§ The Secretary of State for Transport (Mr. John Moore)With permission, Mr. Speaker, I will make a statement about the meeting of Transport Ministers which took place in Luxembourg on 30 June and which discussed road haulage and aviation. In advance of the Council I submitted to the Select Committees on European Legislation last week an explanatory memorandum about a Community standard for drive axle weights. I was most grateful to them for their speedy response, and this statement responds to the suggestion that, following the Council, I should report progress to the House.
On road haulage, the Council agreed on a Community standard of 11.5 tonnes for the drive axle of five and sixaxled vehicles, to apply from 1992. As the House may recall, a 1984 directive set agreed standards for most of the weights and dimensions for road haulage vehicles operating between Community countries. The drive axle weight for these larger vehicles was left outstanding, with a requirement that it should be agreed as a matter of urgency. This is the decision which has now been taken.
As in the case of the earlier directive, which set some overall vehicle weights which exceeded our maximum of 38 tonnes, I was able successfully to negotiate, a derogation of unspecified length for the United Kingdom, to enable us to keep our current drive axle weight maximum of 10.5 tonnes. The directive states categorically that the duration of this derogation will be decided by unanimity, which means that our agreement is needed to what is decided. As my predecessor made clear, we remain committed to the undertaking that there should be no increase in the maximum weight until Parliament agrees and our roads are suitable.
To accompany the agreement on a drive axle weight standard, we successfully obtained Council agreement on the main lines of the way forward to full international road haulage liberalisation within the Community. First, and most important, the Council agreed on a cumulative increase in the Community quota of 40 per cent. per annum between now and 1992. Community permits are valid throughout the Community, giving road haulage vehicles valuable freedom to travel in any Community country. This will therefore provide new opportunities for our hauliers to compete freely on equal terms, and will progressively liberate them from the cumbersome bureaucracy of the present bilateral permit system.
Secondly, it was agreed that, while bilateral quotas exist, they will be adjusted to meet traffic needs, including the full requirements of transit traffic. Thirdly, the Council confirmed that from the end of 1992 the bilateral permit system will disappear altogether. The detailed arrangements to implement these principles will now be worked out within the Community, and our aim will be to finalise the necessary Community instruments so far as possible by the end of our presidency.
On aviation, the meeting confirmed that there remains a wide divergence of views, but the Council agreed on two important principles. First, there needs to be a package of measures to promote increased competition, covering market entry, air fares and the capacity that airlines can operate. Secondly, these measures are elements in the process of completing the internal market by 1992.
836 As with road haulage, there will need to be a gradual movement to fully liberal arrangements, but the need to complete that process by the end of 1992 has been established.
These are useful starting points. There remains a great deal to be done, and we must not underestimate the difficulties that lie ahead. My aim in the British presidency, which starts today, will be to build on these basic principles and, if possible, to reach agreement on the content of a first stage in the process towards the 1992 target. But success in this will depend on whether member states collectively are willing to put aside the restrictive practices to which they are accustomed. I put this question to the Council but did not get a clear answer. I shall need to pursue it during the British presidency. If the answer is that, despite the principles agreed yesterday, member states are not willing to make the effort, they will have to accept that the alternative is increasing court action and other steps to seek direct application of the treaty of Rome, particularly its competition rules.
§ Mr. Robert Hughes (Aberdeen, North)I thank the Secretary of State for coming to the House to make this statement.
On the question of axle weights, will he make it clear and confirm that the derogation to which he has agreed is unaffected by the European Communities (Amendment) Bill, which is currently going through Parliament? Secondly, will he confirm his opposition to any increase in lorry weights above 38 tonnes and above the axle weights in the derogation, and that the phrase in his statement
no increase in the maximum weight until Parliament agrees and our roads are suitableis not a precursor for a change in policy?Is the 38-tonne limit for European vehicles coming to this country still protected under the liberalisation of road haulage? Is the Secretary of State able to say what steps he has taken, or will take, to protect United Kingdom jobs under liberalisation if unfair competition emerges, especially in the context of social conditions for those who are employed in the road haulage industry?
On the question of aviation, will the Secretary of State say precisely what he means by "fully liberal arrangements"? Is this deregulation under another name? He will know that deregulation in the United States has led to lower safety standards, bankruptcies and a chaotic situation. I am sure that the Secretary of State would not want that situation to be paralleled in this country. Therefore, will he give a categorical assurance that he will make safety of paramount importance and that he will retain licensing arrangements to control the safety provisions?
How will the impending liberalisation affect the proposed sell-off of British Airways? Would it not be much better for the Secretary of State to concede that the privatisation of British Airways is now dead and finished with? Is he able to say how his regulatory system and the wide powers that are contained in the Airports Bill, which is currently going through the House, are consistent with liberalisation? For example, will he be able to control air traffic movements to different airports? Will the Secretary of State be able to pursue a policy of that kind if air traffic is to be liberalised? Does the right hon. Gentleman intend to abandon that policy, which is contained in the Airports Bill?
Has Mr. Sutherland, the EEC Minister with responsibility for competition, now withdrawn his threat 837 to sponsor court actions until some progress has been made on liberalisation, or lower fares, or however the Secretary of State finally defines it? How soon does he think it will be before progress is made in reaching a compromise solution? Sadly, many airlines believe that the current uncertainty is damaging their business prospects and their opportunity to plan for the future. Will the Secretary of State confirm and ensure that, before any arrangements or deals are concluded, either on road haulage or on aviation policy, Parliament will be fully consulted and that the matter will be fully debated so that we may, I hope, be able to influence the right hon. Gentleman in reaching his final conclusions?
§ Mr. MooreI shall try to cover the points that were made, and if I do not cover every detail I shall seek to write to the hon. Gentleman.
With regard to the point that he raised on weights and whether the European Communities (Amendment) Bill now going through Parliament in any way limits the unanimity provision that I secured, the answer is that it is in no way affected. The unanimity provision that I sought was parallel to that which my predecessor sought in 1984, and that takes place in regard to article 75(3). That obviously stays, as it is outside the legislation.
As to whether this is a precursor of any change, the answer is no, the Government's policy remains precisely as it was. We obviously have to get our bridges and roads in shape. My predecessor made the position quite clear to Parliament. The hon. Gentleman will know—he is very experienced in these matters—that there is a need for a considerable process of assessment of our bridges. At present it seems that about 20 per cent. of our bridges would be adequate for the traffic, but most need considerable enhancement.
With regard to the point that the hon. Gentleman made on the 38-tonne limit, this in no way enables foreign or other juggernauts above that point to cross our frontier, and in terms of derogation this is totally protected.
As to the hon. Gentleman's point on the protection of jobs, one of the crucial features of the liberalisation of lorry permits was the way in which our hauliers and our businesses wishing to go overseas would not be inhibited by the excessive bureaucratic permit structure that exists today. To that extent I hope and trust that this will amount to increased job opportunities not only for business but for our truckers.
The hon. Gentleman made other specific points. He asked me to define what I meant by liberalisation in terms of the treaty. What I do not mean is any diminution of safety. Safety in the air is clearly a crucial precursor to anything that we may seek to do in this respect. The three — four, some might say — basic arguments behind aviation liberalisation relate to greater market access, improvements in respect of fares, and capacity, within the competition rules. Our objectives will be to seek scope for real competition on fares, covering types of fares as well as fare levels to give the consumer a better deal. That is critical to us. We shall also seek scope for airlines to mount capacity on the basis of their commercial judgment and scope for airlines to be able to enter the markets and compete on routes that are already served or to start up new routes more easily with proper application of the competition rules.
The hon. Gentleman asked whether all this is consistent with the British Airports Authority legislation that is going 838 through Parliament and with the pattern of proper regulation. I see no reason to assume otherwise, especially in relation to the other point that he made regarding British Airways. British Airways has nothing to fear—quite the contrary. There will be an enhancement of competition opportunities in the Community. This will apply to other airlines also, such as British Caledonian —as, indeed, we saw from the excellent example of the British Midland service to Amsterdam yesterday. They all have everything to gain by this. I will of course seek, as I sought before the Scrutiny Committee, the support of Parliament on these substantial issues.
§ Mr. Terence Higgins (Worthing)Will my right hon. Friend accept that completion of the internal market is an essential feature of the EEC, to which we are fully entitled, and for which we are already paying a very high price in contributions to the common agricultural policy? Will he therefore accept that there is no need to make any further concessions to secure it?
I congratulate my right hon. Friend on the line that he has taken on lorry weights and axle weights, and the derogation that he has succeeded in securing. When that package was agreed by the House, grave doubts were expressed about towbar vehicles, which are impossible to overtake on anything other than a motorway. Will he consider carefully whether restrictions rather than liberalisation should take place in that respect?
§ Mr. MooreI thank my right hon. Friend for his comments. He has great knowledge of this matter. He is, or course, right. The commitment to the completion of the internal market is absolute, and all that we can do to help we obviously must do. However, I accept his point. I saw no need for concessions in this area—quite the contrary.
With regard to aviation, with some Community and Council colleagues we were seeking to argue very much what I would regard as the right case for the consumer and for our aviation industry.
On the question of towbars, I know that my right hon. Friend has deep knowledge of this subject. There is no change in the derogations that I was able to secure. The derogation on 40-tonne lorries which took place, as I recall, in December 1984 maintained the weight load at 32.5 tonnes for towbar lorries, and there was the 38-tonne derogation for non-towbar lorries. I shall look at his point without any commitment at this time.
§ Mr. Robert Maclennan (Caithness and Sutherland)Is it not the case in regard to aviation that the principles that the Minister has enunciated are those pursued by his predecessor without success throughout his tenure of office? How much longer will it be before the Government are prepared to take action in the European Court?
§ Mr. MooreThe hon. Gentleman's point reminds me that I had not completely answered all the points of the hon. Member for Aberdeen, North (Mr. Hughes), who asked specifically about Commissioner Sutherland. I apologise for that.
The Commission has the decision whether it institutes article 89 proceedings. To the extent that that is a matter for the Commission, I cannot comment on whether it will seek to continue that. Although we would prefer to see the Council of Ministers and the Community as a whole succeed in this area, without recourse to law, I do not see that we can argue aggressively against other actions by the Commission. I would see this as a parallel process.
839 I am not sure that I accept the underlying critical note behind the hon. Gentleman's question. There have been substantive changes. Apart from the United Kingdom's continued leadership in this area, rightly, on behalf of the consumer and of our aviation industry, we saw a major change last week in the Council of Ministers at The Hague summit, where access, fares and capacity were the three key legs on which it was agreed that competition in aviation must be pursued. For the first time we have a Commission document. It is not adequate for the United Kingdom, but it is a Commission statement that includes capacity, fares and competition in advance of Council considerations. We achieved an agreement yesterday to the three fundamentals — access, capacity and fares, along with competition. As I said in my statement, I accept that implementation will be difficult. I know that the hon. Gentleman will seek to help me and British consumers to wage the good fight.
§ Mr. Bill Walker (Tayside, North)Will my right hon. Friend tell the House in simple language what the United Kingdom wants for aviation in Europe? Can he also refute categorically the suggestion that there is any hard evidence that deregulation in the United States has resulted in a lowering of safety standards? Any analysis of the accidents in the United States shows clearly that this is not so. Accidents that can be directly attributed to lack of maintenance occurred on aircraft on flights in no way connected with deregulation.
§ Mr. MooreI do not think that it is my role to comment on the United States' thriving airline industry, which seeks to serve the consumer with a sense of safety. That would be the role of Members of a different Parliament.
My hon. Friend asked what we want. I thought that I had been perfectly clear. We are asking options for consumers within a proper pattern of regulated safety to allow them to move freely on the same kind of price and opportunity terms that exist in other similar aviation marketplaces. We do not have that today. This will advantage not only the consumer but, I believe, our aviation industry and the European aviation industry. Those are two clear patterns of advantage.
§ Mr. Lewis Carter-Jones (Eccles)In respect of his term of office, can the right hon. Gentleman, for the sake of the House, name the countries which he expects to present the greatest difficulty in obtaining liberalisation?
§ Mr. MooreI feel that that would limit my international effectiveness, if not my term of office, and I would prefer to seek to persuade rather than to argue in a confrontational way at the Dispatch Box.
§ Mr. Robert McCrindle (Brentwood and Ongar)I welcome the continuing activity of my right hon. Friend on aviation liberalisation. Has he turned his attention to the possibility of action that could be taken by the British Government without reference to other members of the EEC? If he were to lean on British Airways to abrogate the agreements that exist between them and their European opposite numbers, that would surely give the opportunity for fares from this country to continental destinations to be reduced, even though it may not necessarily give similar advantage to people flying from, say, Germany or France. 840 After a period, might not public opinion in those countries begin to press the authorities if people realised that we had advantages which they did not?
§ Mr. MooreI know my hon. Friend's intimate knowledge of and connection with the airline industry. Therefore, he will be aware that I announced to the House on 18 June that we were reviewing the machinery and procedure needed to allow us to apply the competition rules under article 88. I made it clear at the Council of Ministers that I shall do so if it proves impossible to reach a satisfactory agreement within the Council.
§ Mr. Gavin Strang (Edinburgh, East)Will the Minister recognise that there is a potential conflict between civil aviation deregulation and safety standards? [HON. MEMBERS: "No."] It is certainly the case that if prices are driven down far enough there will be a reduction in safety standards. Will the Secretary of State accept that Europe has a good record in airline safety? Will he ensure that nothing detracts from that?
§ Mr. MooreThe hon. Gentleman must remember the critical importance that we all place on safety. I know that that applies to the official Opposition. Safety is within the purview of the CAA. No airline flies under our safety regulations without CAA approval. The hon. Gentleman should not assume that there is a conflict between safety and the opportunities for the consumer through competition, so long as we ensure that the CAA is responsible. I do not believe that there is a conflict.
§ Mr. Keith Speed (Ashford)Is my right hon. Friend aware that, if we applied the same restrictions to German and other imports as they apply to our aircraft industry, particularly our thriving independents, there would be uproar in Europe'? May I reinforce him in everything that he is trying to do to liberalise the position, which will help consumers throughout Europe, and particularly the British aviation industry, which is the best in Europe?
§ Mr. MooreI feel I ought to agree with almost everything that my hon. Friend said. Yesterday I made it clear—and I ask for the support of both sides of the House— that we need the support of the consumer to press upon Governments less liberal in their attitudes than ours the need to develop competition that will benefit not just our consumers but our independent aviation industry.
§ Mr. Nigel Spearing (Newham, South)I thank the Minister for mentioning the scrutiny procedure. He will realise that the decision does not necessarily preclude debate. In respect of the axle weight derogation, he also mentioned getting bridges into shape. Does that mean that at some time in the future it is envisaged that the British Government will voluntarily cede this and that the axle weight limit will go up?
§ Mr. MooreI did not actually say that. On the first point, I thank the hon. Gentleman for his courtesy. I appreciate the way in which the Scrutiny Committee was able to help us secure what was in the national interest. That was helpful to me in my negotiations. What I said clearly was that we have been going through an assessment of our bridges and roads. With the present pattern of usage and present weights it is clear that they require work. It is also clear from what we have learnt in Europe that the Commission regards the technical axle weight equivalent of 40 tonnes to be 11.5 tonnes. We have agreed to no more and no less than the existing derogation. I also said clearly 841 today that we need to consult Parliament before we can go further and that we need to know whether the bridges and roads are in the right shape. I did not go further than that.
§ Mr. Anthony Steen (South Hams)First, I congratulate my right hon. Friend on assuming the presidency of the Transport Council of the European Commission. I thank him for the efforts that he made in trying to get all European countries to adopt an open skies approach. Does he agree that it is appalling that after so many years only Holland has got rid of a duopoly between capital cities, in that only Holland allows airlines other than the state airline to fly from Heathrow to its capital? Surely pressure could be put on the Commission to speed up the process whereby the open skies policy applies to the whole of Europe, because that would benefit not just our consumers, but consumers of other European countries.
§ Mr. MooreI ought to remind my hon. Friend that my predecessor and my hon. Friend the Minister responsible for aviation, the Member for Worcestershire, South (Mr. Spicer), who is with me, have secured benefits for air flights not simply in regard to Holland, but in regard to Belgium, Luxembourg and Germany. I take the point that my hon. Friend made. I believe that he was in Amsterdam yesterday with my colleague on the inauguration of the new flight by British Midland. There are clear opportunities there for the consumer and for the aviation industry of this country. I take the first point that he made with a sense of discomfort. I am not sure that acquiring the presidency of the Transport Council today will be an unmixed blessing.
§ Mr. Tam Dalyell (Linlithgow)As he is bringing a fresh mind to the job, and as he is at the beginning of his presidency of the Transport Committee in Europe, has the Minister any constructive ideas about how many heavy loads could usefully be transferred from road to rail, not only with the coming of the Channel tunnel, but with the problems throughout Europe of bridges that are no longer as strong and as safe as they once were because of the heavy loads and the deterioration of the fabric of the bridges?
§ Mr. MooreThe hon. Gentleman has a legitimate point. When I first took over this brief only a few weeks ago I considered carefully the Channel tunnel proposal. In debates on the Channel tunnel my hon. Friend the Member for Ashford (Mr. Speed) reminded us just how significant to so much of Kent was the opportunity to put off road on to rail freight that would no longer damage the fabric of the rural environment of Kent. It is an area that I am only too happy to look at with care. I do not think that this is the occasion on which to speak at length, but it is a legitimate area to consider. We have to value not only our rural fabric but our railway infrastructure as well.
§ Sir Peter Emery (Honiton)Will my right hon. Friend accept the congratulations of all hon. Members in this country, where the continuation of the axle weight is of greater importance probably than anywhere else? Will he bear in mind that our opponents, particularly the Liberals and the SDP, cast great doubt on the ability of the Government to maintain this? He deserves to be congratulated on being able to give that assurance. Will he pursue with the same pressure and the same success, among all the other aviation problems, lower fares for the 842 consumer? If we can get lower fares, many of the other things will probably fall into place. That should be i.he principal and primary objective.
§ Mr. MooreI am grateful to my hon. Friend for his remarks. I thought that they were about to prompt a reaction from below the Opposition Gangway. My hon. Friend is right. Those of us who have considered the experiences over the last few years in regard to the way in which consumers can fly between Holland and this country see the obvious benefits of safe, secure and decent flying, but at a considerably lower price because of competition.
§ Mr. Tony Banks (Newham North-West)Is the Secretary of State aware that from his earlier answer it seems as though he is preparing the way for heavier lorries in future? Is he aware of the concern among many residents of towns and cities throughout the country that we already have far too many heavy lorries from Europe? As he has just become Secretary of State, will he tell the House what his attitude is towards the GLC lorry ban? Will he undertake to enforce, and indeed extend, the provisions of the lorry ban so that Londoners at least can sleep easily in their beds at night?
§ Mr. MooreI hate to think what would happen if the hon. Gentleman had been representing this country at a place where the standard for most lorry axle weights, for example, in France and in Spain, averages 13 tonnes and where they wanted a common axle weight of 12 tonnes. We have secured, with the support of both sides of the House, I think, the maintenance of exactly the same pattern of derogation that we succeeded in achieving before— no more and no less—which is precisely what our national needs are. I do not think that I need repeat that again. We are precisely where we were, and I see no reason to expect to have to change that.
§ Mr. Martin M. Brandon-Bravo (Nottingham, South)In so far as my right hon. Friend's remarks apply to road haulage, will this mean less bureaucracy and less form filling? I ask that specifically on behalf of a road haulier in my constituency. As a result of a minor error that road haulier suffered a confiscatory fine by the French customs which was in excess of the value of the vehicle and all its goods. On appeal, the penalty was reduced to £60,000. All that was involved was an error of form filling of 19 rolls of fabric. Can my right hon. Friend ensure that our road hauliers are not treated in such a piratical way when they cross the Channel?
§ Mr. MooreMy hon. Friend is absolutely right. It is an important point to illustrate, because it will benefit our hauliers and thereafter obviously help British business and British workers. At the moment Community permits allow unlimited journeys throughout the Community for the period for which they are valid. What we have done will considerably reduce the amount of bureaucracy faced by hauliers who at present, as my hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham, South (Mr. Brandon-Bravo) rightly says, often need several bilateral permits for a single journey. It will make it easier for hauliers on their return journey to pick up loads in other countries. It will not only reduce the administrative burden on hauliers but will give them the opportunity to work more competitively against their continental competitors.
§ Mr. Simon Hughes (Southwark and Bermondsey)Without prompting by the hon. Member for Honiton (Sir P. Emery), I was going to congratulate the new Secretary of State on coming back with a 10.5 tonnes maximum axle limit. However, he will be aware that there would be great resistance to a suggestion that the axle limit should be increased.
Mat I press him slightly further on two matters? First is there any proposal, during his presidency, to deal urgently with safety issues arising from road haulage throughout the European Community?
Given that there is to a package of proposals on aviation between now and 1992, including competition, regulation and deregulation, can consumers expect, in the first part of that period, a reduction in the artificially high air fares for flights around Europe?
§ Mr. MooreThere are no specific road haulage safety proposals, although I know the hon. Gentleman will be aware that we are in European Safety Year. Obviously we are seeking other initiatives in that area.
With regard to aviation, 1992 is the end of the period for complete liberalisation. Having had a reasonable first step yesterday in achieving the principles, I shall seek to start putting some flesh on to them. Therefore, I am trying, through pressure, to achieve some success, which will essentially, quite rightly, be for the benefit of the consumer.
§ Mr. David Harris (St. Ives)Does my right hon. Friend agree that some of our European partners, especially West Germany—if he is afraid to mention it—seem hell-bent on doing everything that they can to maintain the scandalous cartel on air fares, which rips off the consumer right, left and centre? If no progress has been made on this subject at the end of my right hon. Friend's six-month presidency of the Council of Ministers—as I am afraid will be the case—will he take unilateral action along the lines advocated by my hon. Friend the Member for Brentwood and Ongar (Mr. McCrindle) and encourage our airlines to take matters into their own hands?
§ Mr. MooreI am, though I am not sure that I feel naturally communautaire, the President of the European Council as from today, but I am not sure that I ought to be particular about which of my colleagues on the Council of Ministers I ought to push harder than others. Having said that, I hope that my hon. Friend heard what I said earlier—I said it carefully—about the way in which we are seeking to establish the methods and procedure of article 88 which is important.
§ Mr. John Watts (Slough)Following my right hon. Friend's initiative, what does he expect the main benefits to be for the road haulage industry and the consumers 844 from the agreement reached? Does he expect any beneficial impact upon any European truck manufacturers, including Ford Iveco in my constituency?
§ Mr. MooreAs I suggested earlier, I expect that it will reduce the form filling and some of the unnecessary bureaucratic burden on our haulage industry. To that extent the agreement will be an advantage to consumers and to businesses in Britain.
It clearly must have an advantage for British manufacturing industry, to the extent that the absence of the need for permits throughout Europe will allow British manufacturers to have an advantage. I hope that it will benefit my hon. Friend's constituents.
§ Mr. Tony Favell (Stockport)What reason did my right hon. Friend's European counterparts give for continuing the present European aviation system, which, after all does nothing but promote inefficiency? During his six months presidency, will my right hon. Friend take every opportunity to point out to his counterparts that the world's favourite airlines are cost competitive?
§ Mr. MooreI do not think that my hon. Friend or the House would wish me to take many hours to debate what took place yesterday. I am a little perplexed because, in many ways, many of our continental friends suffer from a fear of the unknown and they are not as aware as we are of the benefits of competition in aviation. It is our duty and that of consumers throughout Europe to make them better aware of those advantages.
§ Mr. Peter Bruinvels (Leicester, East)I welcome the liberalisation of the road haulage industry. I represent an east midlands constituency and I have to travel up and down the M I every week. Does my right hon. Friend accept that there are far too many foreign lorries on our roads and that not enough of our lorries are able to bring back goods from foreign countries? With the liberalisation, it is very important to cut out the form filling and ensure that our lorries are full. We would therefore get a share of an extremely lucrative cake.
§ Mr. MooreWhat we have done will clearly benefit our hauliers. To that extent my hon. Friend is right.
§ Sir John Farr (Harborough)Will my right hon. Friend consider an important matter which is a threat to British jobs? This is the export from Belgium of road trailers which are subsidised by the Belgian Government to the extent of 20 per cent. These road trailers are already eating into our domestic market and affecting very important manufacturers in the midlands.
§ Mr. MooreAlthough that does not fit precisely into the statement, I shall look into the matter that my hon. Friend has raised.