§ Mr. LitherlandTo ask the Secretary of State for Transport (1) if he has received a request for a meeting with the chairman and members of the board of Manchester international airport to discuss the introduction of an airports departure tax; and if he will make a statement;
(2) if he will consider revising the existing methods of funding security methods at airports; and if he will make a statement;
(3) if he will support measures to introduce the funding of security costs at Manchester international airport through the imposition of an airports departure tax; and if he will make a statement.
§ Mr. Peter BottomleyMy right hon. Friend has received a letter from the chairman of Manchester Airport plc proposing the introduction of an airport departure tax and requesting a meeting to discuss the matter. He has replied as follows
Thank you for your letter of 22 March proposing a meeting to discuss your proposal for an Airport Departure Tax to finance aviation security.This ground has been gone over many times in recent years. As you say, from 1978 to 1983 aviation security was financed through the aviation security fund, set up under the powers which are now contained in part IV of the Aviation Security Act 1982. This proved to be bureaucratic, complicated and costly to administer, with the Department collecting money from the industry with one hand and paying it out to it again with the other, and it provided little incentive to efficiency. Consequently, a review undertaken in 1982, at the request of the industry and in consultation with all sections of it, concluded that the financing of aviation security would be more straightforward, that unnecessary and complex procedures would be avoided, that incentives to carry out security measures effectively would be increased, and that cross-subsidisation would be eliminated, if the fund were abolished. The fund was wound up accordingly in 1983, and the airports and airlines became responsible for financing aviation security costs from their revenue, in exactly the same way as they meet other operating expenditure.
This arrangement has much to commend it. It is simple and logical, and it is consistent with the arrangements in other areas, such as aviation safety. It ensures that costs fall where they are incurred, and thus produce an incentive to avoid waste and inefficiency
The whole matter was reviewed again most thoroughly after the publication in 1986 of the House of Commons Transport Select Committee's report on airport security. It recommended that an aviation security fund should be 476W re-established, and that it should be financed by a levy on passengers which should be clearly itemised on the ticket price. In their response to this report the Government rejected these recommendations, pointing out that the arguments against financing aviation security through a Government-administered fund were still as strong as when the original fund was wound up.
However, the response went on to say that, as some sections of the industry had recently proposed a variety of possible alternative arrangements, the Department would look at these suggestions further in consultation with the industry. This review was carried out through the National Aviation Security Committee, It examined in detail all the suggestions put forward, including some very similar to the arrangement you now seem to be proposing. It found that there was no widespread support for any of these schemes, and no grounds for believing that any of them would be more satisfactory overall than the present arrangements.
In connection with the various proposals put forward for some kind of airport departure tax the review noted that security costs are not necessarily directly proportional to the number of passengers passing through a particular airport. Consequently either such a tax would have to be set at different levels for each airport—in which case considerable accounting resources would need to be devoted each year to working out the appropriate level at which it should be set for the coming year at each of the 50 airports in the national aviation security programme and in checking that the money was being properly used; or the tax would have to be the same as each airport—which would involve virtually the same arrangements as did the aviation security fund for the Government collecting the money and paying it out again against authorised expenditure.
After considering the findings of the review, Ministers reaffirmed their belief that the current arrangements were the most satisfactory and effective ones possible and that they should not be changed. That remains our position, and I must tell the hon. Gentleman frankly that I can see no point in meeting him to discuss his proposal for a departure tax unless and until he can demonstrate that:
- (a) it has substantial support within the industry as a whole;
- (b) it would not suffer from the same disadvantages as did the aviation security fund or involve additional accounting resources; and
- (c) it would be more satisfactory overall than the present arrangements.
§ Mr. LitherlandTo ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will meet the chairman of the Civil Aviation Authority to discuss the imposition of a total ban on the carriage of personal radios on aircraft; and if he will make a statement.
§ Mr. Peter BottomleyIt is not just personal radios, but a whole range of portable electrical items, from pocket calculators, through electric shavers and hair driers, to lap top computers, which pose particular security problems.
A complete ban on the carriage of such items on aircraft is not practicable.
We have reinforced the advice to airports and airlines about the dangers, and instructed that such items should be examined particularly closely. Passengers will be prevented from retaining them in cases where the security staff are unable to satisfy themselves that they are harmless.
477WAs the problem is an international one we have, as my right hon. Friend announced on 21 February, at columns 556–57, arranged for the International Civil Aviation Organisation to address the matter.