 billion that she would take out of the Highways Agency’s budget, as opposed to the half a billion she would leave in, which—

[Maria Eagle]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[Dr Huppert]

I will if the hon. Lady lets me finish my sentence. Which half a billion pounds would she leave in, and which £3.36 billion would she take out? She has not responded to the letter, but she can respond now.

[Maria Eagle]

I promise to respond in great detail to the hon. Gentleman when he gets his ministerial team to reply to letters from me and to answer parliamentary questions properly.

[Dr Huppert]

I am flattered by the shadow Secretary of State’s faith that I have the power to control the ministerial team. She can certainly control when she responds to letters, and I think that a delay of over a month is rather poor. I am sure that she thinks she has better things to do, but I would still love to hear how Labour would fund the rest of its budget on this area.

If the Opposition are truly concerned about the cost of living, surely one way of addressing that is to let people keep more of the money they earn. Raising the income tax threshold puts money back into people’s pockets and lets them spend it on whatever they want: rail fares, fuel for their car, a new bike, bus tickets, training, or whatever it is that they would like to do with that money. Of course, that is something that Liberal Democrats campaigned for and it was on the first page of our manifesto, and it is exactly what Liberal Democrats in government are doing and which, for reasons I simply do not understand, the Opposition voted against. I simply fail to understand why they are against giving money back to people who earn £10,000 a year. It makes no sense to me. I assume it was some sort of error, like the fact that they failed to vote on various aspects of the Budget which they said they would vote on.

In my view, this tax cut, combined with the uprating of unemployment benefits and the triple lock in pensions so that pensioners get a better deal than the 75p that the right hon. Member for Kirkcaldy and Cowdenbeath (Mr Brown) offered them, is exactly the right mix of measures. It allows people to keep their money and spend it as they please when times are tight. It is a responsible, liberal approach, and one that we need to take further, as I am sure we will do during the rest of the Parliament, but it is there—[Interruption]—and it has been supported by the Conservatives, as the hon. Member for Mid Norfolk (George Freeman) reminds me.

But let me return to rail fares. I passionately believe that rail fares are too high and need to be lower, and, unlike Labour and the Conservatives, both of which have argued for above-inflation increases, we in the Liberal Democrats believe that they are too high and should not be made any higher. I am delighted that we managed to persuade our coalition colleagues to reduce the most recent rise by 2%, and I have to say that Conservative Transport Ministers supported it.

I hope that we can do the same or better in the years to come, but it cannot be a one-off measure; it has to be part of the kind of serious structural reform that the McNulty review will bring. If it is true that the McNulty changes will save £1 billion a year, half of it should be used to reduce rail fares and half to invest further in rail infrastructure, although this Government are already investing massively in our railways—more than any Government since Victorian times.

We have committed to electrifying more than 800 miles of track. How much did Labour manage? The answer is less than 10 miles, in 13 years: less than 1 mile per year. The Victorians would not have been impressed by that rate. The Liberal Democrats in government are firmly committed to getting people and freight on to our railways so that they do not take up space on our roads, and that applies to my local road, the A14, where we have to ensure that as much freight as possible is put on to railways in order to avoid the congestion that we see. We need to invest in services to make them cheaper, more affordable and more attractive. That is the right thing to do.

What about buses? We believe firmly that the way forward is devolution, community involvement and more effective funding. Services have to be local for them to be popular and effective, and communities must have their say in the governance of local buses. I believe, from what the shadow Secretary of State says, that the Labour party is finally looking at ways of devolving bus services. We have argued for that measure for decades, so I am delighted that Labour agrees, and I hope that we will be able to deliver it. We have had less than two years with very little money to spend; Labour had 13 years, so I am delighted that it is finally coming around to the idea and I hope that we will be able to deliver it. Indeed, I hope that Labour supports the reforms that we are implementing, such as the local sustainable transport fund, which is delivering £500 million to local communities. Just before the Queen’s Speech my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary announced new funds for better bus areas and green buses: a £120 million boost for buses which will enable people to take affordable buses more easily.

By trusting communities to do what is best for themselves, we are revolutionising bus travel. Already since 2010 we have seen bus patronage rise outside London and throughout the country, and seen funding for 439 low-carbon buses, helping us to be a much greener Government. That is a fantastic achievement after a decade of decline and without spare money to slosh around.

Of course, if we really want to reduce the cost of living, we will find that there are even cheaper forms of transport. A huge number of journeys could be taken on foot or by bike, and that really would save people money. More people should do that. This Government have invested millions of pounds in promoting cycling, from the local sustainable transport fund, to Sustrans funding for new routes, bikeability training and new cycle-rail links, and they have also taken other steps to promote safe cycling by, for example, making it easier to introduce 20 mph zones.

We have heard much from the Opposition about the lack of a Bill in the Queen’s Speech to deal specifically with the cost of living, but we have heard also from my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Energy and Climate Change about the steps being taken with the Bills that are in the Queen’s Speech, and in any case the Opposition should know that it is not necessary to announce a Bill in a Queen’s Speech in order to help with the cost of living. Not everything needs legislation.

[Laura Sandys]

This Queen’s Speech is very much directed at the consumer and at consumer prices. We have a draft water Bill, which is looking at supporting water prices; the grocery adjudicator measure, which is looking to develop a much more effective supply chain and to deliver better prices to consumers; and we have an energy Bill, which will make the market more responsive to the consumer. This is a consumers’ Queen’s Speech.

[Dr Huppert]

I thank the hon. Lady for her comments—and I will leave out the next paragraph of my speech. She is absolutely correct to highlight the importance of all those issues, which will make a real difference to consumers, as will a range of other activities, such as breaking up the banks so that they can focus more on consumers and less on the casino capitalism that we saw in the previous decade.

We do not need to legislate to make a difference. We gave money back to millions of working people without any new Bill; it did not take a Bill to make that happen. After reams and reams of failed legislation, one would have thought that Labour would have learned one simple fact: we cannot just legislate our way out of a problem. But I am not surprised that Labour’s response to a Queen’s Speech that, as well as the items mentioned earlier, finally tackles defamation law and Lords reform is that we need more legislation. It is certainly true that if the test of a successful Government was the volume of laws they introduced, 13 years of Labour would have been an unmitigated success, because the sheer volume of legislation was a record, but that is not what government is about.

I am deeply proud to be a Liberal Democrat in government, standing up to vested interests to ensure that every citizen, no matter how poor, will be able to protect their reputation from defamation—and that we will not see the chills that we have seen from the threat of action. I am proud that we are tackling constitutional reform, because I am sure that all honest politicians know that the Government are quite capable of doing more than one thing at once, and of course we are cleaning up the mess that this country was left in by Labour and continues to be left in by what is happening in the eurozone.

There is much more to do on fares, and I should like to see a more efficient local transport system with greater support for community services, which is something we are already working on, but we have achieved a lot with what we have got—much more than can be said for the squandered Blair-Brown years. In 1997 a Liberal Democrat majority Government, enjoying an unprecedented period of global growth, would not have jacked up fares year after year. We would not have let transport services decay in the dead hand of Whitehall, and we would certainly not have introduced tuition fees in the way the Labour party did.

[Anas Sarwar]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[Dr Huppert]

I should like to conclude so that others can speak.

I welcome the Queen’s Speech and all the things that Liberal Democrats in government have done already to help with the cost of living. I hope to see members of the Labour party welcome those achievements and support our measures, which will put our transport system on a sustainable footing for the long term and help to reduce the cost of living for everyone in this country.

Civil Aviation Bill

Julian Huppert Excerpts

Wednesday 25th April 2012 Commons Chamber

[Mrs Villiers]

What I am saying is that we are opposed to a third runway and that we believe it is essential to protect the quality of life of the communities who would be affected by it.

[Dr Julian Huppert (Cambridge) (LD)]

Is the Minister aware of the paper by the Aviation Environment Federation for WWF UK on capacity across the country? It found that there was space for

“a 52% growth in passengers”

and a twofold increase in air traffic movements with existing capacity. Does that mean that there is less need for the expansions that the Opposition seem to be keen on?

[Mrs Villiers]

I warmly agree with my hon. Friend that it is essential to make the best use of the existing capacity in the south-east and around the country. We will explore that in the process that we are undertaking on the future of our aviation capacity needs.

--- Later in debate ---

[Seema Malhotra]

The new clause is intended to ensure that airport operators establish and implement a noise pollution compensation scheme for residents and organisations around an airport.

I welcome the Government’s recognition of the need to address the environmental impact of aviation, which the Minister has expressed on many occasions. In Committee, I moved an amendment with similar intentions to those behind the new clause. I asked the Minister about the possibility of adding to the Bill a provisional compensation scheme for noise arising out of licensed activities affecting persons residing in, or occupying business or community premises in, an area designated in the licence conditions.

The Minister responded that the meaning of “licensed activities” was not entirely clear, and that if I intended to refer to the definition of airport operation services as licensed activities in clause 68, the amendment could not be accepted, as the clause expressly excluded air transport services from that definition. She added that a more substantive reason for her opposition to the amendment was that she believed that

“environmental protection measures should not depend on whether an airport happens to be subject to economic regulation. If there is a case for environmental regulation, this should depend on the airport’s environmental impact, regardless of whether the airport happens to have substantial market power and fall within the scope of the economic regulation framework set out in the Bill.”––[Official Report, Civil Aviation Public Bill Committee, 6 March 2012; c. 216.]

New clause 6 is intended to deal with some of those issues.

We all recognise the need for aviation to support our economy and the vital importance of airports in providing local employment. I may well recognise that more than many others, as my constituency borders Heathrow airport, which supports more than 110,000 local jobs—approximately 22% of total local employment—and provides gross value added of £5.3 billion. It is a vital national economic asset, but for Hounslow’s quarter of a million residents and the residents of neighbouring boroughs, the daily environmental impact of Heathrow includes flights overhead every 60 seconds. The majority of the borough is located within the 55 dB(A) Lden aircraft noise contour.

New clause 6 has the support of my local authority—the London borough of Hounslow—and of neighbouring MPs. In essence, it seeks provision relating to a compensation scheme for noise pollution. The measure would support local residents, business and community premises to be insulated according to a formula based on geographic zone or noise level, which could be decided or kept under review by the Secretary of State as a minimum level of the airport’s responsibility to its local area.

All hon. Members know that noise impacts on health and well-being. That debate continues. For example, the secondary analysis of the London Heathrow sample of children from the RANCH project—the EU project on road traffic and aircraft noise exposure and children’s cognition and health—examined the effects of daytime aircraft noise exposure at home and at school. It concluded that aircraft noise exposure at school had a significant effect on children’s cognitive development, and that schools needed to be an important focus for the protection of children from aircraft noise.

I have drawn on examples from my local area, but aircraft and aviation noise is a national issue that affects neighbourhoods in every airport location. The good practice guide on noise exposure and health from the European Environment Agency states that 27% of people in the 55 dB(A) Lden areas are highly annoyed by aircraft noise, and there are implications for irritation, anxiety and stress. However, one set of stakeholders whose needs are not sufficiently well recognised or reflected in the Bill or the CAA’s environmental consultation documents are local residents who live around airports and are exposed to aircraft and other noise that results from licensed activities such as aircraft taking off and landing and surface transport.

The CAA is the regulator of aviation activity in the UK, but its responsibility for the environmental impact of aviation continues to be the subject of debate, not least today. The new clause seeks to ensure that the CAA has authority to help to control the effects of noise and the quality of insulation and noise mitigation schemes that each of the major UK airports operates in the interests of local residents and the local work force. The idea is particularly relevant in respect of a change in our airport infrastructure that could mean multiple operators at a single airport. That could result in confusion over who has responsibility.

[Dr Huppert]

The hon. Lady makes an interesting argument. Will she help me by saying how many people and premises would need to be given compensation according to the new clause?

[Seema Malhotra]

That is an interesting point. I have mentioned that compensation could be determined by geographical zone or noise level. In Hounslow, all households have been assessed, as have households further afield, on where they sit within the noise contours. That minimum standard should be kept under review. If a person has had access to insulation measures in the past, they might not need them again, notwithstanding any new developments. We know that the third runway is off the agenda, but we should not have such conversations only as part of a new planning application on a new development; the matter should be kept under review all the time.

The idea is not without precedent. For American airports, airport-related noise-insulation schemes are not only regulated but administered by the Federal Aviation Administration. The UK, on the other hand, has implemented only a voluntary system of noise insulation for communities affected by aircraft noise. In Heathrow’s case, BAA administers a voluntary scheme that provides noise insulation grants. There is a review of its adequacy and we await the results of the response.

In Committee, I welcomed the CAA’s reporting of environmental impacts, and I do so again here, because it will lead to greater consistency in monitoring and a more robust evidence base to support a dialogue between local authorities and airports. However, residents who live near airports need clarity about who will be responsible for negotiating with local authorities and the formula under which different operators may have different levels of responsibility.

In my initial amendment in March, we argued that, in addition to a passive reporting role, the CAA’s role should include those of adviser and referee—although not necessarily of policeman and woman, as referred to by the Minister—and that the airport operators’ responsibilities to communities should be clearly referred to as part of the licence conditions under which they operate. That would help to provide greater clarity about, and consistency in, the principles of noise mitigation schemes, which may vary, as needs vary, across the country. Clear minimum standards should be set, however, and local authorities be given the tools and support needed to negotiate effectively for the needs of their local communities.

A process should also be in place to help if there is disagreement between airports and communities. I understand that the Minister might disagree with our proposal, but currently there appears to be no clear route for compensating for and minimising noise pollution, other than under section 78 of the Civil Aviation Act 1982, which gives the Transport Secretary powers to regulate noise. That has tended to focus on night flights and to be implemented on a voluntary basis, but it does not give adequate protection to local residents and is not future proof. In the future, the situation might be different, so we need a process and some form of regulation to guarantee the rights of local communities.

[Dr Huppert]

Those who served in Committee will know that I am passionate about environmental concerns and their effect on the aviation industry.

We should remember that air travel is a wonderful thing: air freight is great, it benefits business and tourism, and allows families to keep in touch. There are wonderful aspects to air travel, but it also has damaging consequences, such as noise, as we have just heard. It affects those who live nearby. Roughly one quarter of those in Europe affected by heavy aircraft noise live under the Heathrow flight path into London. It also has huge effects on the environment. Carbon dioxide and a range of other contaminants are released as a result of aviation. This is a huge, international problem that does not only affect, and cannot only be controlled in, the UK. As the former chief scientific adviser to the previous Government, Professor Sir David King, said, climate change is the greatest threat facing mankind. Aviation is a large and growing component of that, and one that is particularly poorly dealt with around the world.

We need a balance between aviation and reducing the harm it does. The CAA is already doing some work and is better now than it was a couple of years ago at taking account of environmental issues. I very much welcome that. However, I would not like to see what we heard earlier about trying to provide as much as is demanded. I am pleased that new clause 1, tabled by the hon. Member for Blackley and Broughton (Graham Stringer), was not selected. It would lead to unlimited growth and expansion, which would be extremely worrying for us all. I hope to hear from the Opposition Front-Bench spokesman that Labour dissociates itself from such a policy, but if not, we must assume that it supports it. I look forward to hearing the answer.

The policy in new clause 1 would, however, be consistent for a party that pushed for the third runway at Heathrow and the second runway at Stansted, despite the fact that the latter is operating at about only 50% of its capacity—what it really wants is a better railway line. That policy would lead to mass expansion and mass destruction around the world. And it is simply not needed. The Committee on Climate Change has come up with a climate budget for how much we can afford to increase capacity by. It estimates that it can cope with a 60% increase in passenger numbers by 2050. Conveniently enough, as I referred to earlier, the Aviation Environment Federation did some work for WWF UK showing that existing capacity will give us 52% increases by 2050—almost the same the figure, but then we do not know exactly how big the planes will be. A number of airports are already able to use bigger planes—Stansted is already set up to use A380 aeroplanes, which are code F, I think—so there is simply no need for the vast expansion that was pushed for by the Labour Government. Indeed, a number of Labour MPs still seem to be pushing for it. It would be great to have some clarity on exactly what the Opposition’s position is, as their Front Benchers seem to differ from their Back Benchers.

I was quite taken by the comments we have heard about noise pollution generally. I was interested in the numbers, because I am concerned about how such a scheme could work. I have to say that I am not persuaded that I understand how it could operate, although I would be happy to hear what is said later and see whether I can be persuaded. For example, HACAN Clear Skies—from the Heathrow Association for the Control of Aircraft Noise—estimates that about 1 million people are currently affected by noise under the Heathrow flight path, which would clearly impose too big a load when it comes to serious compensation. I would be happy if there were some way of developing further some semblance of that concept, but I am not persuaded. If the hon. Member for Feltham and Heston (Seema Malhotra) puts new clause 6 to a vote, I am afraid I will not support her, although I recognise where the idea comes from and I find it an interesting one.

[Seema Malhotra]

In response to the hon. Gentleman’s point about how we might determine such a scheme, there are existing processes in place, which operators such as BAA use to measure where the noise is greatest, so that they can then respond with a proportionate scheme. I see no reason why that principle could not be applied to something more comprehensive in future.

[Dr Huppert]

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

[Graham Stringer]

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

[Dr Huppert]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[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.

[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.

[Dr Huppert]

rose—

[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.

Oral Answers to Questions

Julian Huppert Excerpts

Thursday 19th April 2012 Commons Chamber

[Norman Baker]

I accept that there is an issue for young people, which is why I have taken steps to ensure that young people came along to talk to the operators and local authorities at the bus forum I hold on a six-monthly basis. It is also why I discussed the matter with the Confederation of Passenger Transport, which is now taking steps to try to get a better deal for young people. I have had discussions with the confederation about that very matter.

[Dr Julian Huppert (Cambridge) (LD)]

The Minister will be aware of a recent report from scientists at Massachusetts Institute of Technology, which estimated that combustion exhausts cause 5,000 premature deaths in the UK each year. What steps is he taking to make sure that local bus provision is with more efficient buses, and that old buses are retrofitted to improve air quality standards?

[Norman Baker]

I am happy to say that we have recently announced the winners of the third round of the green bus fund. Because of our prudent financial management as a Department, we were able to increase it from £20 million to £31 million. We have also provided money to retrofit buses in London to deal with the air pollution problem there. That is a demonstration of the fact that we are committed to bus travel—both to help create growth and to cut carbon.

Oral Answers to Questions

Julian Huppert Excerpts

Thursday 23rd February 2012 Commons Chamber

[Norman Baker]

I do not know that it is rubbish; it is Labour’s research that I am referring to.

On the issue of moving forward on concessionary fares, I do not know whether the Labour party is pledging a new spending commitment, but its own research shows that £740 million would be required for the concession that it is advocating—a few days after the shadow Secretary of State announced that she would have a more responsible attitude to finance. [Interruption.]

[Dr Julian Huppert (Cambridge) (LD)]

rose—

[Mr Speaker]

Order. Before I call Dr Huppert, I say to the hon. Member for Suffolk Coastal (Dr Coffey) that it is not very good form to heckle, but to heckle when sitting in the Chamber fiddling with a BlackBerry is just rank discourteous. It is so blindingly obvious.

[Dr Huppert]

Liberal Democrat councillors on Cambridgeshire county council have proposed a fully funded scheme that would provide free public transport for 16 to 19-year-olds who are seeking education, employment or training. Would the Minister support such a scheme and encourage Cambridgeshire and other councils to look carefully at such ideas?

[Norman Baker]

I certainly would support such a scheme and I welcome that initiative. The reality is that some councils provide support for young people to get to education better than other councils provide it. The matter is largely one for local authorities. Good practice is out there and should be replicated wherever possible.

Cycling

Julian Huppert Excerpts

Thursday 23rd February 2012 Westminster Hall

[Dr Julian Huppert (Cambridge) (LD)]

I thank the Backbench Business Committee for granting this important debate. I also thank my fellow officers of the all-party parliamentary cycling group, especially the hon. Member for Dudley North (Ian Austin) and my hon. Friends the Members for Totnes (Dr Wollaston) and for Winchester (Steve Brine), for their support. I thank, too, Adam Coffman, who administers the group for us extremely well. We run a range of events, including an annual parliamentary bike ride. Of the current ministerial team, all of whom are cyclists to a greater or lesser extent, two have taken part in the bike ride. I hope that the Under-Secretary of State for Transport, my right hon. Friend the Member for Lewes (Norman Baker) will agree to join us this year, perhaps with other colleagues from the Government or, indeed, with other colleagues from this debate.

Apart from the 30-minute Adjournment debate that I secured on cycling in England last year, MPs have not had a substantial debate on the important issue of cycling for several years, which is worrying. I welcome the Committee’s decision to rectify that. The sheer number of Members here—I think we are outdoing the number in the main Chamber at the moment—and the number of signatures on my early-day motion 2689 show the importance of the issue. [Interruption.] I am informed by the knight on my right, my hon. Friend the Member for Colchester (Sir Bob Russell), that 44 Members are here. Moreover, some 2,000 cyclists cycled around Parliament last night to show their support.

The impetus for today’s debate is the “Cities fit for cycling” campaign. I wholeheartedly congratulate The Times on launching it; it is a really fantastic achievement. The campaign has an eight-point manifesto, which looks at lorries, junction redesign, a national cycling audit, infrastructure investment, training, 20-mile-an-hour zones, cycle super-highways and cycling commissioners. About 30,000 people, including myself, have now expressed support for those eight points. More importantly, they have also been backed by organisations such as the AA and the RAC, which is testament to the breadth of the support.

The campaign has increased the public debate about cycling and brought it further to the Government’s attention. Yesterday, at Prime Minister’s questions, the Prime Minister responded to my calls for him to support the campaign as well. Later today, my own city council, the Liberal Democrat-controlled Cambridge council, will debate and, I hope, pass a motion in support of The Times campaign. It is the first council in the country to do so.

The Times has rightly highlighted the shocking rise in the number of cyclists who have been killed or seriously injured on our roads. Between 2010 and 2011, the number rose by 8% in the face of increasing safety in almost all other forms of transport. Although each of those injuries or deaths is a tragedy, cycling is still a fundamentally safe form of transport. The increase in injuries should be seen against a backdrop of increasing cycling numbers, which we should welcome.

[Rehman Chishti (Gillingham and Rainham) (Con)]

I congratulate my hon. Friend on securing this fantastic debate and on his excellent work in the all-party parliamentary group. With regard to road safety, does he also welcome the initiative by the British Cycling website, which looks at mapping routes and accredited safe routes to help people plan their journeys safely? Will he pay tribute to the excellent work of Sport England in supporting cycling throughout the country?

[Dr Huppert]

I thank my hon. Friend for his intervention. I do indeed support the great work of Sport England. I will talk about route finding later. The excellent website CycleStreets also allows people to find routes that are safer and more direct. A recent survey by Sustrans found that 56% of the British public feel that urban roads are unsafe to cycle on.

[Rushanara Ali (Bethnal Green and Bow) (Lab)]

I reiterate the message of congratulations to the hon. Member for Cambridge (Dr Huppert) on securing this debate. I have had many letters from my constituents about it. In the last year, two cyclists were killed on the Bow roundabout, which is in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Poplar and Limehouse (Jim Fitzpatrick). Many of my constituents use that roundabout. Although I appreciate the point about the overall safety of cycling, there are serious concerns about road safety in parts of London—for instance, in Tower Hamlets. It is important to raise such concerns and ensure that the Mayor of London takes them seriously. He must put in place measures that ensure proper safety in such areas. We cannot have more deaths taking place, so we need to place the right emphasis on the serious dangers that exist, on which many people have campaigned.

[Dr Huppert]

I thank the hon. Lady for making that point. I suspect that many Members wish to intervene, and I will give way as many times as I can as long as they are brief.

I met the Mayor’s director of the environment yesterday specifically to talk about the Bow roundabout. I notice that the London cycling campaign has some proposals on the matter as well. It is not in my constituency and I am not an expert on the details. There are clearly other such junctions where much more work needs to be done to make them safe.

[Mr Andy Slaughter (Hammersmith) (Lab)]

rose—

[Dr Huppert]

I should like to move on from the Bow roundabout. Members will have the chance to speak later. I do not want to take up too much of anyone else’s time.

There is rightly intense media interest when cyclists are killed or seriously injured. Such stories are vital and often harrowing. The Times campaign is partly based on the awful injuries suffered by Mary Bowers, who is a journalist and a former student from my constituency. The stories highlight the need for improved safety. One of the problems is that Government policy has tended to be largely reactionary and that has put people off cycling, which is a real problem. The evidence is clear that the more people who cycle, the safer that it gets. There is a strong group effect in that regard.

One study showed that if the number of cyclists is doubled, the accident risk is reduced by more than a third. The Dutch have a lower accident rate because of, not in spite of, the number of cyclists. Anything that deters people from cycling is very damaging and risks increasing the dangers for all.

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

As most of the items concerning cycling in my constituency are devolved matters, I will not take up time speaking about them. On this very point of the increase in numbers, I represent a constituency and a city that have a good record in increasing the number of cyclists, and that has happened over many years. Does the hon. Gentleman agree that one of the key factors in getting a change in attitude and increasing the numbers is consistent support from local authorities and active organisations? That is the key to getting the long-term change that we all want.

[Dr Huppert]

Local activity is absolutely critical. In my own area, Cambridge city council has long prioritised this matter. When I was a councillor, I chaired the traffic management committee. Local activity in other areas is also important, so the Cambridge cycling campaign and the London cycling campaign do a lot of excellent work to keep up the pressure.

I am not going to list every cycling campaign in the country; I am sure that they are all excellent. Today, I hope that all Members will have a chance to speak and to focus on how cycling in this country can be further improved and encouraged. Both The Times campaign and the all-party parliamentary group take a holistic view about promoting cycling as a whole. That is what I hope that we can discuss today. The debate is long overdue and the need for change is pressing.

Let me talk briefly about the positives of cycling in case some Members are not aware of them. Cycling is the most efficient form of transport in the world. Many studies have highlighted its energy efficiency compared with cars, trains, buses, planes and even walking. A 2009 study by Professor David MacKay found that an average cyclist will use less than a third of the amount of energy required to walk, a sixth of the energy needed to travel by coach and an eightieth of the energy a car would use. When we consider that efficiency and the average distances that people travel, cycling becomes almost a no-brainer. Three-quarters of our journeys in this country are five miles or less. Most cyclists could travel such a distance fairly quickly. Of course cycling is not the answer to each of those journeys, but more cycling could be done. Cycling is efficient; we can use it for our basic transport needs. In the UK, cycling accounts for just 2% of all trips. That number should be far higher.

[Guy Opperman (Hexham) (Con)]

I cycled in to the House of Commons today from Fulham. Members can see that from my helmet hair. I support my hon. Friend and The Times campaign, and I hope that my local cities in the north-east—Newcastle and Gateshead—will institute the campaign as part of their ongoing work. I represent the small rural towns of Hexham, Ponteland and Prudhoe. Does my hon. Friend agree that we can apply this campaign to all such rural towns?

[Dr Huppert]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. Rural towns and rural areas can also do things to promote cycling. The details will obviously be different, but the principle is the same. The benefits from having more cyclists on our roads are also the same, in that drivers and other road users will understand what is happening.

[Mr Slaughter]

rose—

[Dr Huppert]

The hon. Gentleman is being very persistent, so I will give way.

[Mr Slaughter]

I am very grateful to the hon. Gentleman; he is being very generous. Does he agree that one easy and cheap way of improving cycling safety is to improve training? One of my constituents, Philippa Robb of londoncycletraining.co who is here today, says that two hours of training costs £70 and would absolutely transform cyclists’ safety on the road. We are not talking about millions of pounds of infrastructure investment. Of course we need other measures as well, but surely that is something that the Government can do. Companies, too, can get involved. They often sponsor the cycle-to-work scheme but not the training.

[Dr Huppert]

The hon. Gentleman is absolutely correct about training support, and I will talk later about that issue. I am very pleased that the Government have continued to fund Bikeability training for young people. It is very important to catch people at a young age.

[Michael Ellis (Northampton North) (Con)]

Will my hon. Friend give way?

[Dr Huppert]

I will give way to my colleague on the Home Affairs Committee and then I will make some progress.

[Michael Ellis]

I am very grateful to my hon. Friend for giving way and I congratulate him on securing this debate. I have had a number of letters from my constituents in Northampton North, which is a business hub with a lot of haulage traffic—lorries and the like. Those vehicles can and do present a danger to cyclists. Does he have any suggestions about how that problem can be alleviated?

[Dr Huppert]

A number of things have been done, and a number of other things can be done about that problem, including providing sensors and mirrors around vehicles, and training. There are various exchange programmes to allow cyclists to understand what it is like to be in a heavy goods vehicle and heavy goods vehicle drivers to understand what it is like on a bike, so that there is more awareness and everyone can behave more sensibly.

Why are so few people cycling? It is not for a lack of bikes. Each year, more bikes than cars are sold in the UK. Also, the costs of cycling are quite low. Bikes are not as expensive as a car or a travelcard; a cyclist does not have to join the AA; and maintenance costs are low. All a cyclist has to do is to eat some food. Cycling is also reliable: there is no waiting around for a bus or train; cyclists will not be caught up in traffic; and if—unfortunately—a cyclist is late, it is normally because they left too late.

[Rehman Chishti]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[Dr Huppert]

I have already given way once to the hon. Gentleman, so I am afraid that I will not give way again.

The health benefits of encouraging cycling are also huge, but they are not properly estimated. Obesity costs our country around £20 billion a year, which is about as much as the entire budget for the Department for Transport. We know that investment in active transport—walking and cycling—pays massive dividends. Rather interestingly, some studies have shown that the average life expectancy of cyclists is up to two years longer than that of non-cyclists. That is good news for us, but less good news for those debating the pensions issue.

Cycling is good for the environment. Even if one takes into account the food that cyclists eat, where it comes from and how it was produced, carbon dioxide emissions are a fraction of those from other vehicles and typically very little other pollution is emitted.

[Jason McCartney (Colne Valley) (Con)]

On participation, last May I got on the back of a bike for the first time in 20 years, alongside 150 other Huddersfield Town fans, as we cycled from Huddersfield to Brighton, raising £250,000 for the Yorkshire ambulance service. That fundraising trip was so successful that more than 300 Huddersfield Town fans will ride from Yeovil to Huddersfield this May. That is a massive increase in participation. Many of those charity cyclists are riding for charity for the first time and, indeed, riding a bike for the first time in many years. So there are a lot of new initiatives, particularly based around charity, and they increase participation in cycling.

[Dr Huppert]

Absolutely. There are a huge number of cycling activities to participate in. We must ensure that people are aware of them, so that we can bring more people into cycling.

On the subject of participation, the current score is that 53 Members are in Westminster Hall today for this debate, including the Minister.

As I have said, cycling is efficient, cheap, reliable, healthy and environmentally friendly—by all accounts, it is a public policy maker’s dream—and I have not even mentioned cycling as a leisure activity, including road biking or mountain biking, or as a sport. We have some of the best international cyclists in the world. We should note that just last week Great Britain came top of the medals table in the track world cup, with an outstanding five gold medals. Our national cycling team is world-renowned, but our provision for cyclists off the track is deeply inadequate.

What can the Government do to encourage our most effective yet underrated form of transport? This is not just about spending large amounts of cash. There are a lot of small and cheap changes that will make a very big difference to cycling in this country.

[Ms Karen Buck (Westminster North) (Lab)]

Will the hon. Gentleman join me in congratulating politicians of all parties in London who have overseen a significant rise in cycling in the capital? Does he agree that, although the number of people cycling in London has risen dramatically, car use is projected to increase at least as fast as that of bicycle use, if not faster, and therefore that how we manage the road space to accommodate the growing demand from both cyclists and drivers needs to be a critical element in planning for the future?

[Dr Huppert]

Absolutely—managing road space is key. Of course, a cyclist takes up a lot less road space than a car user, so when we move people over to bikes from cars we actually free up space, which is very valuable. I emphasise the point that the hon. Lady makes about cycling being a cross-party issue. There are differences between us in the parties, but I hope that this debate will not become a party political knockabout. I do not think that any of us wants that to happen; this issue is too important to the public.

The reforms that we need are not new. Many of the proposed reforms that we will hear about today have been called for by cyclists for years. National organisations such as CTC, which was formerly the Cyclists Touring Club, and local groups such as the Cambridge cycling campaign have worked very hard for sensible policies and support. As a party, the Liberal Democrats have been pushing for those policies for many years, and I am delighted that somebody from my party—the Under-Secretary of State, my hon. Friend the Member for Lewes—is the Minister with responsibility for cycling now.

We have been able to make some progress. Just recently, some extra money was provided for cyclists, with £7 million going to improve cycle-rail integration, which is absolutely critical. Someone can do a huge amount with a train and a bike, and it is very important that cyclists have places to park their bike and that they can get their bike on the train. I have been working for a long time to achieve some of those things at Cambridge station.

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

I congratulate my hon. Friend on securing this debate. On the point about trains, I have been working very closely with the Ealing cycling campaign, specifically about the fact that not everyone wants to cycle all the way to work. Sometimes, people want to cycle to the train station, get on the train and then be able to get off the other end. Does he agree that it is very important that we encourage more train operators to make it easier for people to take their bikes on trains and also that stations, including the parking centres, are made more cyclist-friendly?

--- Later in debate ---

[Dr Huppert]

Definitely. I hope that the money that I have just referred to will help—it is being matched by some other support—and I talk quite regularly to the Association of Train Operating Companies about what we can do to improve matters. In addition, I think that we are finally about to make some progress at Cambridge station, which I am delighted about.

There is another issue. Cycle parking applies throughout our towns and not just at the stations. As well as the fact that it is possible to fit in more bikes than other vehicles, which is very helpful, cyclists actually spend more when they go shopping than people who go by car. So it would be quite good for our economy to see more people cycling.

A further issue is getting people started and helping them to find a route that they can follow to get where they want to go. There is an excellent Cambridge-based company called CycleStreets that has route-mapping across the whole country. All our constituencies are covered by that provision. It is free online, and I can recommend the iPhone Bike Hub app, which will even suggest the quietest routes or routes that avoid hills if that is what people want; people have to cycle the remaining hills themselves. The development cost for that provision was around £40,000, to generate something that covers the whole country. It was developed using open public data and private sector initiative, and I hope that MPs, councils, train operators, event organisers and others will link up to the CycleStreets website, so that they can give cyclists specific information on how to get to a station, event or wherever they are trying to get to very easily.

[Andrew Selous (South West Bedfordshire) (Con)]

On road space, I just wanted to ask—as someone who has been knocked off his bike twice—if the hon. Gentleman agrees that what we really want to move to is what happens in great European cities such as Munich, where there is clearly defined space for pedestrians, road users and cyclists, with the space for each group clearly marked?

[Dr Huppert]

There are many cases where clear segregation, including dedicated cycle routes, is absolutely the right thing, but we must also look at policies across the whole country. In rural areas, that suggestion simply would not be sensible. We need the right solution in the right place, and I think we can deliver that.

There are a number of measures that companies should adopt, such as providing showers and lockers at work, which will help to promote cycling and, in turn, cycling will help to improve employee well-being and productivity. The cycle to work scheme works very well, but the tax problems need to be resolved and the scheme should be promoted a bit further.

[Tessa Munt (Wells) (LD)]

I want to point out that the county freight route through Somerset, which is the A371, exactly illustrates the problem that was mentioned just a moment ago by my hon. Friend the Member for South West Bedfordshire (Andrew Selous). On that route, there is certainly not space to allow cyclists a dedicated route; actually, there is not even space for cyclists, pedestrians and those who drive their freight vehicles along that route as they head towards the smallest city in England, which is Wells. Will my hon. Friend the Member for Cambridge (Dr Huppert) support the moves of the Strawberry Line Association, which is trying to use the old railway that runs through Somerset to promote both cycling and, of course, walking—but mostly cycling—and to enable children in particular to go to schools that are at either the Cheddar end or the Wells end of that route?

[Dr Huppert]

There are a lot of greenways such as that one that can be used. In some parts of the country, they are used extensively and they are very good things, whether they run along a canal or an old railway line, unless, of course, it is planned to turn an old railway line into a new railway line; that might be happening. But there are certainly great opportunities, such as the one that my hon. Friend describes.

The small scale matters, but the Government need to encourage a much broader and long-term shift towards cycling. Some of that work costs money, but not a vast amount. To get to European-standard cycling towns would cost about £10 per person per year, which is not a huge or unthinkable sum.

In 2010, my hon. Friend the Minister announced a new local sustainable transport fund that is worth more than £500 million. Every local authority applied for money from that fund, and 38 out of the 39 successful bids included cycling aspects. That was a huge step forward, which I am delighted to endorse.

[Mr Rob Wilson (Reading East) (Con)]

I thank my hon. Friend for giving way, and I must say that I also support the campaign by The Sunday Times. The main thing that will increase the number of cyclists in our towns and cities is better safety. As a keen cyclist myself, I often find when I cycle in Reading that it is an extremely risky business. Does he agree, therefore, that local authorities need to do a lot more, and that simply painting some white lines on the road is just not good enough? We need much more action from local authorities, as well as from Government.

[Dr Huppert]

Local authorities at their best have some fantastic schemes. At their worst they paint a few white lines, which then stop suddenly and do not go anywhere, so we need the right infrastructure. More can be done with a local sustainable transport fund. I want to see that fund grow and I want a clear message from the Minister that schemes with lots of cycling in them are more likely to be successful. We need to increase substantially our national spend on cycling infrastructure, and that would be one way to do it. Local authorities are investing in some of these schemes, but they need to do more. They should also look at other options to increase permeability using things such as contraflow cycle lanes, which we have used safely in Cambridge for many years.

[Graham Evans (Weaver Vale) (Con)]

On local authorities and highways departments, some of the problems I find when cycling on main roads are grids and resurfacing. There may be limited white lines to protect cyclists, but it is amazing how those grids may be sunk into the road and, especially in the evenings, we go over them, they damage the vehicle and—worse—someone comes off.

--- Later in debate ---

[Dr Huppert]

The hon. Gentleman has highlighted a number of problems. We need to have better quality roads. As a cyclist, I find that what may be a relatively small hole for a car becomes very large for a cyclist, particularly if we have to swerve round it.

[Mr Jim Cunningham (Coventry South) (Lab)]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[Dr Huppert]

Can I just make my next point? I will try to take as many interventions as possible, but it means that other people will not be able to speak.

The much lamented Cycling England was excellent at providing accurate information and advice, so that councils could find out ahead of time what would work and what would not. They could advise on junction design and the disadvantages, for example, of having mixed shared-use pavements. Cycling England was excellent value for money and a great resource for the country. To quote Jed Bartlet, “Can we have it back, please?”

Improving road layout does not have to be expensive. The changes to the rules that the Government have made for 20 mph zones, which are much safer, have reduced the costs of implementation. Good planning can ensure that cycle facilities are integral to new developments, rather than retrofitted later.

[Mr Cunningham]

Earlier in his speech, the hon. Gentleman referred to transport costs. Given that fuel prices, bus fares and so forth are rising, it is cheaper to cycle. Has he had any discussions with the transport companies themselves?

[Dr Huppert]

As part of my role as co-chair of the Liberal Democrat committee on transport, I have had several conversations with transport committees. I will happily talk to the hon. Gentleman about the details later.

The issue is not simply about infrastructure. We have to look at training and education for cyclists and drivers alike. I am pleased about the Bikeability scheme, which will train 400,000 nine to 11-year-olds a year. It is vital that our children are introduced to the benefits of cycling at a young age, that they are encouraged to cycle to school and that they are given the training to do so safely. I would like to see all cyclists cycling safely and legally, as all road users should.

[Bob Stewart (Beckenham) (Con)]

It may surprise some to know that I cycle in London. Twice I have been hit from behind by motorists. I noticed in the three years that I cycled—until I was very badly hurt—that many cyclists totally ignore red lights. It is also up to the cycling community to behave properly. It is not only the responsibility of Government or motorists. I am sure that everyone here obeys red lights. I used to watch about 50% of the cyclists go straight through red lights and I saw accidents occur because of that.

[Dr Huppert]

I am not sure that the 50% figure is accurate. Several studies have shown that it is smaller than that. The key point is that all road users should behave legally. Drivers should not speed and should not use their mobile phones. Cyclists should not go through red lights. Everybody should stick to the rules and then everybody would be safer. If we can move away from the argument of cyclists versus car users versus taxis or whatever to everybody behaving safely, we would all do much better.

[Ms Diane Abbott (Hackney North and Stoke Newington) (Lab)]

On safety, at the end of my road in Hackney, there is a ghost bike permanently fixed to the wall, because of a cyclist who was doing his best. He was killed by a lorry trying to turn out of my road. One of the things that we want to do is not just make life convenient for cyclists, but save lives.

[Dr Huppert]

Absolutely. We need to save lives, and promoting cycling is a good way to do that.

It is important that users of heavy goods vehicles and other road users know how to deal with cyclists. Driving tests could be improved so that how to deal with cyclists becomes part of the test. I hope that the Government will consider that. We can get this modal shift. In my constituency, a quarter of adults cycle to work or education. We can get there.

Finally, as The Times has so powerfully advocated, we must have a cohesive strategy regarding cycle safety. For me, the most sensible way to look at cycle safety is from the bottom up. The work done by Caroline Pidgeon, who chairs the London Assembly Transport Committee, shows the grass-roots local changes that can make a difference. She has worked extremely hard as an advocate for cycle safety in London. Tragically, 16 cyclists died on London’s roads last year. Caroline has met some of the families affected by those tragedies and they are united in calling for better protection for cyclists. We need to see segregated cycle lanes, Trixi mirrors, 20 mph speed limits and the training that we need.

Through local campaigning, such demands are now at the forefront of the London elections, The Times campaign and the national agenda, with immediate changes hopefully happening over the coming months.

[Richard Graham (Gloucester) (Con)]

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman. As the newspaper has it, “The debate begins” and he’s pedalling first.”

Does the hon. Gentleman agree that one crucial thing in cycling safety is the use of lights at night? So often we see other cyclists on the road at night without lights on their bicycles. Does he agree that it would be helpful if cycles were made that already had lights on them that could not be taken away? Does he agree that it would be a great thing to have all 54 cyclists here today on our bikes cycling from Parliament to the Mayor’s office with the daddy of parliamentary bicycling, the Leader of the House of Commons, my right hon. Friend the Member for North West Hampshire (Sir George Young), and the Mayor of London joining us on a cycle ride to raise funds for cycling safety?

[Dr Huppert]

That is an excellent idea. I look forward to the hon. Gentleman’s joining us for the parliamentary bike ride. We will see if we can attract such coverage and interest.

[Kate Hoey (Vauxhall) (Lab)]

The hon. Gentleman has talked about cycle safety in relation to road users. Will he say a little about cyclists in relation to pedestrians and pavements?

--- Later in debate ---

[Dr Huppert]

The answer is clear. Where cyclists are not allowed to cycle on pavements, they should not do so. People who cycle dangerously in that way should stop doing that. We must remember the figures: 1.1% of pedestrian fatalities are the result of collisions with cyclists. The rest are all collisions with motor vehicles. We must remember that the bigger problem is cars hitting pedestrians.

[Andrew George (St Ives) (LD)]

As my hon. Friend knows, I am an enthusiastic cyclist. He has described at least a dozen, if not more, initiatives that are necessary to achieve the objectives that we all want. If we want to achieve safety on our roads, perhaps we should have one or two initiatives instead of a dozen or more. Perhaps we are trying to do too much to improve safety on our roads.

[Dr Huppert]

I am afraid I do not agree with that comment. We can do a lot all at once. We need to get the safety improvements, the training and everything else that I have spoken about.

The Minister has made progress on Trixi mirrors and 20 mph limits. There is more to do on segregated cycle lanes and training, as well as regulations for heavy goods vehicle sensors, as in the private Member’s Bill promoted by my right hon. Friend the Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Sir Alan Beith), whom I am delighted to see here.

The Government should also look at sentencing and prosecution with respect to crashes involving cyclists, and consider new measures such as proportionate liability. There are far too many stories of people who have been killed or seriously injured, while the guilty party seems to get away almost scot-free. It is appalling that so many cyclists feel excluded from justice. The Government have taken steps on this, but there is much more that can be done to prevent tragedies on our roads.

On 14 March, the all-party parliamentary cycling group will launch the “summer of cycling”. We have brought together the key cycling organisations to work under one banner this year, linking events such as National Bike Week, the Tour of Britain, and the Big Pedal. Our aim is to persuade each of the millions who get involved every year to get one new person on a bike. I hope that all hon. Members and Ministers will support that.

For many years, cyclists have worked from the bottom up through campaigns to promote cycling and put it on the national agenda. The Government must also do their part. In the year of the London Olympics we have a unique opportunity to take radical steps to promote our most efficient form of transport. The Government have done some work on that, and yet with increasingly congested cities, more competition for resources and the need to improve public health, the need for investment in cycling has become more acute. We cannot miss this golden opportunity to create a safe, sustainable transport network. For too long cycling has been undervalued and not supported. The Government must listen to the more than 50 Members here today and take further action to promote cycling now.

[Several hon. Members]

rose—

--- Later in debate ---

[Dr Huppert]

Thank you for chairing the second half of this debate, Mr Bayley. The attendance at this excellent debate shows how much we all care about cycling. More than 75 Members have attended, including three Ministers: the Leader of the House, the Minister, who has responsibility for cycling, and the Under-Secretary of State for Transport, the hon. Member for Hemel Hempstead (Mike Penning), who has responsibility for road safety and whom I am delighted to see at this important event.

I am delighted by the largely consensual nature of the debate. If all debates in the House of Commons were like this, we might make more progress on a number of issues. This shows that the Government have a clear mandate to act now and act strongly. I hope that the Minister for Cycling wins the fights that he will have to have with the Treasury and all sorts of people to make much further progress on all these issues, which all hon. Members care about so much.

I encourage hon. Members to join the all-party cycling group, if they are not already a member, and have more such events. I invite all hon. Members to our annual reception and the launch of the “Summer of cycling” on 14 March, which will be a huge event for the year, and to our parliamentary bike ride on 13 June. Special celebrities may yet join us at both those events.

This is an immediate issue, but we need to keep it going for the future. It is not about them and us: it is about making roads and cities that work for everyone. Safety is important. We should also remember all the great benefits of cycling: it is cheap, healthy, efficient, sustainable and fun. We must remember the sheer joy of cycling.

Cycling must become a normal activity that people can engage in from eight to 80, and beyond both those ages. I thank all hon. Members who have attended and those in the Public Gallery and others out there who have been following the debate. Many congratulations to The Times on all its work in leading this campaign. We can make a difference. [Hon. Members: “Hear, hear.”]

Question put and agreed to.

Civil Aviation Bill

Julian Huppert Excerpts

Monday 30th January 2012 Commons Chamber

[Maria Eagle]

That is indeed the worry. NATS does not cost the taxpayer a penny to run—in fact, it pays a dividend to the Government. In June last year, NATS paid a dividend of £42.5 million, and in November announced a further £8.2 million. The Government received a significant share of that as the majority shareholder. Their decision to sell all of NATS would therefore be a short-term, quick-buck decision. Like their approach to aviation security in the Bill, they are placing a narrow focus on deficit reduction ahead of the wider economic and security impact. I hope the Secretary of State ensures that she puts proper pressure on the Chancellor, whom she knows very well, to make a good decision and to retain a stake in NATS.

Finally, although the measures in the Bill are important —they are all concerns for the aviation industry—there is an elephant in the room, because the Bill does not and cannot address the capacity issues facing the industry, particularly in the south-east and the future of our hub status. The Government’s failure to set out a strategy for aviation and the lack of any plan to do so until late in this Parliament is putting jobs and growth at risk. Their call for airports to be “better not bigger” has always been a slogan, not a policy, but even they seem to be waking up to the fact that a blanket ban on growth and new capacity in the south-east makes no sense.

In government, Labour supported the industry’s proposal for a third runway at Heathrow—as the UK’s only hub airport—as the best way to add additional capacity. However, the Opposition have accepted the Government’s decision to cancel the third runway, and it is time to move on and seek an alternative way forward. Our decision can ensure that we do not waste another five years wrangling over that proposal while the industry risks falling behind our EU competitors, and while major airlines simply move more of their operations abroad, where there are no capacity constraints.

[Dr Julian Huppert (Cambridge) (LD)]

I am delighted that the hon. Lady’s party has come to its senses and ruled out the third runway. I hope that she will tell us what her suggestion is, because she has a long track record—such as on high-speed rail—of suggesting things but never quite pinning down an actual idea.

[Maria Eagle]

If the hon. Gentleman would wait just a moment, he might hear my suggestion.

Two weeks ago, the Prime Minister was apparently persuaded of the case for a new airport in the Thames estuary, a position that lasted a full 24 hours before the Under-Secretary of State for Transport, the hon. Member for Lewes (Norman Baker) slapped him down. Then the papers were briefed that new runways at Gatwick or Stansted were back on the agenda, despite the coalition agreement seemingly ruling that out. British business cannot afford this chaos and confusion continuing until or even beyond the next election. That is why I have made a clear offer to the Secretary of State for us to work together and put aside our differences for the good of the country to see whether we can agree a joint position on how we can meet the capacity issues in light of the decision on Heathrow. We have been disappointed that, three months on, the Government have not responded to that offer.

I was, however, encouraged by the constructive response from the Conservative party chair, Baroness Warsi, on last week’s BBC “Question Time”, in response to my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, West Derby (Stephen Twigg). She said:

“Some serious discussions—cross-party discussions—have to take place, because I don’t think anyone in this country wants us to be a republic which is left behind and really nobody wants to trade with.”

Leaving aside why the chair of the Conservative party believes that we are a republic, she is right to agree with us that we need a cross-party approach, and about the consequences of not agreeing a way forward. If the Transport Secretary would like to confirm that she does accept our offer and is willing to begin talks on how we can move forward on this issue together, then I am happy to give way.

[Maria Eagle]

Coming from a party that last week had a different policy every day, none of which was in accordance with the majority party’s manifesto or the coalition agreement, it is a bit of a cheek for the Secretary of State to put that point to us.

A successful, thriving aviation sector is crucial for our economic competitiveness. It is vital that industry can plan for the future with certainty, not least to deliver the investment needed to provide the additional capacity required if we are not to fall further behind our EU competitors. I welcome the Government’s decision to bring forward this Bill and take forward the reforms that we began—

[Dr Huppert]

Will the hon. Lady give way?

[Maria Eagle]

I am coming to a conclusion now, so the hon. Gentleman should wait for his own speech—[Hon. Members: “Ah!”] I have given way to him once.

The regulatory regime governing the aviation sector is outdated and inflexible and this Bill will be an important modernisation, enabling the CAA to fulfil its functions in a way that better reflects the industry today, and in a way that can respond to the individual circumstances of our major airports. Putting the passenger at the heart of aviation economic regulation is overdue. I urge the Government to look again at those areas where there is considerable consensus that the Bill could be improved to provide even greater protection to passengers through clearer obligations on airports in respect of their welfare, not least during severe weather.

The Government should also live up to their increasingly hollow claim to be the “greenest Government ever” and place an environmental duty back on the face of the Bill, and give a much clearer steer to the industry by giving their firm backing to—at the very least—the emissions targets we set in government. In addition, Ministers should reflect very carefully on the concerns that have been raised over the proposed transfer of security functions from the Department and ministerial control.

It is one thing for us to agree on a credible regulatory regime for the aviation industry—and I believe that over the course of the passage of this Bill we will be able to agree these issues—but what the industry desperately needs is for us all to agree a credible long-term strategy for the sector, which will last across Parliaments and will not become a political football again at the next general election as it was at the last. So let us work together on the right way, consistent with the need to tackle emissions and the threat of climate change, to provide the capacity that the industry needs.

--- Later in debate ---

[Dr Julian Huppert (Cambridge) (LD)]

I do not want to disappoint the House but I am not going to speak in great detail about Cambridge international airport and the wonderful services it provides. Hon. Members can come on some other occasion to hear about that.

Changes to the regulatory framework of civil aviation are long overdue and the changes in the Bill are broadly welcome. The Bill builds on the findings of the 2008 Pilling review, which noted in particular the need to bring the legislative framework up to date. Work on the proposals began under the previous Administration and is being carried forward by the coalition, so the measures clearly have cross-party support, which I welcome. We in the Liberal Democrats particularly welcome the Government’s aspiration to put passengers at the heart of airport operations and the sections of the Bill that help to accomplish that. For too long, transport policy has been based on the top-down, central control of large systems. An effective transport system, whether for airports, trains or anything else, should be passenger-focused and should be viewed from the bottom up, so the new duty on the CAA to focus on end users is extremely welcome. Having said that, I would like to see more in the Bill about environmental considerations and I would be interested to hear whether a duty to consider such issues could be put into clauses 1 and 2, because the environmental performance of the aviation industry matters.

I should also like to know a bit more from Ministers about the measure that puts a duty on the CAA regarding

“the need to secure that all reasonable demands for airport operation services are met”.

I should particularly like to know what is reasonable. Is it reasonable for me to expect there to be flights from Cambridge international airport to any destination I choose? I presume not, but what would be a reasonable expectation?

I welcome the reforms to the air travel organisers’ licensing regime, which was put in place back in 1982. Since then, the way in which we buy holidays, and what those holidays involve, has changed dramatically. It is entirely appropriate for the Secretary of State to have the power to extend the scope of ATOL to give passengers the assurances they deserve, and it is clearly absurd that only a small proportion of holidays are covered currently and that many consumers are simply unaware whether they are protected or not. However, I am concerned that some organisations might still be excluded under the proposed changes, and I hope that it might be possible to consider going somewhat further. I believe that the Transport Committee is talking to ATOL tomorrow—

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

indicated assent.

[Dr Huppert]

I am grateful to see the hon. Gentleman nodding, and I hope that some of the information the Committee produces can be taken into account in the Bill.

There are some welcome provisions in the Bill that will open up Government data concerning airports. Having open public data is a key aim of the Liberal Democrats and of the coalition’s programme for Government. The CAA will be given the power to enable airports to publish data to assist passengers or potential passengers in making informed choices. The best way in which the Government can drive up standards is by empowering individuals to make informed choices, and that is what these measures will achieve. The new power for the CAA to publish information about the environmental impact of aviation is also welcome. The real costs of airplane emissions are often hidden, and the Government have a duty to make them known as a first step towards making sure that something can be done to reduce them.

Most of the changes in the Bill have been subject to extensive consultation over the many years of its gestation. Papers from the previous Administration and the coalition Government have generally had positive feedback and the recent draft Bill was broadly welcomed by the industry. However, there are some aspects of the Bill that I hope will be considered in more detail in Committee. First, it seems slightly odd that there are new powers for information regarding the environmental impact of aviation to be published but that there is no commensurate duty for the CAA to do anything about the issue after publishing that information. The CAA will have a new power to publish information to benefit passengers and a duty to work in their interests. I therefore think that the power to publish information about the environment should be matched by a duty to act on that information.

[Mark Lazarowicz]

Is it not more serious than that? The Bill will allow licensed conditions to be imposed, based on certain criteria, but those conditions will not include environmental ones, so it seems that the CAA will not be able to include environmental considerations in the licences it grants.

[Dr Huppert]

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

Clause 84(2) says that the CAA

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

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

[Mr Donohoe (Central Ayrshire) (Lab)]

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

[Dr Huppert]

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

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

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

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

[Mark Lazarowicz]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[Dr Huppert]

A number of people still wish to speak, so I shall not give way again.

The Select Committee on Transport made some sensible recommendations to the Government, which I am sure will be given due consideration. For example, it noted that the aviation industry has concerns about the way in which the CAA will implement the new provisions, given the difficult business conditions that many regional airports face. It also noted, as have many hon. Members today, that the CAA is the only economic regulator that does not fall under the remit of the National Audit Office, and it recommended that an explicit efficiency duty for the CAA be inserted in the Bill or, indeed, we could make the NAO responsible for supervising the operation of the CAA. The Government have not yet provided a full response to the Committee’s recommendations, but I hope that they will do so as soon as possible and look at those sensible ideas.

Overall, the Bill offers crucial modernisation for civil aviation regulation, and it will help to promote success and competition in aviation. The Liberal Democrats welcome the focus on passengers, the reform of ATOL, the sensible framework for economic regulation and the opening up of public data. I hope that in Committee we can ensure that the Bill properly delivers the Government’s aims and creates a sustainable future for civil aviation in this country based on open data, proper regulation, sustainable transport and passenger-led reforms.

--- Later in debate ---

[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.

--- Later in debate ---

[Norman Baker]

I am happy to advise the hon. Gentleman that the Department for Transport is producing a comprehensive aviation strategy, which according to the Department’s business plan will be published in March. He will be able to look at that and see whether it deals with the Northern Ireland situation in which he is clearly interested.

The shadow Secretary of State referred to the issue of future passengers, as against present passengers. I recognise that that is an issue, and clause 1(5) empowers the CAA to determine how to fulfil its primary duty to promote the interests of users when conflicts arise. This is in line with affording requisite discretion to the regulator and taking politics out of regulation. In other words, it would not be helpful for the case the hon. Lady makes to be more specific about the CAA’s powers than the Bill currently is.

One or two hon. Members asked why the airline consultation supplementary duty has been dropped. Stakeholders, including airlines should be consulted by the CAA when it carries out its economic regulatory functions. There is an obligation to consult bodies representing airlines on licence conditions, licence modifications and penalties. Any airline is free to make representations, and we do not believe that the CAA would ignore any relevant representation. Furthermore, whenever a conflict arises between passengers’ interest and those of airlines, the CAA will be bound to act in passengers’ interests, given the primary duty in the Bill. A further secondary duty would not affect that position, which is why we came to that conclusion.

The shadow Secretary of State also asked about resilience. The implication of her comments was that since the former Secretary of State for Transport—with her, it appears—was out at Heathrow, nothing has happened, but nothing could be further from the truth. There have been extensive discussions between the Department and the owners and operators at Heathrow about winter resilience. This winter, I am happy to say that the major airports in London are much better prepared than they were last year. But when the CAA proposes full airport licences, it will of course be required to consult on the content of licences and any subsequent changes to them. It will have to take into account any representations during those consultations when setting conditions, and we will require it to include welfare plans if those are in current and future passengers’ interests. I hope that that gives the hon. Lady the satisfaction she was seeking on that point.

Several hon. Members referred, rightly, to the welcome proposals in the Bill on ATOL, especially my hon. Friend the Member for Cambridge (Dr Huppert). He wanted an assurance that consumers would know when a holiday was ATOL-protected, and I can assure him that that is a key objective of the Government in the changes we are proposing. We are also interested, of course, in the Transport Committee’s deliberations on this important issue.

The hon. Member for Amber Valley (Nigel Mills) asked whether the Ryanair holiday model would be covered by the ATOL reforms. The intention is to ensure as far as possible that any holiday booked with a flight is covered by the changes. The hon. Members for Bolton West (Julie Hilling) and for Congleton (Fiona Bruce) also raised issues relating to ATOL reform. I confirm that we consulted over the summer on proposals to improve clarity for consumers about the ATOL scheme’s coverage. I agree fully that the current situation can be unclear and misleading for consumers, which is why action is needed as soon as possible.

We propose to expand the ATOL scheme to include flight-plus holidays that work like packages but lie outside the narrow legal definition. We also propose that an ATOL certificate should be issued whenever consumers purchase an ATOL-protected flight or holiday, as a further means of providing clarity. We aim to announce a decision shortly on the reforms, which can be implemented by new regulations under existing powers. We are taking steps forward on that. The holiday industry has made strong representations that it is no longer clear whether holidays are ATOL-protected. As I said, we think we can deal with that problem by allowing for the addition of more flight-based holidays.

In her introductory comments, the Chair of the Select Committee referred to impact assessments. The Transport Committee stated that

“licence conditions, and their associated costs to airports, may not be proportionate to the benefits delivered”,

and that was the thrust of her point. Ultimately, where costs are associated with licence conditions, users of air transport services will pay those costs. Where the costs of a proposed licence condition are seen to outweigh the benefits to passengers, it will not be in passengers’ interests to impose the condition, so the CAA’s primary duty would not be met if it did so.

The Bill requires the CAA to consult on proposed licence conditions and states that a licence may not include conditions that differ significantly from those on which it has already consulted. It must set out the reasons for conditions included in the licence, how it has taken into account any representations made, and the reasons for any differences from the conditions initially proposed. I think that that makes the case for the approach that we are taking. The fact that putting the passenger centre stage is the CAA’s primary duty will we hope give the hon. Lady the reassurance that she rightly seeks. I will come to security issues in a moment.

The shadow Secretary of State referred to vexatious appeals. I do not think that they are likely to occur. The Government’s proposed regime has features to deter frivolous or vexatious appeals. In particular, in most cases the appeal will not suspend the licence condition’s coming into effect, although the appeal body will have the power to impose interim relief under circumstances. There is therefore limited incentive to appeal for the purpose of delaying the decision.

The shadow Secretary of State also referred to the consumer panel. We believe that it is a useful innovation in the Bill. As she might know, the successor body to the Air Transport Users Council is being consulted on. It was announced on 18 January this year. The CAA will set up the CAA consumer panel as soon as possible and will immediately seek a suitable chair.

Environmental issues were raised by several Members, including my hon. Friend the Member for Cambridge, who was concerned, as were some Opposition Members, about the absence from the Bill of an environmental duty. The matter has been considered carefully. One reason why the Bill does not include such a duty at the moment, although the Government fully accept the need to take the environment into account in aviation, as everywhere else, is that it is thought that economic regulation is not the appropriate vehicle for doing so, not least because it enables the CAA to address only airports with substantial market power and only where regulatory intervention is warranted. That currently includes only three airports, but environmental externalities are present at a wider range of airports and need to be factored in. That is why the Government decided to proceed by placing on the CAA an information and publication duty that is considered to be more concrete and of more practical benefit to the public than the previously proposed environmental objective. The CAA is under an obligation to publish such information and can also issue advice and guidance to airport operators.

[Dr Huppert]

I hear what my hon. Friend says. He is correct that information is helpful and that all airports have a role to play, but will he consider more carefully whether it would be a good idea to put that environmental duty in the Bill so that as many steps as possible can be taken to protect the environment?

[Norman Baker]

My hon. Friend makes a point that others have made. If he or others want to pursue it in Committee, they will need to demonstrate that there is information that needs to be provided or actions that need to be taken that would not be provided or taken under the regime in the Bill. If he can demonstrate that, I am sure that Ministers will have an open mind.

The hon. Member for Milton Keynes South (Iain Stewart) made an interesting point about the CAA’s new consumer panel, suggesting that it could help the CAA to decide how to use those powers and what information to collect. That sounds like a good idea, and we will encourage the CAA to consider it. I am grateful to him for his suggestion.

Members on both sides of the House mentioned the National Audit Office. The NAO’s role is to scrutinise public spending on behalf of Parliament, but the income that the CAA derives from the industry is not public spending, as Parliament recognised when it removed the NAO’s role in 1984. The issue of the CAA’s auditors was considered by Sir Joseph Pilling, as my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State mentioned, as part of his 2008 strategic review of the authority. He concluded that there was no need for the NAO to be involved directly with the CAA.

Many other points were raised in the debate, but I am conscious that I have taken much longer than the shadow Minister. I therefore do not have time to deal with the issue of the smalls raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Daventry (Chris Heaton-Harris)—he went on at some length about that—but I can assure Members that all comments will be taken onboard. If I have not answered any questions, I will ensure that a letter is sent from the Department.

I think that this is a useful Bill. I am grateful for the support of Members from across the House, and I commend the Bill to the House.

Question put and agreed to.

Bill accordingly read a Second time.

Civil Aviation Bill (Programme)

Motion made, and Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 83A(7)),

That the following provisions shall apply to the Civil Aviation Bill:

Committal

1. The Bill shall be committed to a Public Bill Committee.

Proceedings in Public Bill Committee

2. Proceedings in the Public Bill Committee shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion on Thursday 15 March 2012.

3. The Public Bill Committee shall have leave to sit twice on the first day on which it meets.

Consideration and Third Reading

4. Proceedings on Consideration shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion one hour before the moment of interruption on the day on which those proceedings are commenced.

5. Proceedings on Third Reading shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion at the moment of interruption on that day.

6. Standing Order No. 83B (Programming committees) shall not apply to proceedings on consideration and Third Reading.

Other proceedings

7. Any other proceedings on the Bill (including any proceedings on consideration of Lords Amendments or on any further messages from the Lords) may be programmed.—(James Duddridge.)

Question agreed to.

Civil Aviation Bill (Money)

Queen’s recommendation signified.

Motion made, and Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 52(1)(a)),

That, for the purposes of any Act resulting from the Civil Aviation Bill, it is expedient to authorise—

(1) the payment out of money provided by Parliament of any increase attributable to the Act in the sums payable under any other Act out of money so provided, and

(2) the payment of sums into the Consolidated Fund.—(James Duddridge.)

Question agreed to.

CIVIL AVIATION BILL (CARRY-OVER)

Motion made, and Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 80A(1)(a)),

That if, at the conclusion of this Session of Parliament, proceedings on the Civil Aviation Bill have not been completed, they shall be resumed in the next Session.—(James Duddridge.)

Question agreed to.