Mark Lazarowicz
Main Page: Mark Lazarowicz (Labour (Co-op) - Edinburgh North and Leith)Department Debates - View all Mark Lazarowicz's debates with the Department for Transport
(12 years, 3 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Justine Greening
I do not think we need to go that far. As I have said, the Bill’s key purpose is to provide clarity on what the CAA must focus on primarily, which is consumers. It is important to provide that clarity.
Mark Lazarowicz (Edinburgh North and Leith) (Lab/Co-op)
The Secretary of State rightly points out that consumers’ interests can be protected by promoting competition and thereby giving passengers greater choice, but how does the Bill address situations that cannot be dealt with by more competition, such as passengers facing long queues to get on and off planes? In the short term, that will not be addressed by competition, so how might the Bill help in such respects?
Justine Greening
The Bill cannot deliver absolutely everything in respect of the aviation industry. It will, however, deliver a key element of the regulatory framework that will sit alongside how the industry operates. Competition is working. We need only consider the investment that both Heathrow and Gatwick are putting into winter resilience to see that passengers will make a choice between those two airports based on which one they believe they can rely on. As a result, we are seeing competition lead to far more investment on that side of airport operations. I have seen that development for myself, and I greatly welcome it. Providing the CAA with these new powers will promote effective competition by enabling the CAA to make use of its specialist knowledge and to co-ordinate its use of economic regulation and general competition powers.
Turning to modernising the regulators’ wider role, part 2 of the Bill includes changes to how the CAA operates by improving transparency and accountability, removing unnecessary Government funding and involvement and cutting red tape. Transparent information is of huge benefit to the public. It gives all of us as consumers the means, if we want to use them, to compare different services on offer to us and to judge for ourselves which we want to buy. In keeping with this approach, clauses 83 and 84 introduce two new information duties for the aviation regulator, to serve the interests both of consumers and those affected by air travel.
The CAA would arrange for consumer information to be published to help passengers and freight users make more informed choices about what is on offer, while having regard to the principle that the benefits of information should outweigh the cost. Similarly, the CAA would publish information for the public about the environmental effects of civil aviation in the UK, and the measures taken to limit environmental harm. What is more, it would be able to use both those powers to issue advice and guidance to the industry so that it can improve standards of service and operate more sustainably. As we modernise the legislative framework, we are taking the opportunity to give the CAA new freedoms to appoint its own executive directors and to carry out criminal proceedings without recourse to Government. As criminal proceedings can be both slow and costly, the Bill would also enable the Secretary of State to give the CAA powers to enforce existing offences through civil sanctions where they are more proportionate.
The Bill also includes some other measures enabling the disclosure of anonymised medical data about aviation workers who are subject to health checks by the CAA. That would pave the way for valuable medical research into the particular health risks for specialist workers such as flight crew and air traffic controllers.
Let me move on to our proposals to improve the regulation of aviation security. This section of the Bill is relatively short, amounting to just five clauses and two schedules, but I know the House will rightly consider it carefully. Above everything else, passengers expect the highest levels of safety and security.
For me, keeping people safe and secure when they travel is and will continue to be of key importance. At present, aviation safety is regulated by the CAA while security regulation is carried out by officials in the Department. The CAA has an excellent track record as a safety regulator, as good as any in the world, and it has empowered our airlines and airports to develop safety management systems that keep safety at the heart of their operations, striving for ever safer and more efficient systems. That is why I believe there would be real benefits to bringing the CAA’s impressive specialist expertise to the regulation of aviation security.
In the past, security regulation has been criticised for being too process-driven, too often relying on a tick-box approach. Although those arrangements have kept people safe, too often their inflexibility has caused frustration on the ground at airports. There would be attractive benefits for passengers if we could empower the experts to find the best and most efficient way of maintaining the highest levels of security for air travel. That means more involvement from the experts in aviation operations, which can bring real benefits. Of course, it is essential that the Secretary of State should stay responsible for aviation security policy and for giving security directions, although it also makes sense for the specialist expert regulator to have a role in maintaining and improving aviation security. Consequently, the Bill includes provisions for the CAA to keep under review security directions made by the Secretary of State and for it to provide advice and assistance to the industry and Government. With its track record in handling safety, I believe the CAA will approach those new responsibilities with the rigour they deserve.
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.”
Mr Harris
I would never suggest that any Minister should do anything other than what I did when I was a Minister.
Too often in these environmentally conscious days, those in the airline industry are seen as the bad guys. I see a parallel with the car industry and car ownership. Although I do not consider myself to be a class warrior, I observe some class consciousness in the debate. Car ownership was initially seen as a good thing that improved the quality of the lives of those who could afford it, but as cars became cheaper and more ordinary working people could afford to own one, they suddenly became a threat to the environment. I see the same happening with air travel. It was a wonderful thing that made every corner of the globe accessible; but then ordinary people had the damned cheek to afford to use it regularly. Fares were reduced, and suddenly it too was a threat to the environment—what a surprise—rather than the opportunity that it used to be. My own view, which I hope is shared throughout the House, is that a healthy, expanding airline industry is essential to any successful nation, and if the Bill contributes to that end, I welcome it.
Mark Lazarowicz
Does my hon. Friend agree that it is also important for the aircraft industry to try to produce more environmentally friendly and environmentally efficient aeroplanes, and that the absence of measures to encourage that is regrettable?
Mr Harris
I entirely agree, and that is precisely what is happening in the airline industry. It is acutely aware of its responsibilities in this respect, which is why I do not see it as the enemy of the environment.
I note that my party’s Front-Bench team has accepted the Government’s decision not to go ahead with the third runway at Heathrow; indeed, the shadow Secretary of State said that in today’s debate. I trust that that acceptance is based on the parliamentary arithmetic—on the fact that the Members who support the third runway are outnumbered by those who do not—rather than on agreement with the Government’s arguments. The real reason the Conservative party opposed the third runway when in opposition was votes. It was concerned about seats to the west of London, not the health of the UK economy and the airline industry on which we depend. It was seats that were uppermost in the Conservative party’s mind when it chose to oppose the previous Government’s support for Heathrow.
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.
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.
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.
Gavin Shuker
Indeed, but I am not qualified to make that assessment.
My hon. Friend does, however, make the point that no options should be off the table. We have said, despite the fact that we made a manifesto commitment to a third runway at Heathrow, that we are willing to take that off the table if it enables us to enter into cross-party talks. These are long-term decisions taken for the country’s future, and that is a statesmanlike approach by our Front-Bench transport team. Failure to do anything is not an option. The capacity challenge in the south-east can be tackled if Luton airport increases its capacity from 10 million passengers to 18 million over a period. That is part of the answer, but it does not answer the broader question of how we establish a serious hub airport that can compete with other airports, particularly in Europe, on level ground.
In Luton, we can achieve 18 million passengers without significant ground works, and without extending the runway or building a second runway, which is welcome. We are 25 minutes from St Pancras—practically zone 3 on the London underground. We are one of the big four airports that, I believe, we are seeking to expand. Luton ultimately can absorb only a small amount of the additional capacity that is required, and we have heard different suggestions from different people in recent weeks. The expansion of Heathrow is not on the table, and we understand why the Secretary of State holds her personal convictions. An additional runway at Stansted has been ruled out. We have heard about the plans for “Heathwick”, linking Heathrow and Gatwick, although I am not sure exactly what those proposals would achieve. In the past fortnight, we have heard about “Boris island”, but whatever option we choose, we must find a long-term solution to the problem of capacity. If the Government are unwilling to do so while they are in power, we will have to face up to those problems when we are in government.
Mark Lazarowicz
Does my hon. Friend not agree that one of the drawbacks of “Boris island” or, indeed, any other plan for the Thames estuary is that it would set at naught all the ideas about linking high-speed rail to Heathrow airport if, at the end of the day, that airport moved somewhere 30 miles east?
Gavin Shuker
My hon. Friend makes a good point about high-speed rail, which is not a substitute for additional air passenger transport movements. It may be excellent at linking, for example, Birmingham and Heathrow, and our Front-Bench team has suggested proposals about how better to do so. This is a real issue of capacity that affects our economy. We cannot leave it to future generations to solve the long-term problems that we must face up to ourselves.
Fiona Bruce (Congleton) (Con)
I welcome the Bill and propose to speak chiefly to clause 94, which amends section 71 of the Civil Aviation Act 1982 and improves ATOL protection for consumers, as I believe that these are the provisions that are of most interest to my constituents. To clarify why the proposals are so welcome, I will briefly outline the current ATOL scheme’s inadequacies that require remedying in order to meet the requirements of passengers in the 21st century.
The ATOL scheme, which was introduced in the ’70s, provides financial protection for consumers who purchase air package holidays in the event of a travel company going into insolvency. Affected passengers are entitled to a full refund if they are yet to travel or repatriation after completing their holiday if they have already reached their destination. However, the current ATOL scheme does not apply to airlines that are specifically excluded under legislation or to airline agents where airline tickets or a similar airline booking confirmation has been issued, which means that a booking made directly with an airline just for a flight on an aircraft they operate, for example by using their website, is not covered by ATOL. Airlines can sell flights and flight plus without providing financial protection, flight plus being a booking for a flight that is sold together with accommodation and/or car hire at the same time or within a day of each other. Many consumers are totally unaware that they have no financial protection for such bookings.
However, confusingly for consumers, under the 1990 EU package travel directive airlines are now required to provide financial protection for the sale of package holidays. In practice, some airlines sell package holidays with ATOL protection, but other airlines sell only flight plus without any statutory financial protection at all. Even more confusingly for the consumer, although the ATOL logo on websites and in brochures signifies that the business in question holds an ATOL licence and thus meets the CAA’s financial fitness criteria, that does not mean that every holiday the business sells is ATOL protected. The ATOL licence holder may sell holidays and travel arrangements that are not ATOL protected since they fall outside the legal scope of the current scheme. In effect, it is left to the consumer to check whether their holiday arrangements are covered by ATOL, but how many would know how to do that?
The last decade has seen important changes in the UK market for holidays and flights, particularly a move away from traditional package holidays in favour of independent travel. This has been facilitated by the emergence of low-cost, no-frills airlines and the use of the internet. Holidays are often created by consumers buying the various components from a range of flight, accommodation and other options. This might involve purchasing from a single provider or, in many instances, from linked websites. For instance, an airline website might contain a link to an accommodation provider’s site. Holidays created and sold in this way are often referred to as dynamic packaging, mix-and-match holidays, DIY packages or tailor-made holidays. This development could not have been foreseen when the ATOL scheme was introduced 40 years ago or when the package travel directive was agreed more than 20 years ago. Indeed, the proportion of ATOL protected holidays has dropped from 97% of all leisure flights in 1997 to less than 50% in 2010 and, if action is not taken, will undoubtedly decrease further.
There is therefore a strong case for reforming the ATOL scheme to reflect better today’s holiday market and so that consumers can be clear when their holiday is protected. The CAA agrees and has stated that
“ATOL needs reform… to remove the risk of increasing financial detriment to consumers.”
This is particularly so in the current economic climate, when significant sums from a household’s annual budget are spent on such transactions.
In addition, holidays purchased on an “agent for the consumer” basis are also in many respects outside the current ATOL scheme. Traditionally, travel agents act as agents for the supplier and sell holidays to customers on behalf of travel trade suppliers, but they can also sometimes act as agents for the customer and technically buy the holiday on their behalf. This is an important distinction. Agents for the consumer are not legally making flight accommodation available and so are currently not required to have an ATOL licence or to provide any other form of financial protection for holidays.
However, it can be difficult, if not impossible, for consumers to know in what capacity a travel agent is acting, which can create considerable detriment and uncertainty. In practical terms, the distinction is completely irrelevant for a consumer until they need to claim for cover and might find cover non-existent. Then it becomes very relevant indeed. Even some travel companies are not fully aware of what acting as “agent for the consumer” entails or their obligations to explain to consumers the implications for ATOL protection. In short, the current ATOL scheme no longer fulfils its intended purpose.
Clause 94, by greatly broadening consumer protection and bringing airlines and “agent for the consumer” transactions into the scope of the ATOL scheme, effectively brings the scheme into the 21st century. Following appropriate consultation, the Bill will enable the Secretary of State to make regulations requiring airlines to hold and act in accordance with an ATOL licence when making available flight accommodation, except where they are doing so on a flight-only basis on aircraft that they operate. For the purposes of the clause, flight accommodation is taken to mean accommodation for the transport of persons on flights in any part of the world. In effect, all airline package holiday and flight-plus sales are to be ATOL protected. Having said that, some exceptions remain, and I welcome the discussions, which have been referred to, between ATOL and representatives from the Transport Committee on the possibility of ATOL cover being widened even further. I very much welcome the Bill and the effect it will have in providing additional consumer protection.
Before concluding my remarks, I want to touch on another point relating to passenger protection: pilot fatigue. Although perhaps peripheral to the Bill’s main aims, this issue is vital to the many pilots in my constituency who work out of Manchester airport and, in turn, to their passengers’ welfare. I have spoken with a number of pilots about the matter and attended briefings, in the House and elsewhere, where it has been raised with great concern. Pilots in my constituency are extremely concerned that any relaxation of this country’s current restrictions on permitted crew flight hours could push pilot fatigue to intolerable levels and seriously affect passenger safety. The issue was raised in the other place only last week by the noble Lord Monks, who is president of the British Airline Pilots Association.
Pressure on crew and aircraft for turnarounds is increasing as demand for air travel rises, and this is reflected in the requirements that airlines are putting on pilots. The European Aviation Safety Agency has made proposals that would reduce the current UK standards on flight time limitations. The Government spokesperson in the other place replied to the noble Lord Monks that the Government would support the proposed requirements only if the CAA determines that they provide an appropriate level of protection against crew fatigue. That was a welcome comment pointing in the right direction.
Mark Lazarowicz
I have been contacted by many of my constituents who work in the aviation industry, including pilots, and who are extremely concerned about the proposals. I am sure that the whole House is with the hon. Lady in wanting to see the Government and the European authorities ensure that no danger to safety is brought about by the proposed changes.
Fiona Bruce
I thank the hon. Gentleman for that intervention.
In responding to the debate, will the Minister clarify how in practice such an important determination will be made in light of the delegated powers that are going to be passed to the CAA under the revised regulatory regime and the fact that when introducing the debate the Secretary of State said that CAA decisions should be “guided by the needs of customers” and that the safety of customers was of “key importance”, and, finally, bearing in mind that the Secretary of State remains ultimately responsible for aviation safety and security?
I welcome the Bill.
Mark Lazarowicz (Edinburgh North and Leith) (Lab/Co-op)
Those of us who emphasise the importance of ensuring that the environmental consequences of aviation are at the heart of our policy are in no sense anti-aviation. We recognise the importance of the industry to the UK and to our economy but simply want to emphasise the fact that unchecked and uncontrolled, the growth in aviation will lead to increasing CO2 emissions in the UK and internationally. It is therefore important to encourage the kind of measures that will ensure that that growth can be controlled. That means encouraging more environmentally friendly forms of travel where possible and encouraging the industry to be environmentally efficient in the development of new aircraft and in the way that airports operate.
The way to achieve that direction of policy is to put in place measures that will encourage it. It is right to say that there should be tough emissions controls at European and international level to encourage more efficient aircraft. A lot has happened in that area—I recognise and welcome that. Without those measures in place, we will not get the changes that we want. That is why, as the shadow Secretary of State said, we need to put environmental and planning considerations in the Bill.
I made the point in my intervention on the hon. Member for Cambridge (Dr Huppert) that the Bill allows the CAA to put conditions in licences on a number of grounds, but only if they come within the specifications in clause 1. Clause 1 does not allow environmental and planning considerations to be taken into account, so the CAA will not be able to put conditions on such matters in the licences of particular airports. I hope that the Bill is improved in Committee so that it takes account of environmental and planning concerns over airport developments and aviation more generally.
Bob Stewart
Environmental considerations include noise pollution. As more and more aeroplanes circulate around London, the noise gets greater, even in my leafy constituency in Kent. I hope that environmental considerations will be taken into account and that the noise made by Rolls-Royce engines, for example, will be reduced even more.
Mark Lazarowicz
The hon. Gentleman makes an important point. As I understand it, the Bill does not specifically encourage such measures, but it could be changed to allow them. I hope that he will support such a change.
My second point is about the consumer interest. It can certainly be promoted by encouraging competition, which I welcome, but the Secretary of State referred to the possibility of passengers choosing between Heathrow, Gatwick and other airports. People in the south-east of England can do that, as they have four, five or six airports to choose from, but in other parts of the UK there is not that option. That is why it is important that the Bill should put in place not just competition measures but other provisions to recognise the consumer interest. If people have a long wait at an airport and are queuing for a plane, they want something to be done pretty quickly rather than having to wait until a new franchise or licence is granted some years hence. The Bill needs to be strengthened to provide for the consumer interest in that way as well.
I want to say something about the proposed sale of British Midland International to International Airlines Group. Like every MP from Scotland, I am very concerned about the effect of that sale not just on competition on routes between Scotland and Heathrow but, as my hon. Friend the Member for Garston and Halewood (Maria Eagle) said, on people’s ability to change flights at Heathrow and access all parts of Scotland. That will affect Scotland’s ability to attract tourism and business. The sale of BMI would also have consequences for its other routes—for example those to Brussels, Copenhagen, Zurich and so on, which are important for business and tourism in Scotland. Although that matter does not specifically fall within the terms of the Bill’s competition provisions, it certainly concerns us now that the future of BMI and its routes is up for grabs.
Another point that concerns many people in Scotland, and which my hon. Friend mentioned, is the cuts to the UK Border Agency. They are concerned that delays in entry to the UK could be made worse. At Edinburgh airport there are fairly regular complaints about the difficulties of passengers arriving late at night, who have to queue to get through the border formalities and even to get into the terminal. They have to wait behind locked doors for the appropriate staff to arrive. That is not a criticism of the staff, who of course do an excellent job, but they are already under pressure and if there are cuts to the UKBA there will no doubt be still further pressures on them and delays for passengers. It would certainly not be a good advert for people coming to Scotland or elsewhere in the UK if we had unnecessary delays because of cuts to border authority staff.
At a time when some Members propose the idea of independence for Scotland and the separation of Scotland and England, today’s debate emphasises the fact that there are many areas in which co-operation between England, Scotland and the rest of the UK is by far the best way of arranging things. I certainly cannot see how having a separate Scottish CAA, presumably with extra costs and extra demands on its resources, would improve airports and airlines in Scotland.
Earlier we had the somewhat amusing spectacle of Scottish National party Members, who I am sorry are not in the Chamber at the moment, demanding that the UK Government intervene to ensure that there is proper competition between the different airlines and other modes of transport in England and Scotland. Surely it cannot escape most people’s notice that without a UK Government to operate in such a way, there would be no reason for such competition to be encouraged. In the absence of SNP Members, I will not pursue that point. Clearly we may be able to do so at a later stage.
My final point is that the airline industry is important to many of our constituents and requires people to be confident in its safety. That was why I was glad to be able to intervene on the hon. Member for Congleton (Fiona Bruce) to mention concerns about extra pressure on pilots due to the proposed changes to regulations. Once again, I hope that the Government will ensure that no such changes are made, as they would jeopardise both the perception and, I fear, the reality of passenger safety. I am glad that there has so far been unanimity throughout the House about that, and I hope that the Minister will say something about it in his closing remarks as it is concerning people who work in the industry and passengers.