Civil Aviation Bill

Maria Eagle Excerpts

Monday 30th January 2012 Commons Chamber

[Justine Greening]

We have considered that very closely and it is one reason why these changes will not happen overnight. They will take place over the next two to three years so that we can ensure we get the right staff transferred with the right expertise. As my hon. Friend points out, we have a wealth of security expertise within the Department and across Government and that will still be there for us to draw on within the Department for Transport. I am assured of that.

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

Is the right hon. Lady at all concerned that the division of responsibilities will create new interfaces that might cause delay and problems in the swift implementation of policy?

[Justine Greening]

That is a very fair question and it is one that I have considered carefully, too. I do not believe that it will cause a problem at all; in fact, it will enhance the security approach that we are able to take. It will mean a far more ongoing and rigorous approach to security that will manage to combine the highest standards of security and safety at airports while delivering a more streamlined approach for passengers on the ground. That is better for everybody.

Clause 82 makes provision for the transfer to the Civil Aviation Authority of rights, powers, duties and liabilities as the Secretary of State considers appropriate. That will allow us to transfer to the CAA the experienced staff who carry out the regulatory compliance and vetting functions currently carried out by civil servants in my Department. That will not only devolve more responsibility to the CAA but will have the further advantage of bringing the “user pays” principle to aviation security. It is not right or fair that the taxpayer currently subsidises the cost of aviation by paying for its regulation. At a time when our overriding priority is to reduce the inherited debt and when difficult choices are being made about funding priorities it is right that the cost of regulatory compliance should be met by the industry that benefits from it and not by the taxpayer.

--- Later in debate ---

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

Let me begin by wishing the aviation Minister, the right hon. Member for Chipping Barnet (Mrs Villiers), well. Opposition Members were very sorry to hear of her accident and we wish her a speedy recovery from her injuries and from the surgery she is undergoing.

The Civil Aviation Bill started its life under the previous Administration and we were pleased, as was the industry, to see it included in the Queen’s Speech after the election. We will vote for the Bill’s Second Reading today and the Government will, in principle, have our continued support, subject to the scrutiny that this Bill should rightly receive as it progresses through its parliamentary stages and subject to the making of appropriate reassurances and necessary amendments.

The proposals that the Government inherited to reform the framework for airport economic regulation and modernise the CAA’s governance and operations are broadly correct. In a number of areas, we share the view of the Select Committee on Transport that the Bill could be improved, particularly in relation to passengers’ welfare and the sector’s environmental obligations. Should the Government not introduce their own proposals to do so we shall seek to improve the Bill in Committee.

We support the Government’s decision to use the legislation as a vehicle to reform and extend the ATOL scheme to provide greater protection for consumers, reflecting changes to the way in which holidays are sold today, as the Secretary of State set out. The Government have also decided to use the legislation to go beyond the economic regulatory purpose that was originally envisaged in the transfer of responsibilities relating to aviation security, which has emerged since the election or, more specifically, since the Government spending review. However, there are serious concerns about whether it is a desire to cut costs, rather than improve security, that is driving the changes. The Opposition will therefore require much greater assurance from the Government about how the changes will work in practice if we are not to seek to make amendments to the provisions or even to remove them during the Bill’s passage through the House.

[Steve Baker (Wycombe) (Con)]

Does the hon. Lady share my concern that passengers, as well as needing security, are worried about convenience and, indeed, their dignity?

[Maria Eagle]

The hon. Gentleman is correct, and proper security is always a balance between managing to make sure that the efforts of those who wish to commit terrorist offences on planes are foiled while, at the same time, not wishing to subject consumers and passengers to indignity or extensive delay. It is correct that the Department should have a full understanding of the extent of any threats so that it can make appropriate policy. It is just in those areas that we want to probe a little more in Committee precisely to assess the practical impact of the proposals.

It is unfortunate that the introduction of the Bill and its Second Reading should come so soon after the publication of the draft Bill. Considering that this package of reforms has been in preparation for many years, and given that it was widely believed that its introduction had slipped to the next Session, it is unfortunate that there has been a sudden rush of last-minute enthusiasm to bring it before the House. Consequently, the planned pre-legislative scrutiny, which we supported, has been curtailed. The Transport Committee has done its usual impressive job, but it had just three weeks to take evidence and produce recommendations on the proposals, many of which have been in gestation for six years or more. That meant that the Government have not been able to consider those recommendations in detail and improve the Bill before its introduction. Consequently, we are debating a Bill—and I hope that this is the case—that will doubtless be amended by the Government in Committee, which is a remarkable state of affairs for a measure so long in preparation.

The industry itself has rightly expressed concern about the limited opportunity it was given to engage with officials before the Bill’s introduction in Parliament. BAA, it is fair to say, may be affected more than other player in the industry by the measure, yet it says that it could secure only a single one-hour meeting with the Department for Transport in the past three months, which falls short of what might be expected for a regulatory Bill of this nature. There will be, at the very least, a suspicion that the hasty introduction of the Bill has less to do with the industry’s needs and more to do with the needs of business managers, who doubtless begged the Secretary of State to let them have something for the Commons to do, because the Government’s legislative programme is bogged down in chaos in the other place.

[Justine Greening]

I have met BAA on a number of occasions since taking on my present role, so I can assure the hon. Lady that there has been plenty of opportunity for BAA to raise any concerns with me.

[Maria Eagle]

I am grateful for the right hon. Lady’s intervention. I was just quoting what BAA said, and I hear what she says about her own efforts, which I commend.

There are three key reforms in the Bill—to economic regulation, to the Civil Aviation Authority itself, and to the transfer of security functions. I want to turn briefly to the wider aviation context within which the reforms will sit. We agree that the current framework for airport economic regulation is outdated and needs reform. It has been clear for some time that the CAA does not have the powers to apply the regulatory regime in a way that best benefits passengers and reduces costs for the industry. We are also dealing with a very different aviation landscape since the introduction of the existing regime, not least because of a major increase in passenger numbers, low-cost airlines, growth in regional airports and changes to ownership required by the Competition Commission. The proposed licensing regime, together with a more flexible and targeted set of regulatory tools, will better enable the CAA to carry out its work, while making its decisions more accountable, and reduce unnecessary regulation.

It is also right that the regulatory regime governing airports be reformed to put passengers at its core. The CAA’s primary duty should be to promote the interests of passengers. That was our intention in developing the reforms, and we are pleased that that approach has been accepted and adopted by the Government. We hope that in Committee the Minister will look carefully at the arguments that have been made and be clearer about how the CAA is to weigh the often differing interests of current versus future air transport users and, as the Select Committee has urged, explain in more convincing detail how the proposed aviation consumer advocacy panel will work in practice and, in particular, how it will identify, represent and promote the interests of passengers and relate to the regulatory process.

The lack of a specific requirement to publish passenger welfare plans is a major omission and should be addressed. It was a key recommendation from the Select Committee following its inquiry into the failure of both Government and industry to prepare and respond adequately to the severe winter weather in December 2010. The appalling experience faced by many passengers, particularly at Heathrow, demonstrated the need for the sector significantly to up its game in relation to passenger welfare. I welcome the new powers that the legislation will give the CAA and the Government and hope that the Secretary of State will issue clear and robust guidance to airport operators on winter resilience. However, we would like to see a specific obligation on the CAA to include in any licence issued a requirement that airports provide support to stranded passengers.

The Government must also ensure that each recommendation of the Quarmby report on the resilience of England’s transport systems in winter is implemented, particularly those relating to the need for early decisive action on whether to cancel services; the supply of de-icing and anti-icing products or road salt; better liaison between airports and local highway authorities over the treatment of appropriate public road networks; and improved access to performance statistics on the management of disruption by airlines and airports.

The former Transport Secretary, the right hon. Member for Runnymede and Weybridge (Mr Hammond), stood in the snow at Heathrow just over a year ago and pledged to learn the lessons of the chaos passengers faced. I know that because I was standing in the snow freezing alongside him and, more importantly, alongside thousands of stranded passengers. At the time he blamed Heathrow for seriously underestimating the amount of de-icer required and raised the prospect of establishing a central reserve for emergencies, much as exists for road salt. The Government should provide an update on this—they have gone quiet lately—and on the other promises made at the time. As well as the powers that this Bill rightly gives the CAA, the current Secretary of State must ensure that the Government do not take the view that this is all the responsibility of the industry. There is a strategic and economic need, as well as a UK reputational requirement, for the Government to get a grip on winter preparedness. I recall the Minister responsible for aviation telling the media on Boxing day 2010 that the Bill would do just that, but it is not obvious to me that it does it sufficiently well, so we will explore that further.

The CAA should also be required to focus licences on the specific experience of passengers in airports. That means, as the Transport Committee has urged, specifically structuring licences to address key areas of passenger satisfaction, including immigration and baggage handling. We all know that the failures that most give rise to frustration and anger, not to mention ruining business trips and holidays, are delays caused by inadequate management of immigration and poor baggage handling. Of course, although airports should rightly have obligations in this respect, the Government must also recognise that their decisions have an impact that is out of the hands of airport operators, not least the way they resource and manage the UK Border Agency. The speed and scale of the Government’s cuts is putting pressure on the agency. People across the country fear that corners are being cut and border security is being put at risk by the scale of the Government’s border cuts. Some 6,500 staff are going from the agency, with 1,500 going from the UK border force, including more than 800 this year alone. In the past year, we have already had the situation whereby the Home Secretary did not know what changes to border controls she had agreed to, how they were being implemented or how great the security risks were, and relaxing controls was a direct consequence of those staffing reductions.

It is incredible that the Government have overseen a reduction in checks at border control. The public expect proper immigration controls, and passengers expect there to be sufficient staff to prevent massive delays at airports, which damage our image and can impact on investment and business competitiveness. We agree that the passenger must be placed at the heart of the regulatory regime, but the Government must do the same as they carry out their responsibilities.

The Government should also consider the airlines’ case that, in the context of airport regulation, they too are customers. Although we agree with the Government that the law should be absolutely clear that the CAA’s primary duty is to passengers, we agree also that there is a case for a secondary duty to airlines, so the Minister should look again at the decision not to include such a duty.

Although it is right that we set out a primary duty on passengers to send a clear signal to the CAA about how it should manage competing interests, it is right also that we set out further duties. In doing so, however, the Government have chosen to omit the reference to environmental obligations that we intended the Bill to include. That is a mistake, so I very much hope that the Minister will reflect on it and think again.

Back in March 2009, the consultation document on economic regulation that the then Secretary of State published proposed that

“the CAA should have an environmental duty with respect to its economic regulatory functions.”

The final report of the Cave review recommended

“a duty on the CAA to protect the environment, subject to guidance on specified environmental matters by the Secretary of State.”

In December 2009, the previous Government published their decision document on economic regulation and concluded that one of the supplementary statutory duties should be

“to have regard to the airport operator’s legal obligations to comply with applicable environmental and planning law.”

When one considers the secondary duties that have been set out, one finds the absence of any environmental obligation to be a clear omission—and a late one: it was included in the press release accompanying the publication of the Bill, just not in the Bill. The CAA will be obliged

“to ensure that licence holders can finance the activities which are subject to the relevant licence obligations; to secure that all reasonable demands for airport services are met; to promote economy and efficiency on the part of licence holders in its provisions of airport services at regulated airports; to have regard to guidance issued by the Secretary of State; to have regard to any international obligation of the UK; to have regard to principles of better regulation.”

All those obligations are of course right, and we support them, but there seems to be no justifiable reason for removing the proposed additional requirement on the CAA in terms of economic regulation: to have regard to airport operators’ compliance with environmental and planning law. Without that, airports may be reluctant to invest in improving environmental performance, be it noise, vibration, visual disturbance or emissions.

It is not good enough for the Government to say it is obvious that airports must comply with statutory obligations and it does not need re-stating in the Bill. The issue is whether airports feel that they can recover the cost in charges to airlines. The consequence, as the Transport Committee has warned, is:

“Without giving the CAA a supplementary duty on the environment in relation to its economic regulation role, there is some risk that airports may be reluctant to invest in improving environmental performance.”

[Mark Lazarowicz]

Is the situation not worse than that? Is there not a danger that specifically removing the reference to environmental planning concern might be taken by some airport operators as a coded message that the Government do not take such issues seriously now?

[Maria Eagle]

My hon. Friend makes a good point. There are plenty of people who seek to read coded messages in what the Government do, or do not do, and in how they change their proposals, so in that respect there is a concern that the Government need to address.

If the Government’s green credentials had not already worn so thin, no ulterior motive might have been seen in their decision, but there will be considerable suspicion that it is yet another example of giving in to vested interests, coming on top of the Government’s failure to reassert the aviation emissions targets that we set in government, let alone to listen to the calls to look seriously at the UK’s share of international emissions and to include both in the UK’s carbon budgets. When the obligation on other sectors is to reduce carbon emissions by at least 80% by 2050 compared with 1990 levels, the aviation industry has agreed to work towards achieving the lower target of the same reduction but compared with 2005 levels. However, the industry believes that it can achieve the same reduction compared with 2000 levels. On that basis, we believe that the Committee on Climate Change should advise on the case for a tougher target. It is clear that the Bill sends out completely the wrong signal to industry.

The CAA, airport operators, airlines and National Air Traffic Services have a shared responsibility to achieve those goals. In addition to the original proposed duty on environmental and planning law, which has been deleted, there is surely a case for considering the practicality of using this Bill to reaffirm the shared responsibility on meeting emissions targets that have been agreed. That should be explored during the passage of the Bill.

The public should certainly be better informed about the environmental effects, including through emissions and noise, of civil aviation in the UK and about the measures that are being taken to limit the adverse environmental effects. I want to take this opportunity to welcome the CAA’s decision to open a three-month consultation on its environmental role and performance. The chief executive, Andrew Haines, has said that he is determined to work with the sector to help it manage its environmental footprint and realise its potential growth. He is clear that

“unless the sector faces its environmental impact head-on, it will not be allowed to grow.”

He is right to have set the goals to

“contribute to a cleaner and quieter aviation industry, improve airspace design through new operational measures, influence the environment debate and enhance consumer understanding of the environmental impact of flying.”

[Henry Smith (Crawley) (Con)]

Will the hon. Lady not concede that airport operators, such as the operator of Gatwick airport in my constituency, have for many years done an awful lot to ensure that there are environmental enhancements, such as through the Gatwick area conservation committee, which has made a positive difference locally?

[Maria Eagle]

I do concede that. I do not think that the aviation industry has anything to fear from closer scrutiny of the way in which it deals with these issues. I just want to ensure that this Bill does not send the wrong signals to industry and make it more difficult to do what many operators are starting to do in any event.

In addition to the revision of the statutory purpose of the CAA and its secondary duties, it is right that the Bill aligns the powers of the CAA with those of the Office of Fair Trading. That provides consistency with the approach taken for other regulated industries, including energy, water, telecoms and rail. The Secretary of State will be aware that there are concerns about the impact on competition of the sale of airlines and the slots that transfer ownership as a result. The recently agreed sale of British Midland International by Lufthansa to International Airlines Group has raised considerable worries, particularly in Scotland and Northern Ireland, about the impact on short-haul domestic routes and the price implications for passengers. The Government have to date refused to take those concerns seriously. My hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow East (Margaret Curran), the shadow Secretary of State for Scotland, and I have referred the sale of BMI to the OFT.

[Dr Eilidh Whiteford (Banff and Buchan) (SNP)]

I am grateful to the hon. Lady for raising this issue again, because it is extremely serious. I have concerns not only about the flights into Heathrow but about the onward connectivity of those flights to the rest of the world. Aberdeenshire has a big energy sector and people are travelling onwards. She is right to highlight this issue.

--- Later in debate ---

[Maria Eagle]

I thank the hon. Lady for her intervention.

There are precedents within the EU of a single company controlling a larger percentage of slots at one airport, but I am sure that the Secretary of State will appreciate that the situation at Heathrow is different because of the capacity issues that significantly restrict the potential for competition. I fully understand and respect BA’s wish to expand its operations, not least to pursue the new long-haul markets from Heathrow that are needed for our economic competitiveness. However, many years before a high-speed rail service becomes a reality between Scotland and London, and Heathrow in particular, we must balance that with the need to maintain the domestic air links on which the Scottish economy depends.

I have two final points on the economic regulatory aspects of the Bill. First, there are concerns that there is no requirement on the CAA to consult on how it intends to prioritise and balance its new duties and discretion. Secondly, the Government must clarify who does and does not have a right of appeal on a decision by the CAA in respect of licence conditions, and how they intend to prevent repeated and unfounded appeals.

On the second major purpose of the Bill, which is to modernise the CAA’s governance, we agree that reform is needed and we support most of the proposed changes. Of course, there are changes that have been made without the need for legislation, such as the creation of a separate chair and chief executive. We do, however, question the decision to remove the requirement for the Treasury to approve the levels of remuneration for non-executive members of the board. Are we not seeing right now the need for greater, not less oversight of remuneration? I suppose that the experience of the past few days has shown that it is doubtful whether the Government would exercise their powers over excessive bonuses even if they retained them, but it might be a good idea to hang on to them.

It is also wrong that the CAA remains outside the remit of the National Audit Office, unlike all other industry regulators. That should be addressed, and there should be an explicit efficiency duty as recommended by the Transport Committee. I hope the Government will agree that it should be relatively straightforward to reach agreement on those issues in Committee. We agree on the outcomes that we want to see achieved through the modernisation, and I look forward to working with Ministers to improve the Bill further in the areas that I have mentioned.

We have much greater concern about the third major area with which the Bill deals, which is the Government’s proposals for a major change in how aviation security in ensured. They have not made the case for the change. It was included in the draft Bill at the last minute and has not been subjected to adequate scrutiny, and enough people across the industry have concerns about the proposals to require the Government to look again at whether they have got them right. We are open to being persuaded, but Ministers have more to do if they wish us to support the proposed changes.

I appreciate that under the Government’s proposals, the Secretary of State will remain responsible for aviation security policy and for making aviation security directions under the Aviation Security Act 1982. That is well and good and correct, but by enabling the transfer of a potentially very wide range of security functions to the CAA, the Government risk fragmenting an approach that has served us well. Let us not forget that the current arrangements, including the now abolished specialist unit Transec, arose from the tragedy of Lockerbie. We should not move lightly away from an approach that had such a tragic loss of life as its reason for existing, particularly not when the clearly stated purpose of the proposals is, to quote the Department’s impact assessment, to

“Reduce the costs to the taxpayer in line with SR”—

spending review—

“commitments by introducing the user pays principle.”

The changes that the Government propose are not minor. For example, they want to pass to the CAA the obligation to make arrangements for carrying out vetting, including those for renewing and withdrawing clearance. The CAA, rather than the Secretary of State, will maintain the list of persons approved for the provision of a particular aviation security service.

There are also concerns about the ability to retain staff. The Bill will allow for the transfer from the Department for Transport to the CAA of about 85 aviation security posts currently responsible for the review and upkeep of aviation security regulations, and for the monitoring and enforcement of the industry’s compliance with security requirements. The Transport Committee’s recommendations on that matter should be considered carefully, including the permitting of secondments rather than transfers to avoid the loss of experienced staff and expertise.

The Committee’s recommendation to delay the change, to bring it in line with the introduction of the outcomes-focused risk-based security regime, also makes sense. The airlines are concerned about the lack of transparency of the likely costs of the changes, and therefore about the impact on passengers, on to whom costs will be passed. There is real concern that although the costs of the transfer will materialise, the supposed reduction in obligations as a result of the move to the outcomes-focused regime will not.

Those concerns are particularly acute for smaller regional airports, which play a vital role in their local economies and will not easily sustain major additional cost burdens. The Government need to reassure the sector that they will retain an active engagement in operational matters, enabling airports to take the lead in the knowledge that they will have ministerial backing.

It is clear that there are growing tensions between the UK Government and the EU over security issues such as the permitting of full-body scanners without a right to select an alternative form of search. We have strongly supported the Government’s stance on that, although it is now important that Ministers work closely with their European partners to ensure a common, and preferably similarly robust, approach to security across the EU. The approach taken in the Bill risks leaving the industry without a clear lead or protection from Government on the decisions that it takes, be they on trials of new forms of security screening or other matters.

According to the explanatory notes, the Government’s Regulatory Policy Committee estimates that

“the impact on public expenditure gives expected savings in the order of £5.4m per annum.”

It is far from clear how the cost savings to the Department from the abolition of the security function can be secured without putting at risk high levels of aviation security or imposing a burden that will ultimately fall on passengers.

The Regulatory Policy Committee also identified transitional costs of transferring the security function of approximately £1.5 million, as well as ongoing costs beyond the transition, not least because

“the CAA will be responsible for upgrading systems in perpetuity”.

It is therefore

“likely that the CAA may borrow from the National Loans Fund to fund IT improvements.”

I appreciate that the Secretary of State inherited her predecessor’s plans to meet the 15% cut in the Department for Transport budget. She has shown a willingness to look again at some of his rasher decisions, and I hope that she does so in respect of that major change to aviation security, for which the case has not yet been made.

I urge the Government to think again about one other aspect of their aviation policy. An announcement is expected in the Budget—if not before—on the sale of their remaining stake in NATS. Recent media reports have suggested that DFS, Germany’s state-owned air traffic service, has been in talks with the Government. Yet again, just as with our rail industry, the Government’s ideological obsession turns out to be not so much opposition to a public stake in delivering transport services as an opposition to a British public stake in doing so. Just as the Dutch national railway will this week begin to operate the East Anglia franchise, with Deutsche Bahn and SNCF snapping at its heals on other parts of the network, our airspace might be controlled, in effect, by the German Government.

There are several very serious reasons why the Government would be wrong to withdraw completely from NATS. The current shared-ownership model between Government and airlines works well. The airline group has opposed an outright sale of the Government’s stake and raised the prospect of the industry walking away. The airlines are best placed to ensure the success that NATS has become, not least because of their healthy self-interest in safety and industrial relations. There are concerns about the impact of a foreign power taking a stake in NATS on the integration of civilian and military operations, which would put at risk the operational benefits of that integrated approach. There are also questions about the Government’s ability to play a leading role in air traffic policy at EU level if they become the only Government to have given up their stake in their air traffic service.

[Justine Greening]

It is probably wise for me to remind the hon. Lady that the Labour Government part-privatised NATS in the first place.

[Maria Eagle]

I am well aware that the Labour Government sold a stake in NATS. I am talking about the Secretary of State’s predecessor’s proposal to sell all of it. It is a question of the Government retaining a stake. If she is willing to confirm that the Government will retain a stake, I will be happy to give way to her. She shakes her head.

[Mr Brian H. Donohoe (Central Ayrshire) (Lab)]

Ownership is currently entirely within British hands. It is possible that that will no longer be the case if privatisation goes ahead.

--- Later in debate ---

[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.

[Justine Greening]

Part of the challenge is that the hon. Lady’s party has so many different policies on so many different days, it is difficult to know whom we would be talking with.

[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.

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)]

Order. To accommodate as many Members as possible, a 10-minute limit on Back-Bench contributions has been introduced, but the usual rules apply to interventions, in that injury time will be added on. However, the usual rules will also apply to any maiden speeches that might be made during this Second Reading, which means that no interventions should be allowed.