Pat Glass
Main Page: Pat Glass (Labour - North West Durham)Department Debates - View all Pat Glass's debates with the Department for Transport
Civil Aviation Bill
Pat Glass Excerpts(12 years, 7 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Pat Glass (North West Durham) (Lab)
I say at the outset that overall, this is a good Bill. It was drafted by the previous Government and taken forward by the current one, and I agree with much that is in it, but I still have some concerns about a number of issues, one of which is passenger welfare. I was a member of the Public Bill Committee and I raised the issue, but I did not receive sufficient assurances from the Minister that the Government were taking it seriously enough in the Bill.
The Minister was unable to satisfy me on three key issues: first, whether airports will be required to take seriously enough the issue of passenger welfare when things go wrong; secondly, how the Government will routinely measure passenger satisfaction; and thirdly, how, having measured passenger satisfaction, they will make systemic changes to improve passengers’ experiences.
The Transport Committee has recommended that the Government structure licences specifically to address key passenger satisfaction issues, including those relating to immigration and baggage handling. We are all familiar with the frustration, anger and stress that can be caused at airports when our luggage is lost or sent to a different airport, or when we are close to missing a flight because of a long queue at security. I was able to relate to the Public Bill Committee an occasion when I was held in a long queue at security. As the flight time got closer and closer, the anxiety that that caused me was made much worse because I was travelling alone. In the current economic situation, many families are having to prioritise what they can afford and consider whether their finances will stretch to an annual holiday. When they have saved hard all year for a well-earned break, they deserve better treatment and a better experience at our airports.
The Government have cut 6,500 staff from the UK Border Agency, with 1,500 going from the UK Border Force, including more than 800 this year alone. We have heard the concerns that have been raised about the relaxation of security checks at our borders to avoid chaos at security. The chaos at the UKBA last summer meant the abandonment of checks on potentially hundreds of thousands of people, and we—least of all the Home Secretary—still do not know who came in through our borders. The relaxation of controls was a direct consequence of the reduction in the number of staff, and although that is primarily the Home Secretary’s responsibility, it has a significant negative impact on the passenger experience. The public rightly expect proper immigration controls to be in place, and passengers expect there to be sufficient staff to prevent massive delays at airports.
The Minister of State, Department for Transport (Mrs Theresa Villiers)
I am, of course, very interested in matters related to the UKBF, but if the Opposition are so concerned about the issue, I am puzzled that they did not table an amendment on it.
Mrs Villiers
If the hon. Lady was so unhappy with the response given in Committee, I am surprised that an amendment has not been tabled for consideration today.
Jim Fitzpatrick
Does my hon. Friend agree that the Opposition took the Minister’s advice that UKBA matters were for the Home Office, which is why we have decided to focus on passenger experience and welfare? As we have said, Mr Deputy Speaker, we would like to press those proposals to a Division if the Minister cannot reassure us. That is why UKBA has not been mentioned, and I am sure it is also why my hon. Friend did not table an amendment on UKBA.
Pat Glass
I said earlier that although UKBA cuts are primarily a matter for the Home Secretary, they have a significant negative impact on the passenger experience.
I agree with the premise in the Bill that the passenger must be put at the heart of the regulatory regime. The Bill is right to give the CAA a primary duty on air transport users. The Bill is not specific enough on how that objective will be met, whereas the new clause and amendments would provide such specificity.
Delays caused by UKBA checks, baggage handling and adverse weather cause huge passenger dissatisfaction and are made that much worse in times of crisis, whether that is caused by adverse weather conditions for which there should have better planning, or by volcanic ash—in the last such crisis, the needs of passengers hit an all-time low.
An Office for National Statistics omnibus survey conducted in February 2010—it came hot on the heels of the crisis caused by adverse weather conditions at Heathrow—revealed that although most passengers are largely satisfied with their experience at airports, they have different views on different aspects, and were not equally satisfied with all aspects of service. The aspects of least satisfaction included information provided on bringing goods into the UK, on which there has been some improvement; information on destinations served by the nearest airport; baggage collection; and the cost of flights.
The CAA discovered in its own survey of passenger satisfaction at airports that waiting at immigration was a concern. Fewer than 70% of passengers at London’s three major airports were satisfied with immigration services, and 8% of surveyed passengers waited more than 20 minutes. That impacts on our international reputation. I agree that the primary duty should be to promote the interests of passengers, but passengers are telling us that that does not always happen; that it happens better in some aspects of the service than in others; and that it can break down completely in times of crisis.
Following the Transport Committee inquiry into the failure of both the Government and the industry adequately to prepare and respond to the severe winter conditions in December 2010, the absolutely appalling experience faced by many passengers, particularly at Heathrow, demonstrated the need for the sector significantly to up its game in relation to passenger welfare. The Bill fails to deliver on that.
“Keeping the UK moving”, the excellent Transport Committee report on the impact on transport of the winter weather in 2010, recommended that airports
“be required to develop passenger welfare plans and to provide”
sufficient
“support to stranded passengers during periods of disruption.”
It is disappointing that the Government do not take the same view. Is the Bill not a perfect opportunity to ensure that airports provide assistance to passengers, even if only for elderly or disabled passengers, or for those travelling with small children, who could be stranded in airports for days at a time?
The UK’s reputation was damaged by scenes of thousands of stranded passengers in airports over Christmas 2010, and equally damaged by the aftermath of the Icelandic volcano eruption. I was contacted by a number of constituents, as I know other hon. Members were, who were trying to get back from airlines the vast amounts of money that they had been forced to spend while stranded. Members of the Bill Committee will remember that I entertained them with my family’s experience. I was trying to help my elderly and disabled parents who were stranded in Barcelona. Their experience was perhaps extreme, but it was by no means unique, and the Government need to ensure that in future, passengers—disabled or not—do not experience such a shocking lack of care.
In the light of such fiascos, the Bill is an opportunity to place obligations on airports to provide help for stranded passengers in similar situations, and to prevent a repeat of the past. The need for early, decisive action on whether to cancel services is particularly important. There has been some improvement in that respect. I was due to fly out of Heathrow a couple of months ago when planes were again stranded by snow. I got a text and then a phone call from the airport telling me that my flight was cancelled, which saved me trailing up to the airport and standing around all day. We should recognise that vast improvement. The value of knowing sooner rather than later whether a flight is cancelled should not be underestimated. It could mean that fewer passengers are forced to endure hours, and possibly days, in an airport. If they know earlier, they can make alternative, more comfortable arrangements.
The problems also included the supply of de-icing and anti-icing products, and road salt. We should ensure better liaison over the treatment of the appropriate public road network between airports and local highways authorities. There has been some improvement on that, too. In 2010, my local authority properly prepared for the winter weather. It bought and arranged delivery of salt, but at the last minute, in an absolute panic, the Government effectively took salt that had been paid for by local authorities and transferred it to parts of the country that had failed to plan. However, we must accept that there has been some improvement on that situation.
During the 2010 crisis, the then Transport Secretary, the right hon. Member for Runnymede and Weybridge (Mr Hammond), promised urgently to legislate to penalise airport owners for bad service, but passengers are still being left without the added protection such reforms should have brought. Airlines and airports are quick enough to take passengers’ money, but much less keen to step up and help in times of crisis. Damage has been done to our international reputation and to the needs of the air-travelling public, whether they are disabled or not, and it is time for the Government to step in and put passengers first.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
I want to make just a couple of comments. I congratulate the Minister and the shadow Minister on how well the Bill Committee was run. All members of the Committee contributed to the Bill and the best way forward.
As an elected representative for Strangford in Northern Ireland, I have been contacted by three airports in Northern Ireland—Belfast City, Belfast International, and Londonderry—because they want to ensure that the regulatory system is efficient. Some perceive inefficiency and say that the regulation is burdensome, and that the system clearly needs reform. In some ways, the Bill Committee tried to ensure that we can provide an efficient, flexible system that works well. If we have done so, it is good news.
New clause 2 refers to an
“annual report on disabled and reduced mobility air transport passenger experiences”.
Many hon. Members have been contacted by constituents —this point was made in Committee—who have particular and specific, but not unique, personal medical and health circumstances. They might have had an operation and now carry a colostomy bag, or they might have had metal inserted into their body to protect their spine or shin. As a result of wars all over the world, many people have lost limbs, and many soldiers and civilians have prosthetic limbs, yet when it comes to improving their experience in airports, we find that the process seems to be inflexible. I have heard complaints on that.
The hon. Member for Middlesbrough South and East Cleveland (Tom Blenkinsop) introduced a ten-minute rule Bill on such problems, so the matter has been talked about before. I would like to know how we can improve the experience of airports for those people, who have made it clear to me as an elected representative—I suspect they have made it clear to other hon. Members—that their experience was not the best and asked how we can make it better. I believe that we can. I know that the Minister will assure us on that matter, and I look forward to her comments.
Pat Glass
I wish to speak in particular to new clause 3.
We have heard that the Bill will move the responsibility for security functions from the Department for Transport to the Civil Aviation Authority, and new clause 3 in particular is concerned with another change in aviation security: the move from the current direct-and-inspect regime to an outcomes-focused, risk-based one.
My hon. Friend the Member for Barrow and Furness (John Woodcock) has already told us that Labour does not oppose the principle of a risk-based approach—an approach to reforming regulation that the party promoted in government and continues to support—but the life and death nature of aviation security means that such a significant shift must be subject to proper scrutiny to ensure that the necessary safeguards are in place. Although reductions in cost and in regulatory burdens are of course welcome, in aviation security, as perhaps in no other area, such decisions cannot be based solely on cost and on slimming down regulatory systems.
The Minister could and should have taken the opportunities presented by the Bill, which includes a major shift in security procedures, to guarantee parliamentary scrutiny of the move to a risk-based system. Under new clause 3, a resolution to permit the move would require the approval of both Houses of Parliament and give us the opportunity to consider several important issues. It would allow us here in Parliament to consider the reliability of the Government’s estimated cost of changing the regime, which stands at £23.7 million over 10 years.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Blackley and Broughton (Graham Stringer), who is no longer in his place, pointed out, there are already concerns about whether the figure of £23.7 million over three years will allow for sufficient levels of training and staffing to fulfil security arrangements.
The new clause would give Parliament the opportunity to consider whether there is a risk that removing a one-size-fits-all approach to security creates the possibility of different levels of security at different airports, and the possibility at smaller airports of more lax security arrangements, which—ostensibly, given their lower threat level—terrorists could exploit.
The new clause would give Parliament the opportunity to consider whether there is a risk that the removal of the one-size-fits-all approach to security will create different levels of security at different airports, with more lax security arrangements at smaller airports, which ostensibly have a lower threat level, that could be exploited by terrorists. It would give Parliament the opportunity to consider how well the new aviation security regime will cope with emergency situations such as the liquid bomb plot of 2006. It would give Parliament the opportunity to consider whether the Civil Aviation Authority has demonstrated that it has the ability and resources to regulate a risk-based system effectively following the transfer of security functions under the Bill.
I repeat that Opposition Members are not against the move to an outcomes-focused regime in principle. However, this is a major shift in an area of high risk and it needs to be scrutinised properly by Parliament to give confidence not only to this House, but, more important, to the airline travelling public.
Gavin Shuker
It is a pleasure to speak to this group of amendments, because it is probably the most important one that we will discuss, other than that on environmental protections, which we will come to later.
To put the proposals in context, we are discussing a big shift in aviation security. This is not a peripheral part of the Bill, but a cornerstone. In Committee, we had robust debates about how best to arrange aviation security. I want to put it on the record that I do not believe that the Government wish to weaken aviation security. However, their ideological position is that it is important for the Government to withdraw, where possible, and to pass responsibility to other groups, whether they be agencies, third sector organisations or quangos.
Mark Reckless
No. I think we need a basket of options. I am delighted to hear that at Luton, in the hon. Gentleman’s constituency, there are such significant plans for expansion. At Gatwick, too, there is significant expansion, even of the one runway, and the possibility of a second runway from 2019. I wonder whether one option might be rail links between Heathrow and Gatwick and/or Luton, and whether the charges could pay for those. I am interested in hearing about the Northolt options and what the impact might be if Northolt were linked in to Heathrow. I very much believe that Birmingham airport, in terms of being half an hour from Old Oak Common or 40 minutes from Euston on High Speed 2, can become a very significant player in the south-east aviation market.
Mark Reckless
I will finish the point, if I may. I do not understand why so much aviation demand from the north and the midlands has to come all the way down to Heathrow when, perhaps, Birmingham or Luton could satisfy much of that.
Mark Reckless
The policy is for a south-east airports consultation. The previous Government sought to conduct such a consultation, and would not even consider as an option a second runway at Gatwick until I, along with Medway council, Kent county council, the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds, and Essex county council, backed a judicial review which overturned that policy.
Pat Glass
Will the hon. Gentleman accept that now only two regional airports in this country have flights into Heathrow? Therefore, if we are travelling to New York, South Africa or Australia from the regions in this country, it is far easier to go to Charles de Gaulle, Frankfurt or Schiphol. That is not good for Heathrow, it is not good for the British economy and it is certainly not good for business in the regions.
Mark Reckless
I strongly support our policy of promoting High Speed 2 for inter-regional transport within the UK. I recognise the value of transfer passengers at Heathrow for the provision of the network it has, but I do not ultimately see how it is a disaster for the British economy if some people from the regions transfer at a European hub for some flights, rather than always coming to Heathrow. What I would like to see at Heathrow are high value flights that produce the best outcome for the country as a whole. Having Heathrow operated effectively would be very sensible. It has significantly increased its landing charges in order to pay for the third runway and, under the quinquennial review, Heathrow-BAA has carried on raking in that money, even though it is not investing in the third runway that that money was meant to fund. I do not see how that makes sense.
Most people refer to the CAA as a good and effective regulator, but how will it remain so? What certainty do we have about that? That is why a role for the NAO, expectations that it should be efficient in its management, and a role in ensuring the effectiveness of licence holders are, in principle, sensible things to ask for. I hope the Minister, the Department and in due course the CAA will listen to Members and ensure that those things happen.
The point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Daventry (Chris Heaton-Harris) about freight transport—that the consumer is indifferent to the mechanism used for that freight transport—may also apply to Heathrow. As an economist, my assessment is that the end user, the consumer of flight services through Heathrow, may be indifferent to the level of landing charges—to the extent that the price of tickets is set by the scarcity and the monopolistic pricing at Heathrow, rather than on the basis of the cost of using Heathrow. Therefore, just as I previously suggested that there might be a great deal of investment in Heathrow, which could be good for consumers without pushing up prices for those end users, so, if the CAA were to be a flabby and inefficient regulator that was putting its own charges on the industry, it could do that without the statutory constraint of acting in the interests of the users of those services.
We have seen that the scarcity at Heathrow has become capitalised in the costs of slots. When they are traded, it can be £5 million or £10 million now per pair of take-off and landing slots, to the great benefit potentially of BA, but to who else’s benefit? That has happened not through a decision of the House, and not even through the development of the common law, but through the development of European jurisprudence in this area. There is very significant value there. The CAA could transfer that value from BA to BAA with little, if any, impact on the consumer, or it could allow for significantly greater investment, or it could be quite flabby and inefficient or, to the extent that Government policy influences this and we have air passenger duty which is higher for the south-east or particularly higher for Heathrow, that might raise money to help the Government close the deficit, without having a negative impact on the users of Heathrow. All these are significant points that need to be considered, along with the value for money and the effectiveness propositions.
I should like to address briefly the issues raised in Government amendment 19 in relation to the market power determination. I support the Bill and the Minister, and I will defer to her judgment on this, but I am nervous about the extent to which we are giving power to the CAA to make this market power determination. It used to apply to Manchester; it no longer does. I have heard arguments with respect to Stansted and to Gatwick as to why it should not apply. The risk with Stansted, I would have thought, is not so much that it would shove up the prices massively, but that Stansted may not be competing effectively with Heathrow as it would if it were under separate ownership.
We have just heard comments about flights to Asia and emerging markets, but we have recently seen significant openings of routes into and out of Gatwick to places such as Vietnam and South Korea. There may be the prospect of significant further movement in that direction. But larger airlines—A380s and so on—currently do not have particularly good service at Gatwick, and it is difficult for Gatwick to invest to service the A380s and to have people transferring straight from the plane into the terminal, because of the significant cost involved and the need at least to bring along the current airline users of the airport and the great difficulty of putting through the investment if they are fighting it tooth and nail.
If Gatwick feels that it should invest significant sums of money in better terminal facilities in order to service the A380s and the type of airline that flies them, and allow the sorts of routes to high-growth markets in Asia that we so strongly support, I see no strong reason why it should be prevented from doing so and charging what the market will bear. I believe that that could be to the benefit of the consumer. The CAA might be a good regulator and take that into account, but at least the idea, in principle, of allowing freer competition and having less regulation and fewer airports with the market power determination—it is only really Heathrow where there is clearly substantial power—might lead to a more competitive system in which Gatwick and Stansted were free in the way Manchester now is. I am not certain, but it might do so. Under the Bill, it will now fall to the CAA to make that decision, unless this is reconsidered before the Bill is passed. I would like to pay my regards to the Minister and say that I trust her position on this and hope that the CAA will make the right decisions as well.
Julie Hilling
I will not speak for long, but I wish to express the enormous disappointment, among not only the green groups, but the many people who live near airports and are affected by them, at the fact that the Government did not put an environmental duty in the Bill. I accept that the amendments that we are proposing do not go as far as we would have wanted this Bill to go. However, the speech made by my hon. Friend the Member for Hayes and Harlington (John McDonnell) demonstrated exactly why we need at least to include these amendments in the Bill and to continue to work for the future to ensure that those measures operate across all airports.
There is great concern worldwide about air travel’s effect on the environment and the damage it can do to the ozone layer, but many more people are concerned about what happens day to day. They are concerned about the effect of airports on their daily lives. Noise is the most obvious issue we talk about when we debate airports and although it is, of course, a very serious issue, it affects a smaller group of people than other environmental concerns.
Similarly the actual flight makes up only a small part of the carbon footprint of any journey by air. We also need to consider: the environmental costs of getting people to the airport by road and rail; the cost of road congestion, which is a huge issue in my community in Greater Manchester; and the cost to the environment of the car parking spaces that seem to spread across the fields, particularly around Heathrow and Gatwick, where we seem to grow cars instead of crops.
Of course the industry faces competing priorities. Its main priority has to be getting passengers to their destination in the most profitable way possible. Profits—or at least costs—are even more important for regional airports, many of which are struggling to survive at the moment. For airports it is about having as many flights as possible. Airports such as Heathrow are having to work out how to squeeze them into the restricted air and ground space. It is about getting passengers to the airport in the easiest way possible because the operators need to ensure that passengers choose to travel with them in the future. To believe that operators will consider environmental issues out of the goodness of their hearts seems somewhat naive.
Manchester, my local airport, does what it can to be a good neighbour. It has invested greatly in rail links and other mitigating measures and it is now investing in Metrolink to bring more people to the airport. I do not believe, however, that a vague requirement, rather than an absolute duty, is enough.
As was discussed in Committee, I do not believe that passengers make a choice because of the green credentials of their airport. I am sure that other passengers, like me, work out where they want to go, what price it will be and how easy it will be to get to the airport. Deciding whether to fly or catch a train might be my one environmental consideration, but I do not make any further considerations in choosing where to go. Furthermore, as has been said, other regulators, such as the Office of Rail Regulation, have a duty as regards environmental concerns. It seems a bit perverse when we are considering new duties for the CAA not to say that it should have an environmental duty.
We must say to the aviation industry that the environment is a big issue, both in terms of its carbon footprint and for those who live near airports, who are extremely disappointed that the Government have not used the Bill as an opportunity to consider the problems and do something about them. Yes, the amendments are not all that we would want, but they are a start. I urge hon. Members on both sides of the House to support them, particularly those people who have argued long and hard about their environmental concerns.
Pat Glass
At the beginning of the debate, I said that I felt that the Bill was essentially a good one with a number of omissions, and perhaps the most glaring omission of all is the statutory environmental duty. That statutory duty was part of the Bill when it was drafted by the previous Government, and it is not clear to me why the “greenest Government ever” would remove it.
In Committee, the Minister told us that the Bill is about economic regulation and that there is therefore no room for a statutory environmental duty. However, the Bill is about much more than simply the economic regulation of the CAA. If it was just about economic regulation, it would not include safety or security or an extension of the air travel organisers’ licence. It is not a clean and simple Bill about economic regulation; it is a long overdue consolidation and updating of regulations covering a wide range of issues in which those sections dealing with a statutory duty on environmental issues should have been included but have been deliberately expunged.
I could perhaps understand the Government’s reluctance to include the environmental duty if the CAA was the only economic regulator to have such a statutory duty placed on it. We have heard the Minister say in response to that point that the Bill only covers certain airports, but as my hon. Friend the Member for Bolton West (Julie Hilling) has said, in some areas, such as security, it covers all airports.
Pat Glass
May I finish this point? I will then be happy to give way.
Even if the Bill covered only certain airports, would it not be a good start to begin with the biggest airports in the country? The Minister has also said—I am sure she will say it again when she intervenes—that other economic regulators, such as Ofgem and Ofwat, have universal jurisdiction, but that is not true. Ofgem does not have universal jurisdiction. Huge areas of this country, particularly rural areas, are off gas and are therefore not covered by Ofgem. I know that because I and other Members of the House have consistently campaigned to extend Ofgem’s jurisdiction to make it universal. I am sorry, but the Minister’s argument is just not correct.
Mrs Villiers
Both the hon. Lady and the hon. Member for Bolton West (Julie Hilling) made points about parts of the Bill covering all airports, and that is undoubtedly true, but the amendments relate to economic regulation. So the amendments seek to use economic regulation as a means of achieving environmental objectives. That is one of my fundamental objections. If we are going regulate for environmental purposes, we need to do it across the board in a proportionate, targeted and efficient way, not via economic regulation.
Pat Glass
And I would agree if we had before us some regulation that would cover all airports, but we do not. So I am sorry: we have to start somewhere.
Moving on to the impact of the statutory duty, I cannot believe that anyone would argue that it is not needed. I appreciate that aviation emissions currently make up 6% of UK emissions, but we all know that that is expected to rise to as much as 25%, even if the Government stick to the current targets and even if those targets are met. But as we heard today, environmental issues around airports and air travel go much further than concerns about emissions. They include air quality around airports and in the wider environment, they include noise pollution at and around airports and they include surface transport links and access. As we heard today from my hon. Friend the Member for Blackley and Broughton (Graham Stringer), a recognised expert in this area, most pollution around airports does not actually come from planes; it comes from vehicles going to, from and around airports. Those living around and close to airports are naturally concerned about air quality and noise pollution, and they will be very unhappy to see the Government remove the statutory duty from the Bill.
Finally, I want to move on to the issue of emissions, which are of concern to us all. We all need to know that the CAA will pay proper regard to playing its part in meeting the 2015 targets, in a world in which emissions from aviation are going to increase, and in which the emissions challenge will simply get harder and harder. I do not understand, in this situation of increasing challenge, why the Government are choosing to remove the statutory duty.
I was not surprised that Conservative members of the Bill Committee voted down environmental safeguards, but I was particularly disappointed and surprised that Lib Dem members of the Committee did so too. Listening to the nice warm words today from the hon. Member for Cambridge (Dr Huppert) only increases my surprise and disappointment. I recall that in Committee, he said that he was not supporting our amendment because it was not strong enough. We have had six weeks. He had an opportunity to table much stronger amendments himself, both in Committee and today, and what have we seen? Nothing. All we have seen is the hon. Gentleman turning himself almost inside-out in an attempt to face both ways at the same time. However, all is not lost. He and his Lib Dem colleagues do have an opportunity to salve their conscience, and to have the courage of their convictions by voting for a statutory environmental duty in the Lobby this evening.
Mrs Villiers
I would like to assure the House that the coalition takes the environmental impacts of aviation very seriously—both its constituent parties. We take seriously both its global impact in terms of carbon emissions and its local impact in terms of noise and air quality. I welcome the contributions made by so many hon. Members this afternoon about the significance of those impacts—the hon. Members for Feltham and Heston (Seema Malhotra) and for Hayes and Harlington (John McDonnell), and my hon. Friends the Members for Ealing Central and Acton (Angie Bray), for Rochester and Strood (Mark Reckless) and for Cambridge (Dr Huppert). Although I have some sympathy with the underlying purpose of the amendments, there are a number of important reasons why I cannot ask the House to support them today.
I do understand the concerns expressed, by, for example, my hon. Friend the Member for Cambridge and groups such as HACAN—Heathrow Association for the Control of Airport Noise—and AirportWatch. I know that my hon. Friend is looking for further clarity on environmental investment and I hope I can provide some reassurance today on that and on how the Bill will work. I will also say to my hon. Friend and others who have expressed a view today that the Government will continue to listen with great care to the concerns raised on environmental matters, including those set out in the debate today. We shall continue to reflect carefully on whether further clarity needs to be provided in the Bill, and no doubt there will be another opportunity to consider this matter in the other place. The aviation policy framework that we shall publish next spring provides another key opportunity to address the full range of the environmental impacts of aviation and establish the best way to deal with them.
In the Government’s view, the Bill as currently drafted allows the CAA to authorise reasonable investment in measures that mitigate environmental impact, even where they are voluntarily undertaken. Where environmental measures benefit users of air transport services in the provision of airport operation services, the Bill gives the CAA the power to allow for its costs in the regulatory settlement.
The CAA made clear in its evidence to the Public Bill Committee that a system that safeguards the interests of end users and seeks to replicate a functioning market, as this system does, can and does embrace investment in environmental measures and surface access improvements. Iain Osborne of the CAA pointed out in his evidence that unregulated airports across the world invest in environmental measures. For example, although its noise mitigation scheme is now mandated as part of a planning agreement, Birmingham airport operated a voluntary scheme from 1978 to 1996. Since 2003 the airport has also operated a voluntary scheme to provide roof protection for properties affected by roof damage from aircraft vortices. Other examples include East Midlands airport’s investment in wind turbines and Bournemouth airport’s investment in solar panels. We firmly believe that it will continue to be possible for environmental investment to be authorised under the regulatory system proposed in the Bill. I hope that that provides some clarity and reassurance.