§ Mr. SteenI beg to move amendment No. 26, in page 20, line 35, leave out 'appropriate' and insert 'necessary'.
§ No. 27, in page 20, line 35, at end insert
'in order to satisfy the demand in the near future for the use of one or more of those airports, having regard to the efficiency, economy and safety of civil aviation.'.
Government amendment No. 28.
No. 76, in page 20, line 39, at end insert
'taking into account the advice provided by the CAA'.
Government amendment No. 29.
No. 30, in page 21, line 2, leave out paragraph (a).
No. 31, in page 21, line 6, leave out from 'traffic' to the end of line 7 and insert
'to, from or within countries or territories specified in the rules, but shall not discriminate among aircraft or operators of aircraft, or among classes of aircraft or of operators of aircraft.'.
Government amendment No. 32.
No. 47, in clause 30, page 23, line 41, leave out paragraphs (b) and (c) and insert—
'(4A) A scheme under this section shall not discriminate among aircraft or operators of aircraft or among classes of aircraft or of operators of aircraft.'.
§ Mr. SteenIt is unfortunate that these important amendments to critical clauses should be debated at 1.15 am. I am delighted to see so many of my hon. Friends here, but it is regrettable that there are present only two Labour Members and no members of the Liberal and Social Democratic parties. Debate on these critical clauses occupied a great deal of time in Standing Committee.
Amendments Nos. 26 and 27 relate to clause 28. They propose to reduce the powers of the Secretary of State. The Bill gives the Secretary of State enormous powers to do any number of things in relation to airports and the aviation industry. These amendments, taken together, are directed to avoiding the making of unnecessary traffic distribution rules. Under the Bill, as it stands, the Secretary of State can make rules whenever he considers it appropriate to do so. That gives him total discretion without having to find any criteria for the exercise. I do not know whether my hon. Friends realise how enormous his powers are. In theory, if the clause goes through unamended, he will be able to move any airline from any airport in any part of Britain. He can direct that an airline route should be changed. He can direct that an airline should move to any airport and do anything he chooses. It may be said that the 300 Minister would never do such a thing. However, that is what he would have power to do if the amendments are not approved.
The amendments require my right hon. Friend to satisfy himself that the proposed rules are necessary for meeting the demand for facilities at one or more of the airports serving the same area of the United Kingdom when the airport is, or is likely to be, overloaded beyond capacity. In satisfying himself, the Secretary of State will be required to have regard to the efficiency, economy and safety of civil aviation, which includes the needs of air traffic control.
The amendment seeks to provide some objective criteria which the Secretary of State would have to consider before he exercised his enormous powers. I think that the Secretary of State will agree that they are sensible criteria of efficiency, economy and safety, whereas at the moment there is no limitation on his powers.
The airline industry as a whole—that is, most of our British carriers—is very troubled about what clause 28 could enable the Secretary of State to do. The amendment, as drafted, would stop him moving airlines around without any reason for doing so. It provides that if there is still room at an airport he cannot move them. He would be able to move them only when more than one airport in the same area was overloaded.
Perhaps in that context one should deal with some of the smaller independent airlines—not just the scheduled airlines, but charter airlines. I should declare that I am advising one of the small charter airlines, British Island Airways, which is concerned about the possibility of being moved, lock, stock and barrel, out of Gatwick. The airline says that there is nothing to stop that now that CAP 517 has been produced. It is remarkable that it was produced just before the Report stage. It gives an insight into what the Civil Aviation Authority has in mind.
The CAA has in mind some schedule airlines, including the Brymon service from Plymouth to Heathrow. Part of the runway is in my constituency—it depends which way one lands and what the wind is like. Part of the airport at Plymouth abuts on my constituency. The Brymon flight from Plymouth, and Newquay to Heathrow would be affected. The CAA is clearly on the move, and the Minister needs the powers to move airlines from Heathrow to Gatwick. Once he does that, he will displace airlines from Gatwick, and they will come to Stansted.
I mentioned British Island Airways because it is the fifth largest carrier into Gatwick. It had the great privilege of flying the Prime Minister at the general election. It is one of the great success stories. It, along with other charter airlines, fears that it will be moved into Stansted. Clause 28 would give the Secretary of State just the powers that he needs. It allows him to do the very things that he needs to do—to allow CAP 517 to take effect.
Clause 28 gives the Minister great powers. Amendments Nos. 30 and 31 would restrict his power, in making traffic distribution rules, to discriminate between different classes of air traffic, by limiting that to discrimination between the destinations to which the aircraft may fly from the airport to which the rules apply. But the discrimination must be on a country by country basis—for example, all destinations in Spain, Scotland or the United Kingdom, or any other country or territory specified in the rules. The Secretary of State would no longer be able to discriminate between one airline and another, as he could under the Bill.
301 It is a pity that this is not realised. In theory, under clause 28, without amendment, the Minister could direct any aeroplane to go anywhere, whereas under the amendment he must discriminate fairly, on a country by country basis. For example, he could say that all 'planes flying to Spain out of Heathrow would be moved to Gatwick. He could not simply say that Iberia should be moved to Gatwick. Similarly, he could not move British Midland from Heathrow to Glasgow; he would have to move the British Airways shuttle as well. He could not discriminate against one airline, as CAP 517 has done, by moving the Dundee service. He could not do that if the amendment was carried.
Under the Bill as drafted, the Secretary of State can do anything he wishes. He need have no regard to different types of aircraft.He need have no regard to whether the aircraft are on scheduled or non-scheduled flights, public transport or private flights. There is a feeling in the airline industry that here again the Minister has enormous powers. In fact, he could run the whole aviation industry. He could direct everybody to do whatever he felt like doing. Of course, the present Secretary of State may not wish to do that, but he is taking reserve powers for the future. Many hon. Members believe that my right hon. Friend is giving to himself powers which are not needed. He must justify to the House why he needs such enormous reserve powers.
The Secretary of State can give directions that any aircraft should fly from anywhere to anywhere or move anywhere. Under the amendments my right hon. Friend must have regard to various factors. For example, he may say that all domestic feeder services must move from one airport to another. He may invent a class of aircraft and say that they must move. He may say that airlines with names beginning with the letter B should be moved or that captains who do not have yellow parrots on their shoulders when they take off should be moved. There are no limitations on the powers of the Secretary of State.
Apart from the Bill there are existing powers for the Secretary of State to regulate these matters, but only on a case to case basis. With regard to foreign aircraft my right hon. Friend can achieve the same result by refusing or imposing conditions upon the permit which is required by such aircraft to entitle them to carry passengers or cargo abroad, to or from the United Kingdom. The rule-making powers on British aircraft would be circumvented, to some degree, through existing air transport licensing procedures, which confer on aircraft operators the right to a hearing by the CAA and the right of appeal to the Secretary of State.
We are trying to provide an objective test in these amendments. As the Bill stands, there is no objective test. Clauses 28, 29 and 30 give the Secretary of State such power that he could distort the market forces of the airline industry and the airports. That could have a debilitating and devastating effect upon the course of the airline industry.
§ Mr. Bill WalkerMy hon. Friend the Member for South Hams (Mr. Steen) has clearly spelt out the concern that is felt on the Conservative Benches with regard to the powers in clause 28. I wish to make my own position clear.
I favour a situation where the Secretary of State is the final arbiter. It is his responsibility to resolve matters. I 302 have always felt that it should be Parliament's right to get at any Secretary of State. That is what lay behind my amendments relating to air navigation orders and other matters of that nature.
In the previous debate the Minister gave the usual Front Bench reaction to the House being given the opportunity to pray against orders. That is the great failing today. Too often we bring in legislation which effectively goes through on the nod, and the House cannot do anything about it. That is where the weakness lies in the powers that the Government are taking. Parliament is no longer able to act as a check and balance. That is the true function of Parliament. It is the means by which the electorate can get at Ministers and get things done or changed.
Amendment No. 26, to leave out "appropriate" and insert "necessary", is sensible. One ought not to have things which are considered to be appropriate. That is not good enough. What does it mean? When something is necessary, it is clear that there is no alternative and that something must be done.
1.30 am
It is important that the advice of the CAA should be heeded. I say that knowing full well that the CAA has put out a consultative document which effectively would remove Dundee flights from entry into Heathrow airport. I have explained to the people running that airline that it was not the intention of that document to bring that into being immediately, if ever. I underline that because it may never happen.
I have faith in the democratic parliamentary system. Where it is allowed to operate, it provides the necessary checks and balances. The important and missing ingredient is that which allows the House to pray against any decisions which are effectively fundamental to what is happening. It is fundamental to move any class of aircraft or carrier from one airport to another. One can imagine the situation in Scotland—although I realise that the problem will probably arise in the London network initially—and the difficulty one would have of explaining it to people in the east and west of Scotland. Anyone who understands the politics of Scotland will know that those regions are quite different. If an individual were faced with that it would be difficult. It is like making a choice between Hearts and Celtic or Hibernian and Rangers.
If the orders or any decisions affecting them were to come before the House in a manner in which the House could pray against them, that would make all the powers that are being requested so much more acceptable to Parliament, because at the end of the day that is what the public is looking for. The House of Commons should be able to reach Ministers and change things which the House believes is wrong.
§ Mr. Robert HughesI intervene simply to ask the hon. Gentleman what has brought about his blinding conversion to parliamentary control after what he said in Committee? I do not recall him voting in Committee for Opposition amendments which sought to secure precisely that all the various orders should be subject to parliamentary scrutiny.
§ Mr. WalkerThe hon. Gentleman's memory is not good. I have all the records here. I ask the hon. Gentleman to look carefully at what I said in Committee, and indeed at what I have said about air navigation orders. The whole of the airline industry is affected by air navigation orders 303 and the House has no means of praying against them. I have a six-and-a-half year record of speaking on that subject. I have had Adjournment debates and I have voted on more than one occasion. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will withdraw the suggestion that somehow I am changing course. I have been consistent from the beginning on how the House should deal with matters as fundamental as air navigation orders, which cover most of the areas where decisions are taken on the movement and positioning of aircraft and what can be done with aircraft. That is what is missing throughout the Bill, and it is missing from clause 28.
The amendments owe their origins to the fact not that the House is against the Secretary of State—any Secretary of State—making the final decisions, because it is right that he should be the final arbiter, but that the Secretary of State, whoever he is, should be accountable to Parliament.
§ Mr. SteenThat is the gist of all the amendments. The Bill gives the Secretary of State complete freedom and discretion with no criteria against which we can judge him. He can do whatever he likes. For the Government to give such powers to a centralised adminstration seems to conflict with their policies of decentralisation, deregulation and of laying down criteria to judge their performance. Does my hon. Friend agree that we are entirely behind the Bill and 100 per cent. in support of what the Minister is trying to do, but that we are not in favour of giving unfettered powers at the centre?
§ Mr. WalkerYes. That sums up the mood on both the Opposition and the Government Benches. There is a recognition that if at sometime our airports should become completely clogged—if there were no scope to land more aircraft on the runways, nowhere to park on the tarmac, no access to gates and so on—and the system in operation could not resolve that situation, it would still have to be resolved. I understand that and believe that in the final analysis the Secretary of State is the right person to take decisions in such circumstances. I also believe, however, that no Secretary of State, regardless of his political colour, should be allowed to take such decisions without first referring to the House of Commons. I think that all Back Benchers would agree that we want to be the check and balance, so that there shall never be any suggestion that the decision has been a political rather than a proper democratic one.
§ Mr. Gerald HowarthI support the amendment in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for South Hams (Mr. Steen), and I support what my hon. Friend the Member for Tayside, North (Mr. Walker) has said. The powers to be taken by the Secretary of State are very extensive. I think that they derive substantially from the principle behind the Bill, which I continue to find difficult to swallow. The London airports are beng proposed as a system and, consequently, extensive powers of traffic distribution are being taken. If each airport was able to appeal to the market, my right hon. Friend would not have to take these powers.
Under new clause 6 we discussed the question of the scheduling committees. These committees have very substantially resolved the problem of traffic distribution. They have made sure that the carriers have been able to satisfy their demands. As airports have begun to fill up that task has become more difficult, but each carrier is aware 304 of the increasing risk that it will not get its desired slots, and decisions will have to be made about how best to cope with that situation when it arises. Various options are open to the carriers. These include the acceptance of suboptimal timings, the rearrrangement of the historic and sup-optimal timings offered to achieve a satisfactory compromise, the acceptance of more optimal slots at an alternative airport and the use of greater capacity aircraft.
When faced with such problems, the carriers prefer to order their own destinies by making their own decisions. Government interference is resented. It is regarded as a paradox that the Government should be advocating the deregulation of air transport—and my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State is the most vigorous advocate in the Government of the deregulation of air transport—while at the same time, in order to facilitate deregulation, seeking to introduce a raft of new regulations which could be punitive for some carriers.
The Government argue that they need the powers principally because Heathrow and Gatwick are becoming saturated, but the fact is that, thanks to the activities of the scheduling committees, these airports are not yet saturated. If Heathrow, for example, were to become saturated, the owners of Heathrow plc might wish to consider seeking planning permission to build a STOL runway north of the airport, which could then handle the smaller aircraft, mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for South Hams. That might well happen if Heathrow plc were operated by a completely separate company from that operating Stansted. But of course that will not happen, because there will be no incentive for the operators of Heathrow plc to seek planning permission for a STOL runway to increase their capacity to meet increasing demand at that airport. They will happily be able to rely on the powers given to the Secretary of State by the Bill and he will direct the traffic to we know where—to Stansted.
I am sorry to detain my right hon. and hon. Friends at this late hour, but this clause is critical. It is central to the Government's case, and it is central to our case as to why the Government have not got the Bill as right as we would have wished. If the Government are in any doubt about why these amendments are necessary, they have only to look at what happened when they sought these powers, and used them, in respect of the Iberian operation. It was said at the time that Heathrow was already full. We all know that it was not full. The operators knew that it was not full, but the politicians said that it was full. What did they do? They said that all the Iberian routes would have to shift to Gatwick. Naturally, Iberia said, "Stuff that," or words to that effect in Spanish, "we are not going to have any of that." It is late, Mr. Deputy Speaker, and I think that one is entitled to use slightly freer language than one might at a normal hour of the day. The Spanish refused to wear that.
My right hon. Friend and his colleagues will be faced with endless rows with foreign carriers over where the traffic is to go. If these matters were left to the market, as they properly should be, and if each individual airport could plan for itself, could use every ounce of ingenuity to expand capacity rather than rely on the intervention of politicians, things would be a lot better.
I feel very strongly about this and I should like to go on for longer, but I do not want to keep my hon. Friends from their beds. I believe these powers to be draconian. In hands less sure than those of my right hon. Friend they 305 could be used to do great damage to the British civil aviation industry. The amendments at least protect the industry from an over-zealous future Secretary of State.
§ Mr. Michael SpicerI have to tell my hon. Friend the Member for Cannock and Burntwood (Mr. Howarth) that it is not bedtime yet. We have a lot more to do.
Could I say, particularly to my hon. Friend the Member for South Hams (Mr. Steen), that we recognise that some concern was expressed both in Committee and on its margins about this clause? It may be partly the fault of the drafting that the clause is unclear. I think that I heard my hon. Friend correctly when he said that under the powers of this clause the Secretary of State could move an airline to any airport—or words to that effect. That is manifestly not the case. Or, at least, it may not be manifestly not the case, but it is certainly not the intention. That is why one of the best ways of addressing the problem will be to discuss Government amendments aimed at remedying this lack of clarity, and I will come to them in a moment.
When my hon. Friend the Member for South Hams and I were looking at this clause together on an earlier occasion, he pointed out that under 28(1)(b), lines 35–38, the key words appeared to be "distributed between those airports". That matter concerned him and other colleagues in Committee. It was argued, fairly, that because of the way the clause was written the powers could be interpreted as being wide. The relevant part of the clause is subsection (3) which says:
Traffic distribution rules may—We accept that there may have been a lack of clarity in the drafting.
- (a) specify classes or descriptions of air traffic that are permitted under the rules to use any of the airports concerned;
- (b) impose prohibitions or restrictions in relation to the use of any of those airports by air traffic of any class or description specified in the rules."
§ Mr. Robert HughesI do not think there is any lack of clarity in the drafting of the clause. Subsection (1) says that the Secretary of State
may make rules (to be known as traffic distribution rules) providing for air traffic, or any class or description of air traffic, to be distributed between those airports in such manner as he thinks fit.That is absolutely clear. There is no doubt about it. There are no qualifications. Whatever else the clause may say, everything is governed by the fact that the Secretary of State may make regulations as he thinks fit. I welcome those words which I shall find useful as a future Secretary of State.
§ Mr. SpicerThe hon. Gentleman may be disappointed. I was about to say that we intend to clip his wings, but in this context he will never have any wings. If by a ghastly mischance he crossed the Floor of the House and, in recognition of that, became Secretary of State for Transport he would not have such power if the House accepts amendments Nos. 28, 29 and 32. They will make it clear that an airport operator cannot be forced to use a particular airport.
Amendments Nos. 28 and 29 make it clear that limitations will be placed on traffic distribution rules. Subsection (3) is already clear on that but we are tying it 306 up. A traffic distribution rule can do any one of three things: it can permit the use of an airport; it can prohibit the use of an airport; and it can restrict the use of an airport. A traffic distribution rule cannot force any aircraft operator to use a particular airport against his will, so it cannot direct an operator to a particular airport.
§ Mr. SteenAlthough the discussion is taking place at 1.48 am on Thursday, this is a critical matter. It is important that we understand exactly the impact of the Government amendments. As things stand, the Secretary of State can cause an airline, whether its services are scheduled or non-scheduled, and whether it is public or private, to go somewhere. He is now saying that as a result of the Government amendments, he cannot tell it to go somewhere but that it can go anywhere else. Many of us do not think that Heathrow will ever become full, but let us suppose that that happens within the next five years. In that event what is my hon. Friend saying that the Secretary of State can or will do?
What these amendments try to do is help him by giving him some criteria by which he can discriminate between one airline and another, but saying that he has to do it in destinations. What does he think will happen when Heathrow or Gatwick is full? Will he say that a certain airline flying into Heathrow—and a very good one—cannot fly there any more?
§ Mr. SpicerMy hon. Friend asks me to tell him what our distribution rules, if any, will be. I am not in a positiion to do that because we have not yet gone through the full procedure, as he knows. The CAA is currently discussing the recommendations that have come out and having further consultations. What I can tell him about—or remind him of, since he is very knowledgeable in this connection—are the policy objectives we have set for CAA in the work that it is undertaking, the results of which it will produce to the Secretary of State. As my hon. Friend says, these are important amendments and I very much hope that the Government amendments will respond to the broad thrust of what he is trying to achieve.
Our policy objectives are these. First, to make efficient use of existing and planned airport facilities and available air space; secondly to enable air services to be operated where they best meet the needs of the travelling public; thirdly, to support the objective of increasing competition between airlines in the interests of the users; fourthly, to ensure satisfactory access to Heathrow and Gatwick for domestic services—and we debated that issue at some length earlier; fifthly, to maintain London's position as a major international centre and, within that, to maintain Heathrow as London's main scheduled service airport, while continuing to develop Gatwick as an effective second hub; and, most important in terms of the debates that have taken place and the objectives of many of my hon. Friends, sixthly, to avoid undue dislocation of the airlines using London's airports.
That is a comprehensive list, and the CAA, of course, has pointed out that it is a very difficult one to live with, because it is wide-ranging and very specific. It perhaps answers my hon. Friend's question about the Government's policies and intentions with regard to traffic distribution rules. What I cannot tell him at this moment, for the reasons I have given, is the precise nature of those rules. I can tell him that the Government will take a minimalist approach—if that is the right word. We shall 307 try to develop the system from where it is today as sensibly and gradually as possible. We realise of course that there is much debate to come as to when airports reach capacity, but I am sure my hon. Friend will not want to go over that again at this time of night.
Perhaps I ought to say to my hon. Friend the Member for Tayside, North (Mr. Walker) that I have not really discussed the question of parliamentary scrutiny and there are no amendments tabled on that, but he makes his point—
§ Mr. Bill WalkerThere were amendments down but they were not selected.
§ Mr. SpicerI was working from the amendments that have been selected, but perhaps that is not the way that I should have been doing it.
On the basis of the Government amendments, which I would recommend to the House, and of the objectives that I have given to the House, I hope that we have cleared up the quite understandable misconception that has existed about this clause and that we have satisfied my hon. Friends to the point that they will be able to withdraw their amendments.
§ Amendment negatived.
§ Amendments made: No. 28, in clause 28, page 20, line 36, after 'may' insert 'in accordance with this section'.
No. 29, in page 21, line 1, at end insert
'do any of the following things (and no more), namely'.
No. 32, in page 21, line 7, at end insert—
(c) provide for the rules to come into operation (in whole, or in part) at such time or in such circumstances as may be specified in the rules.'.—[Mr. Ridley.]