Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Simon Burns and Louise Ellman

Thursday 17th January 2013 Commons Chamber

[Mrs Louise Ellman (Liverpool, Riverside) (Lab/Co-op)]

Siemens was announced as the preferred bidder for Thameslink rolling stock in June 2011. The contract has still not been completed. One of the consequences is a delay in the cascading of rolling stock from Thameslink to the north. When will that cascading now take place?

[Mr Burns]

I accept that there have been delays. A part of that is because this is a complex procurement process, and it obviously has to be done correctly and within the rules. In direct answer to the hon. Lady’s question, we expect the Thameslink contract to be finalised by the spring of this year, so that things can then move forward.

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Simon Burns and Louise Ellman

Thursday 29th November 2012 Commons Chamber

[Mr Burns]

It will make a significant improvement because it means enhanced rolling stock along the whole east coast main line from London to Edinburgh, which I believe will make journey times from Edinburgh to England about 15 minutes quicker overall. However, we should also take into account the improved quality of the service and the improvements to the track on the east coast main line.

[Mrs Louise Ellman (Liverpool, Riverside) (Lab/Co-op)]

The resolution of the west coast main line franchise issues will be important in enabling improvements to services in those areas. When did the Minister decide to postpone the publication of the Laidlaw report on the franchise fiasco?

[Mr Burns]

I would like to reassure the hon. Lady that there is no question of postponing publication of the report; we hope to publish it shortly.

Flight Time Limitations

Debate between Simon Burns and Louise Ellman

Thursday 22nd November 2012 Westminster Hall

[Mrs Ellman]

I will take up that point in a moment.

Flight time limitations are a complex package of measures, dealing with how working hours are distributed over the year, start and finish times, rest periods, and the impact of time zones. UK airlines are currently regulated by the Civil Aviation Authority. The major change that sparked our inquiry is that the rules are now being set at an EU level by the European Aviation Safety Agency, which is based in Cologne. As part of our inquiry we visited EASA, to discuss its work with the agency’s director.

The UK’s flight time limits are set by the CAA, which is permissible under EU regulations. In 2009, EASA started a process of establishing a Europe-wide scheme, and the UK Government are part of those negotiations, so the matter has not come on us suddenly. The advantage in establishing EU-wide flight time limitations is that safety standards across the EU are expected to rise, which will benefit passengers travelling on European carriers. However, there is also a real risk that well-established UK standards will be reduced as part of the process of achieving consensus across the EU. In addition, there are serious questions about EASA’s work, particularly in relation to how it has used scientific advice. More plainly, there are questions about how EASA did not use the latest scientific advice in assessing safe standards.

Many aspects of flight time limitations are relatively uncontentious, but some have generated passionate debate. I will focus this afternoon on the most hotly contested issues, and I will set out my Committee’s conclusions.

We looked at the proposals that were published by EASA in January this year. EASA has since published its formal opinion, which will now be reviewed by the European Commission before coming into law. I will be putting some questions to the Minister about EASA’s latest conclusions. Again, I stress that we are not talking about the EU suddenly announcing a decision without proper consultation. This country, including the Department for Transport, is part of that ongoing and long consultation, so it has an active part to play.

One of the main concerns of the Committee was about the number of hours that crew can fly overnight. The scientific advice provided to EASA has been clear in recommending that the proposed 11-hour duty period was too long and that the limit should be 10 hours. The Government told us that they would not press EASA to change its proposals, arguing instead for more active management of long overnight flight duty periods. In that, the Government were successful. But why is the Minister satisfied that pilots will be allowed to fly overnight for one more hour than scientific opinion considers to be the safe limit? That is an extremely serious matter.

Another concern was about the very long duty periods allowed for under EASA’s proposals. We heard that a pilot could be landing a plane after 19 hours at work and perhaps after 21 or 22 hours of being awake. The CAA described that scenario as “exceptionally rare”, but I do not think that anyone here today would be happy to fly if they knew that their pilot had been working around the clock, however unusual that situation is alleged to be.

EASA’s new proposals seem to improve that situation, with a cap on airport stand-by and associated flight duty of 16 hours. However, BALPA has put a new scenario to us that shows how other aspects of the rules could lead to a pilot working for almost 24 hours, if a long period on stand-by waiting for a delay to an aircraft to be resolved is followed by a normal duty period. I would be grateful for the Minister’s observations on a situation of that nature.

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

Perhaps it would be helpful to the hon. Lady if I said that such a situation is not the intention of the proposal. A cap of 16 hours has been placed on combinations of airport stand-by and flight duty periods, to clarify the issue. I hope that she finds that helpful.

[Mrs Ellman]

I thank the Minister for his comments and I would be grateful to receive more detail on that cap, in a written response, so that we can consider it. There are concerns that there could be situations in which EASA’s 16-hour limit is breached. As I am sure that right hon. and hon. Members recognise, even after the short time I have been discussing the issue, the nature of the rules is complex. There are individual regulations that give rise to concern, and because they can be combined and have an impact on each other, the worry is that that might result in flying becoming less safe.

The Committee also raised concerns about the scheduling of frequent consecutive early starts, which can be particularly fatiguing. EASA requires early duties to be actively managed; we heard that response in relation to several of our recommendations. In principle, careful management of how rosters and duty patterns affect crew is, of course, sensible. However, it is not yet clear what careful management will actually involve and how it will be regulated. Will the Minister explain how UK airlines will discharge their responsibilities to manage fatigue actively, particularly where the potential for fatigue is high, such as in early starts? Will he also explain how the CAA will regulate early starts? Will he give a commitment that the CAA will step in and act against any UK airline that is not taking fatigue management seriously?

When we hear that fatigue is to be “managed”, that is superficially reassuring, but what might happen on a day when an aircraft is flying late and timetables must be met? Would short cuts be taken? Would a member of staff who raised the issue of management of fatigue be seen as disruptive rather than concerned about safety? Those are practical issues that must be addressed, because it is all too easy to hide under the cloak of generalities; I am sure that those generalities are well intentioned, but the test is whether they are applied in relation to a particular flight at a given time when there may be stressful conditions.

It is crucial that there is transparency about incidents involving fatigue and situations that might lead to fatigue, such as increases in duty periods at the commander’s discretion. Greater public awareness will help to drive complacency and poor practice out of the airline sector. It is also essential that the under-reporting of fatigue by aircrew is addressed. In 2011, just 20 reports of incidents caused by fatigue that endangered or could have endangered life were reported to the CAA. That is surely an example of gross under-reporting, given the other evidence about how common pilot fatigue is. The issue is not only what the rules say, particularly if those rules are of a general nature, but what happens on a specific occasion and whether a member of staff—a pilot, or indeed another member of the crew—might feel that if they make representations they would be seen as not supportive of their airline when in fact they were raising concerns about safety.

The CAA is now considering how to address under-reporting. It would be very helpful if the Minister told us exactly how the CAA is doing so, what actions will be taken and how any proposals that the CAA has would be monitored? The Government told us that they were committed to transparency and have asked the CAA to review what data can be put in the public domain without discouraging the reporting of incidents or identifying individuals. Again, I would be grateful if we received further information about what exactly is being planned.

One of our most serious concerns was about EASA’s treatment of scientific evidence in developing its flight time proposals. EASA started from the standpoint that flight time limitations are based on operational experience and negotiations with trade unions. Scientific advice about how fatigue affects people at work was overlooked. After being criticised for this omission, EASA commissioned three scientists to give independent advice, but then ignored some of that advice. The decision to press ahead with an 11-hour overnight duty period is the best example of that. During the course of our inquiry, we spoke to some of those scientists and we found that, following their report, EASA had had very little contact with them, which was a matter of concern to us.

We called on the Government to ensure that scientists have a more central role in further work by EASA on flight time limitations. In response, we were told that the CAA wants EASA to maintain an advisory group on flight time rules, calling on scientific and other expert advice. Is the Minister satisfied that EASA has developed its current process with little input from scientific advisers and has directly ignored some of the clear advice that it has received? Moreover, is he confident that from now on EASA will change its ways and pay more attention to experts in fatigue? This matter is of great concern and relates to the safety of pilots, the public and passengers. We do not want to have a calamity and then look back and ask, “Why was up-to-date scientific research not incorporated into decision making?” That is why I am posing these questions now.

Many other hon. Members will have been contacted by BALPA on other aspects of the rules that concern it. I want the Minister to address two further points that have been drawn to our attention.

First, we have been told that the Government could adopt the new flight time limitations and then supplement them with higher national standards using existing national legislation. Does the Minister think that is feasible? Is he considering it? One major change, which has been in discussion since 2009, is that Ministers and the Department have told us that it would no longer be possible for the UK to maintain higher standards than other parts of Europe. However, we have now been told that that is not the case. I would be grateful for some clarification from the Minister on that important point.

Secondly, will the Minister and the CAA consider setting up the UK’s own independent fatigue science advisory panel to help the CAA implement the new regulations safely and press EASA for any necessary changes? I cannot over-stress the importance that the Committee attaches to the impact of scientific evidence on fatigue, and how that is interpreted, on the complex combination of flight time limits.

[Mr Burns]

If it is helpful to the hon. Lady, may I deal with the point about adding on to the proposals? There seems to be some confusion. In the light of some people maintaining that we can add on if we wish to, we have checked yet again with the Commission and have been categorically assured that we cannot.

[Mrs Ellman]

I am sorry to hear the Minister’s response, but it at least clarifies how the Department sees the position.

I return to a theme of the previous debate—the interplay of decision making between the European Union and its agencies, and the UK. I want the Minister to acknowledge that the UK is not a passive recipient of what the EU decides; that we are part of the decision-making process, and we should advocate what we think is best. The Minister told us during our inquiry that the Department will represent the UK on the comitology committee, which will consider the draft Commission regulation. I want to know what policies the Department has been pursuing and what policies it will pursue as the process of decision making continues.

I have been told that following an EASA committee meeting last week, a number of member states expressed concerns, and that an extraordinary EASA meeting will be held to consider them. I am told that the UK was not one of the member states expressing those concerns. Is my information correct? Was the UK involved with other nations at the meeting last week in expressing concerns? If not, was it a conscious decision? Are there any points which the UK intends to continue to pursue before the matter progresses?

The inquiry was a complicated one for the Committee to undertake, because it was about not just one change but a number of changes and the overall impact of the combination of complex changes. It is an extremely important matter, because it is about public safety. There are clear benefits to setting minimum safety standards across the EU, but there is a clear risk that our own currently higher standards could be compromised. I hope that the UK Government will continue to fight for the highest possible standards. It is also important that there is an open and transparent culture in the airline industry, so that incidents involving fatigue can be reported without staff fearing that they would be reprimanded or viewed in a negative light. It is vital that lessons are learned and that up-to-date scientific advice is heeded.

Airlines, air crew, passengers and the Government all have a strong interest in achieving the highest safety standards, which I hope the new regulations, when they are implemented, will achieve. I want a categorical assurance that our Ministers are fully conscious of all the points that I have raised and that the Committee has considered, and that they will continue to pursue the issue, so that the highest possible safety standards are achieved.

--- Later in debate ---

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

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Robertson. Again, I thank the Transport Committee not only for its report on what is, as the hon. Member for Poplar and Limehouse (Jim Fitzpatrick) said in his concluding remarks, a very important subject, but for the opportunity to debate it today. I congratulate the hon. Member for Liverpool, Riverside (Mrs Ellman) and the hon. Member for Poplar and Limehouse on their speeches, and I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Milton Keynes South (Iain Stewart) on his powerful and interesting contribution.

I want to go through the overarching issues as seen from the Government’s point of view and how we believe they should be dealt with, and then I will move on to some of the specific questions raised. I recognise that there has been—understandably—considerable interest in the proposals, not only in the aviation industry but in a wider field. The proposals arouse passion, concern and interest, and it is crucial that we make sure that we get it right.

We have heard examples of pilots falling asleep on duty and concerns that, under the new proposals, they may have to land aircraft after being awake for 22 hours. For that reason, I have a number of important points to make at the outset.

First, the safety of the UK travelling public remains of paramount importance to us, and it always will. That has always defined our approach to air safety regulation in the UK, as it defined the approach of the previous Government, of whom the hon. Member for Poplar and Limehouse was a member, and it continues to define our approach to air safety negotiations in Europe.

Secondly, decisions on safety matters must be informed by the best evidence available, not just scientific evidence, important as that is, but the wealth of evidence gathered from day-to-day operations. Thirdly, safety rule-makers need to remain objective and to base their decisions on independent and impartial advice.

In the UK, we are fortunate to have the Civil Aviation Authority as our specialist adviser on air safety. The CAA is one of the world’s most respected aviation safety regulators. In Europe, the CAA is the national authority with the most experience of fatigue management. It is independent of Government and, more importantly, it is free from the influence of the aviation industry and other interest groups. The Government and I have the utmost confidence in the CAA’s expertise in this area, and it is right that we should continue to be guided by its independent advice.

The CAA has been at the forefront of work to develop a harmonised set of air safety rules across Europe. The European Aviation Safety Agency is responsible for developing those rules. In doing so, the EASA works closely with national agencies such as the CAA. Harmonised rules are important as there is a single market in air services within the EU. The single market has ensured real competition, benefiting passengers through lower fares and greater choice. Different safety standards in different member states, however, can distort the market and could, if some do not provide a robust level of safety, put flight crews and passengers at risk.

[Mrs Ellman]

I agree that the Civil Aviation Authority is highly respected and has a very good reputation; nevertheless there are some concerns because, during the course of our inquiry, it expressed reservations about the proposed flight duty period at night but did not object to the European Aviation Safety Agency’s decision, even though it went against scientific advice. The CAA felt the situation could be “actively managed.” In practice, on a given day and in a given crisis or with given pressure of time, how could such a situation be managed? That query does not challenge the CAA as such, but I am asking whether, in not following scientific advice, the CAA has put too much faith in the situation being managed, when in reality that might not happen on every occasion.

[Mr Burns]

The hon. Lady raises an important issue. I will return to this, but, yes, I do have faith in the CAA, because I do not think it is doing what she suggests. I will return to that when I address a number of questions, because it is an important issue and the hon. Lady and others beyond the House, who will be reading the comments of all hon. Members who have contributed to the debate, need an answer.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Burns]

I appreciate the hon. Gentleman’s last point. I hope that by the time I sit down I will have completely reassured him. If I were a betting man, I would not place a wager on that, but I will do my best to seek to assuage his concerns as much as possible.

Importantly, different safety standards in different member states can distort the market and could, if some do not provide a robust level of safety, put flight crews and passengers at risk, which we all find unacceptable and are united in wanting to address. The harmonised rules will apply directly to all EU airlines, ensuring that UK citizens flying within Europe enjoy the same high safety standards, regardless of where the airline is based.

The flight time limitation requirements are a package of closely interrelated measures that address a number of issues relating to fatigue, including work load, sleep and body clocks, in several different ways. Work load is addressed through setting limits on the length of duty times. The more intensive the work load in terms of take offs and landings, the lower the limit. Additionally, there are medium and long-term limits on duty hours to prevent cumulative fatigue.

Adequate sleep is ensured by the establishment of minimum rest requirements. Body clock issues are addressed by adjusting duty limits according to the time of day the duty starts. There are additional limits if crews are not acclimatised to the local time zone.

I emphasise again that those requirements and limits are closely interrelated. For their effectiveness to be properly understood, they need to be considered together as a package.

Limits are only one aspect of the new proposal. Airlines will also be required to put in place a number of new management processes, including flight time specification schemes tailored to the type of operation being undertaken. Airlines will have to ensure that schedules are planned so that aircrews can operate safely in all circumstances. All aircrews, rostering staff and their managers will have to undergo regular training in fatigue management. The training programme will have to be approved by the CAA.

Additionally, all airlines will be required under separate legislation to have safety-management systems. Under the EASA proposals, those will have to have a specific fatigue risk-management element in certain circumstances. The CAA will be responsible for approving and monitoring airlines’ safety management systems and flight time specification schemes. Airlines will no longer be able to rely solely on complying with fixed limits on flight times. Instead, they will also need to demonstrate how they are managing crew duties to prevent the risk of fatigue from arising in the first place. This part of the EASA proposal is a major step forward. It is very much in line with UK thinking and with international best practice in this field.

Although some provisions of the EASA proposals are slightly less restrictive than the current UK requirements, others are more restrictive. However, as I have said, the new flight time limitations requirements are designed to work as a package of measures. It does not make sense to draw comparisons with the current UK rules by looking at specific limits in isolation.

The CAA looked carefully at the package of new proposals and considered how the various elements will interact. It has assured me that, in its opinion, the package of measures will not lead to any reduction in safety for UK airlines. Moreover, the new proposals are much more stringent than the current EU rules. EASA has identified more than 30 separate provisions where this is the case. For example, it provides for safety improvements in addressing cumulative fatigue, including through extended recovery rest periods twice a month; increasing rest to compensate for time-zone differences and disruptive schedules; and expanding the application of the most restrictive flight duty period to 12 hours between 5 pm and 5 am. That will lead to a substantial improvement in safety across Europe. It is a good deal for UK passengers in today’s single market in air services. When they use any airline from any EU member state, passengers will be protected by the same high standards as those followed by UK airlines.

This is also a good deal for UK airlines, which will no longer have to compete against other EU airlines that follow less stringent rules. It has been suggested that the UK should consider opting out of some or all of the proposed rules or enhancing them. The hon. Member for Liverpool, Riverside raised the matter, but I have to say that this is not an option. We have checked, because there has been a belief that we could add to the proposals that EASA is bringing forward. However, the European Commission has once again confirmed categorically that no member state could do that. It is the package that is accepted. No member state can add on something if it wishes to and, fortunately, no member state can take away anything, either—that is the other side of the coin—which some member states might be interested in doing.

It is fair to say that the Transport Committee itself concluded that the legislation under which these provisions are made rules out the option of a separate UK regulatory regime or an add-on, but I accept that Committee members will have wondered about that in the light of other information that has been bandied around and been in circulation since the Committee produced its report.

I stress that the proposals are currently only an opinion of the European safety regulator. The European Commission has yet to issue its own legislative proposal and we will reserve our final judgment until we see it. We will not vote in favour of the regulation unless the CAA advises us that it provides an appropriate level of safety.

I should like to say something about the use of scientific evidence in developing the proposals, because several hon. Members have raised this matter. Some have expressed concern about this. During the development of its proposals, EASA reviewed more than 50 scientific studies and employed three independent scientists to review its proposals. It also took into account a large amount of operational data and experience across the EU. EASA provided, in the regulatory impact assessment published alongside its opinion, a detailed assessment of the evidence and advice that it considered.

The CAA gave this House, in its evidence to the Transport Committee in February, a detailed account of the procedures followed and the evidence taken into account by both it and EASA. I will not repeat that evidence here. The important thing is that I am satisfied with the CAA’s assurance—that view is shared by EASA and by the CAA’s counterparts in other member states—that a thorough, transparent process has been followed in this case.

The draft legislation imposes a legal obligation on EASA to review the effectiveness of the rules three years after they have come into force. EASA has also said that it plans to carry out further research in a number of areas, to help improve understanding of crew fatigue. The CAA will work closely with EASA to ensure that this research is carried out effectively.

As I have said, we have yet to see a legislative proposal from the Commission. I repeat, to provide reassurance I hope, that we will reserve our final judgment until the CAA has had the opportunity to review that proposal when it is produced.

[Mrs Ellman]

I feel reassured by some of the Minister’s statement, but on the scientific evidence, I wish to make it clear that the Committee spoke to scientists involved in giving advice and there is concern about the current proposals. It may not be a unanimous decision, but there certainly is concern. I ask the Minister to bear that in mind as he continues to consider the issue.

[Mr Burns]

I appreciate that. I will certainly bear it in mind. However, from the evidence that I have been given and conversations that I have had with the CAA, I am confident that a thorough review of the 50 studies has been done. I do not want to be flippant, but I suspect that scientists can, at times, be a bit like economists, in that they will have different views or will place emphasis differently on solutions to problems or issues, and that might be a part of what is behind the discussions or conversations the hon. Lady has had. But that does not detract from my initial point that I am confident, from the assurances that I have had, that the review of 50 independent scientific studies by independent scientists has been done thoroughly and properly.

I repeat that we have not yet seen the legislative proposals from the Commission and we will reserve our final judgment until the CAA has had the opportunity to review those proposals and form a view. I hope that that is reassuring.

I shall answer questions in no particular order. I may have misheard the hon. Lady and if I did I hope that she will forgive me. I think she mentioned an EASA meeting last week. Is that correct?

[Mrs Ellman]

Yes. I was informed recently that there was an EASA meeting last week and that a number of member states—not the UK—raised concerns and that, as a result, an emergency EASA meeting was called. I was seeking confirmation or otherwise of whether that is so.

[Mr Burns]

That is helpful, because I was genuinely confused. The advice that I had—I will check it, because it is at such variance with what the hon. Lady has been told—is that we are not aware of any meeting that took place last week. We are aware of an EASA committee meeting in October at which the proposals were discussed, and no member state raised any significant concerns about them. As I said, we will check that, and I will ensure that she is informed of the results.

Both the hon. Lady and the hon. Member for Poplar and Limehouse asked a number of questions arising from the recommendations of the Select Committee report. As both of them will know, the Government have responded to those recommendations. The responses that we gave are still our responses, and we still believe in them. I could go through them one by one, but I suspect that Opposition Members in particular would not want to hear the sound of my voice for quite that long. However, I can confirm, particularly on the questions raised by the hon. Gentleman, that our responses on all issues linked directly to the recommendations of the Select Committee report are as valid today as when we published our response. I hope that is satisfactory.

Air Travel Organisers’ Licensing

Debate between Simon Burns and Louise Ellman

Thursday 22nd November 2012 Westminster Hall

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

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Williams, and I am pleased that the Transport Committee has secured this debate on a very important subject.

Before I get to the detail of the points that have been raised and of the Government’s approach, both to the Committee’s report and in terms of our response to the recommendations, I must make an abject apology—not only to you, Mr Williams, but to the hon. Member for Liverpool, Riverside (Mrs Ellman); to the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Poplar and Limehouse (Jim Fitzpatrick); and to others who have come to the debate—for the fact that I turned up late.

I was under the impression—totally wrongly, as it happens—that the debate would start at half-past 2, and I had planned on that basis. What had not been taken into account was the fact that we have, of course, modernised our hours since the middle of October and that debate starts at 1.30.

I am very, very sorry about that. I am furious with myself that I have been discourteous to the Transport Committee and to the Chamber. I can guarantee you, Mr Williams, that this will never happen again, as it affects me, and I hope that, in that spirit, you and hon. Members will accept my apology. There is no excuse whatever.

[Mrs Ellman]

I completely accept the Minister’s apology. At times, we all get caught out by changes in the timetable. Until relatively recently, I thought the debate was at 2.30, then I discovered that it was to start at 1.30. It is perfectly understandable.

[Mr Burns]

I am extremely grateful to the hon. Lady, who is being remarkably generous in the circumstances. Although I appreciate her kindness, there is no excuse for what has happened. I should have been here at 1.30, but I do thank her.

It is clear that the hon. Lady’s Committee has taken a keen interest in ATOL reform and I am glad to have the opportunity to discuss it further following the Committee’s report, which was published in April. Since the Committee reported on ATOL reform, significant changes to the scheme have come into effect that have greatly improved its functioning. Reform of the ATOL scheme is necessary to increase consumer clarity, ensure its efficient functioning and, in the longer term, put it on a self-sustaining financial basis.

On 30 April, the same day as the Committee’s report was published, the Civil Aviation (Air Travel Organisers’ Licensing) Regulations 2012 came into force, bringing flight-plus holidays into the scope of the ATOL scheme. A flight-plus holiday is one where the consumer requests to book a flight and accommodation or car hire within a two-day period. That change gives consumers greater clarity and covers many more people. It means that, essentially, if one buys something from a travel agent or tour operator that looks like a package holiday, including a flight, one should be protected by ATOL.

The Civil Aviation Authority has reported that in 2012-13, 2.5 million more holidaymakers can be covered, thanks to that single change. The flight-plus reform has enjoyed broad support from industry, consumer groups and other stakeholders. As the Committee and our analysis have suggested, it is critical that consumers are aware of their coverage. Flight-plus has gone a long way towards clarifying the ATOL scheme and reducing the chances of consumers mistakenly thinking that they are covered, but further to address that, on 1 October, we introduced the ATOL certificate, which is a standardised document given to every person booking an ATOL-covered holiday. It sets out the coverage and says what to do if things go wrong.

The introduction of the ATOL certificate has been widely welcomed by the travel industry and consumer groups alike. On its launch, it received favourable coverage in the travel industry and national press. The travel trade has worked hard to get ready for all the ATOL reforms, and I applaud its efforts to do so. The CAA has also done a very good job in supporting the travel trade in its preparations. Receiving the ATOL certificate shows that holidaymakers and travellers are covered; equally, not receiving an ATOL certificate with a booking indicates that people are not covered. It removes any uncertainty and gives holidaymakers and travellers peace of mind.

To make the changes effective, the holiday-buying public must be aware of them. To that end, the CAA is preparing for a publicity campaign in the next few months to increase awareness of the changes. Fortunately, that will coincide with a significant period when people are preparing for and buying their summer holidays, immediately after Christmas. That is a relevant and appropriate time to start getting the message across.

We are pleased with what we have achieved with the ATOL scheme thus far. It goes a long way towards addressing a number of the points in the report. We intend to address some of the remaining issues in the ATOL scheme using new powers in the Civil Aviation Bill, which completed its progress through Parliament earlier this week and will receive Royal Assent in due course.

[Mr Burns]

I am extremely grateful to the hon. Gentleman, and I will certainly come back to him because I also want to deal with a number of points raised by the hon. Member for Liverpool, Riverside.

Before the hon. Gentleman’s valid intervention, I was about to say that we are pleased with the achievements that the ATOL scheme has so far realised. We believe that they go a long way to addressing a number of the points in the report. We intend to address some of the remaining issues in the ATOL scheme using the new powers in the Bill. For example, holidays sold by airlines are not required to be ATOL protected. That creates a regulatory inequality and potential confusion for holidaymakers. It is important to have a consistent regulatory framework for businesses selling holidays, including a flight, as far as is consistent with EU law.

Further, some consumers are not protected when buying a holiday because that holiday was procured on an “agent for the consumer” basis. That means that, rather than selling a holiday to the consumer, the travel agent technically buys one on the consumer’s behalf, as we discussed on Tuesday in the main Chamber, which means that it is outside the scope of the current ATOL scheme. The powers in the Bill will allow that method of avoiding the scheme to be removed.

Some companies might claim that they are merely facilitating a purchase of a flight, but neither buy on the consumer’s behalf nor make available or sell flight accommodation to them. Thus, they might argue that they are outside the scope of the ATOL scheme. That business practice is a potential avoidance approach. The Bill will give my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State powers to require such businesses to hold an ATOL licence.

The Bill is awaiting Royal Assent. Our intention is to create a level competitive playing field and to avoid holidaymakers mistakenly thinking that they have protection when they do not. Holidays including a flight that look like package holidays should be protected like package holidays under the ATOL scheme. These further reforms will go a long way towards ensuring that.

Of course, before taking further steps, we will consult widely. Subject to parliamentary processes, we expect to produce an impact assessment and launch a consultation on draft regulations in 2013. Our decisions will be based on the outcome of that consultation.

[Mrs Ellman]

I am reassured by the information that the right hon. Gentleman is now giving us, but can he say when he anticipates that a new scheme or the new regulations will be operational?

[Mr Burns]

I would very much like to do so, but that would give too many hostages to fortune at this stage, because, as I said, we are going to base our decisions on the outcome of consultations. The consultations will be on draft regulations. Obviously, that is a due process, with time scales. Once we have had a consultation, we will have to consider fully the responses to it and any lessons that we may learn from it—any points that arise. Therefore, I hesitate to give a precise timetable that I could be held to, because often, for the best reasons and intentions, one does not keep to a precise timetable, which then leads to further problems. However, I can assure the hon. Lady that we are determined to do this because we want to get protection for those who deserve and should have protection. We want to get it right, effective and appropriate, and we will do it without cutting corners as soon as it is practically possible to do so.

Let me return to the intervention from the hon. Member for Poplar and Limehouse about the figures. This information may be helpful to him. As I understand it, ATOL coverage is now at about 50% for leisure trips abroad by air. We expect flight-plus reforms to increase that to 55%. No estimate has been made at this stage of further increases from reforms that will be made by the Civil Aviation Bill. However, we expect that to be included in the consultations next year, so that when we move forward with our precise proposals to tackle these problems, we may be in a better position to upgrade the second of the figures that I gave the hon. Gentleman and anticipate the increase in the coverage percentage as a result of the proposals that we will bring forward. I hope that that was of some help to the hon. Gentleman.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Burns]

The hon. Gentleman makes an extremely valid point. For any scheme, a crucial element, apart from its effectiveness, is people’s understanding and knowledge of what they may—or, more importantly, may not—have protection against.

I have every confidence that companies, whether tour operators or airlines, will do all they can to make potential customers aware that they are covered by the scheme, because that is a positive selling point for customers and gives them peace of mind. However, as I said earlier, the CAA will also publicise the scheme proactively to ensure that people are generally aware of their protections if they make purchases from those covered by the scheme or from those who, in due course, will be brought within its ambit through our use of the powers contained in the Civil Aviation Bill.

It will become part of people’s mindset that the protection exists, and they will want to know whether they are protected because of the possible implications if they are not. This is slightly off the subject, so I will keep the comments brief, but that is like people going abroad under their own initiative, who may not get the health card for the reciprocal health arrangements in Europe if they travel there, or private health insurance if they travel further afield—to the United States or wherever—although, if they are taken ill or have an accident and need medical treatment, they will face catastrophic bills that could, for instance, completely change their family’s financial position.

The more publicity there is and the more that people are aware of what the situation is and what protections they have, the more the consumer will be interested and concerned to find out exactly what they are buying.

[Mrs Ellman]

Does the Minister know when the CAA intends to embark on the advertising and the promotion of information? Will the CAA do that with the industry itself, and will the advertising relate to the consumer needs that we have already identified? One feature that has been constant, certainly over the many years that the Committee and people elsewhere have looked at the issue, is the confusion in the customer’s mind about whether they are insured, and about what they are covered for and when.

[Mr Burns]

I am grateful to the hon. Lady for that intervention, because it raises an important issue. As I said earlier, we expect the campaign to be launched by the CAA immediately after Christmas. That is when many people consider purchasing holidays for the summer, so it will be relevant at that time. It will seek to make people aware not only of the ATOL scheme—for those who are not aware of it, and I fear that many are not or do not fully understand what it is—but of the changes and improvements made during this year. It will also provide clarity, so that the message gets across to those who are purchasing a holiday, flights or whatever, that as well as looking for value for money and so on, they should check whether their purchase is ATOL-protected and what that protection means.

Royal Liverpool University Hospital

Debate between Simon Burns and Louise Ellman

Wednesday 9th June 2010 Westminster Hall

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

I begin by congratulating the hon. Member for Liverpool, Riverside (Mrs Ellman) on securing this debate on the future of the Royal Liverpool and Broadgreen University Hospitals NHS Trust. I know of her long-standing support for the rebuilding of the Royal Liverpool hospital and it is apparent, just from looking at the number of Labour Members from Liverpool who are here today, that they are showing their interest in and concern about the provision of health care services in their constituencies and in the broader area of Liverpool and the Wirral.

I also pay tribute to the NHS staff across the whole of Liverpool, who do such an incredible job of caring for hon. Members’ constituents throughout the city and the surrounding area. Those members of staff do a fantastic job, day in and day out, with little recognition or thanks from people. I want to place on record my gratitude for their tremendous work and that of NHS staff in the rest of the country.

Before I come to the specifics about the Royal Liverpool hospital, I would like to set out the Government’s approach to the reconfiguration of local NHS services mentioned by the hon. Lady as part of her argument. I believe passionately that local decision making is essential to improving outcomes for patients and driving up quality. This Government will do more than just talk about pushing power to the local level; we will actually do it.

My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has identified four crucial tests that all reconfigurations must pass. First, they must have the support of GP commissioners. Secondly, arrangements for engaging patients and the public, including local authorities, must be further strengthened. Thirdly, there must be greater clarity about the clinical evidence base underpinning any proposals. Fourthly, any proposals must take into account the need to develop and support patient choice. To be clear, that means that forced hospital closures that do not have the support of GPs, local clinicians, patients and the local community should not occur.

[Mrs Ellman]

I am interested to hear the Minister’s enunciation of Government policy, but does he agree that in this instance we are discussing the much-needed replacement of an existing hospital that is required by practitioners and the local authority?

[Mr Burns]

The hon. Lady can rest assured that I will come to that in due course, during the latter part of my speech. In light of some of her comments, particularly about cancer services, I wanted to show the setting for reconfiguration in so far as it might affect that site and other parts of Liverpool’s health care provision.

Where local NHS organisations have already started to consider changing services, they will need to consider again whether their plans meet the criteria before continuing. It will be an opportunity for patients, local GPs and clinicians, and local councils to play a far greater role in how services are shaped and to ensure that the changes will lead to the best outcomes for patients.

The hon. Lady mentioned in an intervention the rebuilding of the Royal Liverpool. That will be reviewed in the light of the Secretary of State’s four tests. As she said in her speech, it is widely recognised that the hospital has a number of issues. Most significantly, the fabric of the building is deteriorating due to a serious case of concrete rot. The building’s condition contributes to high maintenance costs and a significantly poorer patient experience. The building is also inflexible, making it increasingly difficult for the trust to deliver modern, high-quality services.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mrs Ellman]

We all understand the problems of debt, but, as the Minister himself said, the replacement of this particular hospital has a long history. It has been scrutinised many times at many different levels—locally, regionally and nationally. It is a majority private finance initiative scheme funded mainly by the private sector. Is he suggesting either that the scrutiny has not been proper or that the hospital is not needed to meet the health needs of the people of Liverpool?

[Mr Burns]

I am not quite sure how the hon. Lady could reach either of those conclusions, and I can tell her with all clarity that my answer to both questions is no. I do not think either of those things—that is, that proper scrutiny has not been carried out or that changes to the existing system are not needed. I can reassure her on those points, but the problem is that the final decision was taken after 1 January—very close to the calling of the general election. Because the review commences from 1 January, the project falls within its scope and must be reviewed, in these changed circumstances, to help to meet our pressing economic problems and deal with the debt that we have inherited. The project received Treasury approval only in March. As a result, it is caught up in the review, as are many other projects.

The issue comes down to the simple fact that this country faces crippling debts. A huge amount of work is involved in the Treasury review. As I hope hon. Members will appreciate, I cannot give an exact timetable for the decision, but to be as helpful as I can and, I hope, live up to the kind words of the hon. Member for Garston and Halewood, I anticipate a decision being taken by the spending review in the autumn. I appreciate that that might be frustrating for hon. Members and their constituents, but it is the best I can do. I hope that that answer moves towards their concept of helpfulness. I am afraid that, until then, I cannot comment further on the future of the development. If hon. Members were in the position in which my Government and I find ourselves, I am sure that they would do the same.

Like the hon. Member for Liverpool, Riverside, I and everyone in the country share a vision of and want a high-quality NHS—accountable to patients, led by GPs and controlled locally. As a party, we were elected on a platform of real-terms increases in the NHS budget for every year of this five-year Parliament. It is a protected budget, so there will be no cuts, but there will be real-terms increases year after year, as long as this Parliament remains, which I anticipate will be five years. In that respect, there is stability and commitment, and an understanding of the financial commitments to the NHS. That, I hope, will give some stability to the overall decision-making process and the decisions that the NHS will have to take beyond simple capital projects.