Civil Aviation Bill

Lord Jenkin of Roding Excerpts

Wednesday 13th June 2012 Lords Chamber

[Lord Jenkin of Roding]

The noble Countess reminded me of the time when I served on the first Select Committee that looked at air travel and health. Many of the concerns that she has voiced again this afternoon were before us in that committee. Our main concern was deep vein thrombosis, which we had a lot of very interesting evidence about. I hope she will forgive me if I do not follow her speech, but I will certainly read it with much interest.

I would like to say how grateful I am, and I am sure other noble Lords are too, for the very careful briefing we had before this debate from my noble friend Lord Attlee and his officials. They gave us a wealth of detailed information and a very good start on how we might debate this Bill.

Like others, I give a very general welcome to the main thrust of the Bill. My noble friend described its main features with great clarity and it is unnecessary for me to repeat that. However, I shall make one preliminary point before I turn to the Bill itself. It concerns the consolidation of legislation. I have been very critical over the years of the failure of successive Governments to embark on the consolidation of legislation, particularly legislation that is by reference to large numbers of prior Acts. Paragraph 28 of the Explanatory Notes makes the point very clearly:

“The Bill makes changes to a number of existing Acts, most notably the Aviation Security Act 1982 … Civil Aviation Act 1982 … Airports Act 1986, Transport Act 2000 … and the Regulatory Enforcement and Sanctions Act 2008”.

All those Acts are being amended by this Bill. My noble friend will remember that at one of his briefings I asked why the opportunity was not taken to consolidate all this into a single piece of legislation and he agreed to look into that.

At the same time, I consulted our very excellent Library researchers, who, in their turn, consulted parliamentary counsel. They supplied me with a very full response with which, of course, I will not weary the House this afternoon—except for one brief paragraph:

“The question of whether consolidation is appropriate tends to be considered at two different stages. The first”—

that is the one with which I am concerned here—

“is when a Bill is being drafted. If the changes proposed to be made by a Bill are sufficiently extensive, rewriting the existing legislation with those changes may be appropriate”.

I was arguing with my noble friend that this was in fact precisely such a case. Parliamentary counsel went on to set out the reasons why, in his view, this Bill was not considered to warrant rewriting into existence a new, single Act. He made a fairly strong case, and I do not propose to pursue that, but I will make two general points.

Where there is complex, detailed, technical legislation, the practitioners who deal with this, and their lawyers, are thoroughly familiar with the legislation and all the terms, and can therefore read the new Bill and its amendments with full understanding straight away. For parliamentarians, however—I suspect that most of us do not begin to share that expertise—it is a very different process. Either we have to spend a great deal of time on researching the thing and getting all the earlier legislation, looking it all up and deciding how the Bill will impact it, or, as I suspect most of us do because we do not have that time, we rely on those who brief us. They are interested parties. They may not give us a fully objective view of what is happening. It therefore seems to me to be right that when a new Bill is being drafted and there might be a case for consolidation, that should be considered.

The second thing is the device known as the Keeling schedule. If you have an existing clause that is being substantially amended by a whole series of amendments, which may run to several pages of the Bill, it is extremely helpful if there can be a Keeling schedule—a schedule at the back of the Bill which illustrates what the Bill will look like with the amendments all incorporated. I hope that Governments will be ready to consider this. I have come fairly new to this legislation, and I confess to my noble friend and to the House that I in no way consider myself an expert in it. It would be a good deal easier if one could have either a consolidated Bill or a Keeling schedule. I hope that the House will forgive me for deviating from the general tenor of the debate to make that point.

In the rest of my remarks I will touch on three issues. There has already been mention of Clause 84, about the environmental effects of civil aviation. I declare an interest: I am a resident of Vauxhall. We are directly under the main westbound flight path into Heathrow and very conscious of not only the noise but the atmospheric pollution. My noble friend Lord Attlee supplied a very helpful note on air quality, pointing out all the existing legislation, both domestic Acts and regulations, and EU directives, in which all these things are firmly regulated. It was a long list; again, I will not weary the House. At the end of his note to me, my noble friend said:

“Clause 84 of the Civil Aviation Bill has been designed to require the CAA to publish such environmental information as it considers appropriate to draw passengers and freight owners into the Government’s wider efforts to address the environmental impact of aviation, and to raise awareness of the environmental effects of civil aviation in the UK and measures taken to mitigate its adverse effects”.

I am afraid that I do not understand what that means. I do not know what its effect is to be. One thing is perfectly clear: it is not intended that the CAA should become yet another environmental regulator. There are plenty of regulators of different sorts there already. I hope that my noble friend may be able to give us some explanation.

My second point concerns the duties imposed in the Bill on the CAA. It is, of course, the main economic regulator. Unlike other regulators, however, there appears to be no explicit requirement that it should act efficiently. There is no efficiency or proportionality objective in this. I have to ask my noble friend, “Why not?”. Every other regulator—all the other regulators—have requirements to act efficiently and proportionately. Why not the CAA? It seems to me that this might be the subject of not only an amendment but, as the noble Lord, Lord Davies, said, audit by the National Audit Office. Why not? The Government’s argument as I have understood it and as it was advanced in the other place is to say, “Well, this is not a government body. It is not like a government department”. But it is a statutory regulator and it is entirely appropriate that its efficiency should be audited by the National Audit Office. I get the impression, which others have had, that over the years the Department for Transport has not put efficiency of the CAA at a very high level. It has had a low priority. The Bill seems to be an opportunity to put it right.

My third point is rather more technical; for that reason, I have given my noble friend notice of it. It concerns the risk to the financing of the considerable airport investment by the BAA. This of course refers specifically to Heathrow, and I will take a few moments to explain. Heathrow is the largest private infrastructure investor in Europe. It invests over £100 million a month in capital projects. It supports thousands of jobs. Heathrow accepts the Government’s intention—this is important—that critical assets should be safeguarded by ring-fencing. Noble Lords may recollect the case of a water authority owned by Enron, but where the assets were ring-fenced in this country so that the bankruptcy of Enron made no difference at all; that is what it is aimed at. Heathrow accepts that that is entirely appropriate, so it is not concerned with that. What it has concerns with are specific aspects of the ring-fence, which the Government’s policy states could be derogated from in practice and would now be subject to appeal, as the noble Lord, Lord Davies, said, perhaps by airlines or by the CAA itself. BAA is having to raise very large sums of money on the markets. Any uncertainty of that kind would immediately imperil its fundraising operations. I questioned its representatives on this when I met them, and they were really very clear. They said, “This is a very important issue indeed for us. We have been promised that there can be derogation but, at the same time, there is no exemption from the appeal process”. To quote the note which they gave me:

“BAA’s position is straightforward: the possibility of appeal by an airline in relation to BAA’s debt arrangements would have an extremely negative market impact. It would be likely to hamper our ability to raise finance, possibly over a long period. This, in turn, would restrict our ability to invest. Since our capital projects are amongst the largest in Europe and create many thousands of jobs, this would be a very unfortunate outcome at a sensitive time for the economy”.

They have been promised derogation. What they must have is an exemption from any right of appeal. That could very properly be incorporated into this Bill. None of this, of course, is contrary to the main thrust of the Bill which, as I said at the beginning, I warmly support.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Clinton-Davis]

I speak as a former Aviation Minister and European Union Commissioner for Transport and the Environment. Those experiences have some relevance to this debate.

It is absolutely right to emphasise the importance of aviation, as the noble Earl, Lord Attlee, did. The contribution of aviation to our economy is immense. The number of people that it employs—some 250,000 directly and another 200,000 indirectly—is impressive. However, in a recent poll, to which I alluded earlier, some 91% of BALPA members considered that the Government did not sufficiently support the industry. I hope that the noble Earl will comment on that, since what he said in reply to my intervention was wholly inadequate.

Safety standards need to be stressed whenever possible. Should this point not appear forcefully in the Bill? This issue undoubtedly affects the members of BALPA and will, like others, be raised in the meetings that the Minister foresees taking place in the near future.

New technologies and biofuels, about which the Minister said nothing, need further investment. The Minister’s opening speech was silent on this issue. Perhaps he will expound on it in winding up.

As many Members have said, particularly my noble friend Lord Hunt of Chesterton, safety is a vital component of an effective aviation strategy. Lip service alone will not suffice. It is simply unacceptable for financial pressures on operators to push safety standards downwards and the Government should say so at every available opportunity.

I turn to the question of fatigue. Too often, insufficient attention is paid to this issue. Jim McAuslan, the general secretary of BALPA, has said that its call to the Government remains that they must follow the principled stand taken by the previous Government and underwrite existing UK standards until Europe can come up with something better. I ask the noble Earl whether the Government agree with that proposition. If so, what is being done?

The noble Lord, Lord Aberdare, stressed the importance of environmental duties. I entirely agree with his comments. It is essential—whatever the Government may say about this—

[Lord Jenkin of Roding]

I hope that the noble Lord will give way. In defence of my noble friend, the last speech was made by the noble Earl, Lord Cathcart; the noble Lord, Lord Aberdare is not here.

[Lord Clinton-Davis]

I am sorry—I did not know. It is entirely my fault.

No issue affecting aviation can be considered without addressing the issue of Britain’s runways. I know that the noble Lord, Lord Bradshaw, does not entirely agree with that, but he is quite wrong in not stressing the importance of that issue. It is highly significant. It is a case of Hamlet without the prince, and it is entirely ignored in this Bill. The issue of where Britain’s airport is to be located is essential, and I make no apology for referring to it. No legislation affecting aviation should be considered without addressing that issue. Of course, I differ with my own party concerning this issue, but they will all come round eventually. My own party and the Government will see the advantage of making Heathrow a vital part of our economy in ways that it is not at the moment. Of course, the Government excuse their silence by referring to the inquiry which it has set up—and they are right to do that. However, equally, there is no alternative to expanding Heathrow.

Prevarication in action inevitably impedes progress and, moreover, it is immensely costly. In my view there can only be one candidate: an improved Heathrow. Its advantages are manifest. First and foremost, the waiting time for the start of operations would be far less if Heathrow were chosen. Then, further airport and aircraft development, both of which will inevitably occur, will enable Heathrow to derive huge advantages from these issues. Most significantly, there is no viable alternative within a reasonable time span. The Government, plainly, are playing for time in the hope that something—anything—will turn up. That is not a policy but the abandonment of foresight. The clear fact is that Heathrow exists. Undoubtedly there are some—even major—disadvantages, but any alternative regime will also have those. There must be, and can be, the possibility of overcoming them. Above all, decisive action and a powerful lead from the Government are needed, and sadly, at the moment, both are lacking.