CONTRIBUTIONS TO THE FUND (Hansard, 28 February 1978)

§ Mr. Clinton Davis
I beg to move Amendment No. 1, in page 2, line 42, leave out from 'description' to 'who' in line 44.

Mr. Deputy Speaker
With this amendment it may be convenient to take Government Amendments Nos. 2, 3 and 4.

§ Mr. Davis
These amendments delete some amendments made in Committee that would have introduced into the Bill certain detailed provisions that I believe fit more appropriately into regulations that I shall be introducing very shortly after the Bill is enacted.
I have always argued that it is desirable to retain a wide degree of flexibility in the Bill—I have used other words as well—so that its operation, which will depend upon the regulations, can be made to adapt to changing circumstances. For example, experience might cause us to change our minds about the non-reimbursement method as against the system for which we have opted. To have imported too much detail into the Bill would have severely restricted that flexibility and made alterations in the scheme in the light of different circumstances far more difficult to achieve. We should have to have primary legislation to do that, which would be very awkward.
But the Government recognised from the outset that Parliament, the industry and passengers all had a vested interest in the content of the regulations. It is for that reason that we proposed—I think that the proposal has been widely welcomed—that the regulations should require the positive affirmation of Parliament. This would apply equally to any subsequent amendment of the regulations.
Moreover, a condition precedent for any substantive amendment of the regulations, although I believe that current practice indicates that in this field a statutory requirement is unnecessary, is that there should be detailed consultation between the Department and relevant interests. That has already taken place.
In Committee hon. Members did not have before them details of the regulations that I was to propose. Understandably, in those circumstances they wanted to emphasise points that they considered to be important about the details of the operation of the levy. Some hon. Members considered that the only way to ensure that these matters would be fully considered was to amend the Bill, although I had given an undertaking that the matters would be fully considered.
Since then, wholly consistent with my belief that consultation is vital when the Government try to engage the support of people concerned with any particular 398 policy, and consistent, too, with the undertakings that I gave to the Committee, I have held consultations with the industry about what is to go into the regulations. Perhaps this is, to some extent, unique. I do not know. I also invited hon. Members on both sides of the House who had served on the Committee to consider an informal draft of the proposed regulations.
I believe that this course of action has been amply vindicated by the fact that, subject to the reservations that have been expressed by the right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Grimond), for example, and others, about the principle of the levy—which, however, has been endorsed by the House—we have established a consensus within the industry and among certain hon. Members on both sides of the House about the regulations and their administration.
I shall not go into any great detail about the regulations because the House will have an opportunity to discuss them in the future when they are laid for debate, but I have given undertakings that they will, among other things, exclude from the basis of the levy children under the age of three, which would be dealt with pursuant to Amendment No. 1, passengers on flights not operating for hire or reward, which will follow Amendment No. 4, and the first 2,000 chargeable passengers per month, which will be consequent upon Amendment No. 3.
The amendments include one that I accepted in principle in Committee, Amendment No. 2, which gives the added flexibility of being able to relate the levy to departing as well as arriving passengers. But I stress that it is unlikely that this would represent the yardstick applied by airport authorities in the foreseeable future, since landing charges, with which I am informed the levy will be bracketed, have always been related to arriving passengers.
Incidentally, in tidying up the amendment, we also inserted the words "by air", so that the levy could be related to passengers who depart from the airport by air, rather than unspecified departures, which could include passengers leaving the airport by some other mode of transport, such as skateboard. I thought that it was worth while to put that in.
I shall not elaborate on the regulations because we shall go into them in due 399 course. I hope that on this matter I have met the will of Members of the Committee and of the House.

§ Mr. J. Grimond (Orkney and Shetland)
As the Minister has said, I still maintain my objection in principle to the levy. However it is highly satisfactory from my point of view that its effect will be considerably modified for my aerodromes by the amendments passed in Committee and which it is now agreed shall be incorporated in the order rather than in the Bill.
Not only will that mean that there will be some relief owing to an unspecified number—about 2,000 for the time being, at any rate—being passed through free and infants not being charged, but these amendments and the next group, I understand, will have the effect of wholly excluding Loganair, an important local operator in my constituency, from the effect of the levy. Personally, I am very willing to agree that we should incorporate this in the order rather than the Bill.
I thank the Minister for the attention with which he has listened to various representations.

§ Mr. Tebbit
The Minister will be having a much more pleasant time this evening—he is having it so far, at any rate—than he had on a morning about a month ago, when he was defeated three times on these amendments.
We were originally disposed to withdraw the amendments that we had moved in Committee if we received reasonable assurances at the time. The Minister did not feel able to give those assurances, with the result that there were Divisions in which he lost not only the support of myself and my hon. Friends but the support of the right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Grimond) and some Labour Members as well.
However, to be fair to the Minister, just before the vote was taken he offered to consult Members of the Committee about the regulations before they were made. He has, indeed, done so. It is only fair that I should say that we appreciate that offer and the spirit in which he has carried out the consultations. I accept entirely that it is better that, in an industry which moves so fast and changes 400 so quickly, these things are put into the regulations rather than the primary legislation.
I recommend that we accept the amendment proposed by the Minister, with the sole caveat that we should remind the hon. Gentleman that legislation passed for one purpose should never he used in a partisan and divisive manner for a totally different purpose. That is why we must always look with care at secondary legislation these days. I have already had the Minister's assurance that this legislation will not be so abused, and I accept it entirely.
The only question I would ask him further on this group of amendments is whether he would feel able to indicate his attitude, which he has informally expressed in letters to me and other hon. Members, concerning the exemptions from charge of aircraft of up to five tons in weight. It would be helpful if he could make his intentions plain.

§ Mr. Clinton Davis
I readily respond to the hon. Member and say that it is my intention to accommodate that point. I shall not deal with what happened in Committee. I thought that I had said that I was well disposed towards what hon. Members were doing but I felt it right to engage in consultations first. The House has now agreed on a united course and I am grateful for that.

§ Mr. Clinton Davis
I beg to move Amendment No. 5, in page 3, line 13 leave out from beginning to "require".

Mr. Deputy Speaker
With this we may also discuss Government Amendment No. 6.

§ Mr. Davis
This is a tidying-up amendment. The phrase confer power on the Secretary of State is redundant since the Secretary of State has powers under Clause 2(1) to make regulations and it is preferable that the 401 requirement to furnish information be provided for in the regulations.