Point of Order
Thursday 22nd June 2017
(6 years, 10 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Jonathan Ashworth (Leicester South) (Lab/Co-op)
On a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. You will have seen in your copy of The Guardian newspaper this morning, and indeed yesterday, the leaked reports of a new capped expenditure process for the NHS, revealing plans to cut services, close wards and ration treatments. So far, we have had no response from the Department of Health. Has the Secretary of State for Health given you any indication that he plans to come to the House to update Members and to tell us whether he approved these plans—and if so, when—and why the plans were drawn up in secret, with no consultation with patients, staff or local people?
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr George Howarth)
As far as I am aware, no such request has been made. The hon. Gentleman knows full well that that is not a point of order. However, he has used the opportunity to draw attention to the point he is seeking to make. I think that that is the end of the matter, and there can be no further point of order on that issue.
Bills Presented
Air Travel Organisers’ Licensing Bill
Presentation and First Reading (Standing Order No. 57)
Secretary Chris Grayling, supported by the Prime Minister, Mr Chancellor of the Exchequer, Secretary Amber Rudd, Mr Secretary Lidington, Secretary Greg Clark and Secretary David Mundell, presented a Bill to amend sections 71, 71A and 84 of the Civil Aviation Act 1982, and for connected purposes.
Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time tomorrow, and to be printed (Bill 1) with explanatory notes (Bill 1-EN).
European Union (Approvals) Bill
Presentation and First Reading (Standing Order No. 57)
Secretary Greg Clark, supported by the Prime Minister, Mr Secretary Lidington, Dr Secretary Fox and Secretary David Davis, presented a Bill to make provision approving for the purposes of section 8 of the European Union Act 2011 draft decisions under Article 352 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union on the participation of the Republic of Albania and the Republic of Serbia in the work of the European Union Agency for Fundamental Rights and on the signing and conclusion of an agreement between the European Union and Canada regarding the application of their competition laws.
Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time tomorrow, and to be printed (Bill 2) with explanatory notes (Bill 2-EN).
Air Travel Organisers’ Licensing Bill
Monday 3rd July 2017
(6 years, 9 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Air Travel Organisers' Licensing Act 2017 Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mr Speaker
Before I call the Minister of State to move that the Bill be read a Second time, I warn new Members, large numbers of whom are seeking to make their maiden speeches, that they must remain for the opening speeches and that remaining for the Minister of State’s speech means that they not only are about to learn quite a lot about air travel organisation and licensing, but will probably benefit from a fair number of literary and possibly philosophical references in the course of his oration. I speak with some experience of these matters.
The Minister of State, Department for Transport (Mr John Hayes)
I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
It is both fitting and humbling, as you will gladly acknowledge, Mr Speaker, that I should have been chosen to introduce the first piece of legislation of this new Parliament—fitting because of my status and popularity, and humbling because it does not pay to draw attention to either of them.
Hon. Members will recognise in taking a look at the Bill, as I am sure they have, that it reflects that this Government, like others before it, recognise the value of providing UK businesses with the best possible opportunities to grow and also ensuring that consumers are protected when and how they need to be in respect of, in this case, how and when they purchase their holidays. I am introducing the Air Travel Organisers’ Licensing Bill so that we can ensure that consumer protection for holidaymakers can keep pace with changes in the travel market.
The Bill has a long genesis in two ways. First, it builds on long established good practice. The arrangement in the Bill is born of the arrangement of a similar kind that began in the 1970s to protect the interests of travellers. Secondly, we have already debated these issues at some length. We had an earlier Bill, to which I will refer later, in which these measures were included. We gave that Bill a Second Reading and debated it in Committee in some detail. That was done in a convivial, consensual and helpful way, and I shall also refer to that later.
There is recognition across the House that the consumer protection measures in respect of holidays and holidaymakers need to keep pace with changing circumstances and conditions in the travel market. There may be those in the Chamber who, affected by the specious and pernicious appeal of liberalism—because it does appeal to some people—believe that the free market can sort all these things out for itself. That is not a view that I hold, and I know that there will be wise heads across the Chamber who recognise the efficacious role of Government in intervening where the market fails. It does not happen regularly in respect of holiday companies: anyone who looks at the history of this area of the Government’s work will recognise that it has been rare for the fund established by the air travel organisers’ licence to be called upon. None the less, it is an important fund and an important protection. It provides assurance and confidence to holidaymakers as they go about their lawful and regular business.
Mr Speaker
Order. I am sorry that I am not able to continue to enjoy the right hon. Gentleman’s oratory, but that particular pleasure is now to be enjoyed by the First Deputy Chairman of Ways and Means. I have heard the first of the right hon. Gentleman’s philosophical references and I am sure that the Chamber will hear several more in the minutes to follow. New Members are probably somewhat befuddled by this state of affairs, but I think I can tell colleagues that the right hon. Gentleman is what might be called a one-off.
Mr Hayes
Madam Deputy Speaker, let me say—as the Speaker leaves the Chamber—that I was about to move to John Ruskin, who said:
“the first test of a truly great man is his humility.”
We present this legislation in that humble spirit, recognising that this is a changing market and the Government must act to reflect that change, but recognising, too, that the market will continue to change. Any Government who believed that this was the end of the story would, I think, be disregarding the further changes that are likely to result from technology, the way people organise their affairs, the way they book their holidays, the way the internet operates, and the fact that other technology will change the way we go about our business. I therefore have no doubt that there will be a need for further provision at some point in the future, but, at this stage, the Bill is an important step in bringing the ATOL provisions up to date and up to speed.
Alan Brown
I thank the Minister for giving way, and for saying that I played a useful role. As he knows, this legislation was part of the Vehicle Technology and Aviation Bill. What will happen to other measures that were in that Bill, particularly those relating to offences involving the use of lasers that affect pilots?
Mr Hayes
I would not want to test your patience, Madam Deputy Speaker, or indeed your largesse, by ranging widely across the provisions of the other aspects of the Vehicle Technology and Aviation Bill, but the hon. Gentleman is right to point out that, as I said earlier, these measures had their origin—their genesis—in that Bill. We will bring further measures to the House: the Queen’s Speech makes it clear, for example, that we will address the issues of autonomous and electric vehicles, which the hon. Gentleman debated, alongside the Opposition spokesman, the hon. Member for Middlesbrough (Andy McDonald), and others, in the Committee that I mentioned. Further measures will be presented, and—not wishing to test your generosity any further, Madam Deputy Speaker—I think I will leave it at that.
In this new Parliament, many of the measures that I described as essential will be introduced, and this ATOL reform is one of them. I hope that our debate today will match the convivial and consensual spirit of our discussions in the Bill Committee to which the hon. Member for Kilmarnock and Loudoun (Alan Brown) alluded. We made progress on both sides of that Committee, and I hope that it continues. I think it fair to say that those discussions demonstrated that there was really
“no difference of principle between the Government and the Opposition on this matter.”—[Official Report, Vehicle Technology and Aviation Public Bill Committee, 21 March 2017; c. 25.]
Those are not my words, but the words of the hon. Member for Birmingham, Northfield (Richard Burden), who also played a useful role in the Committee.
Kelvin Hopkins (Luton North) (Lab)
I very much agreed with the Minister’s earlier philosophical comments about the appropriateness of Government regulation in matters such as this. I am sure that many holidaymakers will feel more secure when the Bill has been passed, knowing that they will not be left stranded abroad with no means of getting back. May I ask whether the Minister has consulted closely with the airlines, particularly those that fly planes from London Luton airport with holiday packages?
Mr Hayes
I will come to that later, because the hon. Gentleman is right to draw attention to the role of the airlines in all this. As he will know, they are covered by other licensing arrangements, but I will address the specific points that he has made. As ever, he has made a case for his Luton constituents, and particularly for Luton airport, which I know is in his constituency.
Jonathan Edwards (Carmarthen East and Dinefwr) (PC)
As the Minister knows, Cardiff International airport is owned by the Welsh people via our own Government. What discussions has he had with the Welsh Government about the Bill’s impact on operators working from Cardiff?
Mr Hayes
Prior to that first Bill, we had discussions with devolved Governments about its character and content, and I think that there is agreement across the kingdom about the necessity for these measures. I always enjoy my discussions with the devolved Governments, and will continue to do so in my role as Minister of State. However, the hon. Gentleman is right to say that the Bill will affect all parts of our kingdom, not least because of the travel that takes place to and from different parts of it by air. We will certainly want to continue to receive representations from those Governments as these matters roll out.
Before I go any further, let me say something that I should have said at the outset. As you will know, Madam Deputy Speaker, there has been some debate in the Chamber in recent days about sartorial standards. I ought to say, as a matter of courtesy, that I will not be taking interventions from any Member who is not wearing a tie, on whichever side of the House that Member may sit. However, I believe in generosity as well as in courtesy, and I will provide a tie, which I have here, for anyone who is sartorially challenged or inadequate. Of course, I exclude lady Members from that; I would hardly expect them to dress in my tie, their own or anyone else’s.
Let us move to the origins of the UK holiday market. This week will see one of the UK’s, and the world’s, leading travel brands celebrate 175 years of travel. It was on 5 July 1841 that Thomas Cook arranged the first excursion. That was a one-day train journey from Leicester to a temperance meeting in Loughborough. The train carried around 500 passengers a distance of 12 miles and back for a shilling. Contrary to popular belief, I was not the Transport Minister at the time, and I certainly was not one of the passengers, but those early excursions were significant. They helped to form the foundations of the travel and tourism sector in the UK. The growth of the railways meant that, for the first time, affordable travel could be combined with leisure activities or accommodation and offered to a growing population of consumers.
Of course, today’s holidays—today’s excursions—are quite different from those first ones. Society has changed, and the promise of sun, sea and sand means holidays are more likely to be driven by temperature than temperance. I personally choose to have my holidays on the east coast of England, largely, in Broadstairs, Northumberland and most places in between, but not everyone does, and those who want to travel further afield and those who wish to use technology to make those choices will want to know that they are protected in doing so.
The advancement of technology has continued to drive the biggest challenges facing the leisure travel sector. Affordable air travel and fuel-efficient planes mean that people are able to travel further, and for longer. The growth of the internet and mobile phone technologies have revolutionised the way people book holidays, creating greater opportunities for consumers and businesses.
We debated these issues on the Committee to which the hon. Member for Kilmarnock and Loudoun referred. It was clear to us then, and I think to the whole House, that the UK has continued to lead the way. We have one of the most innovative and advanced leisure travel sectors in the world and one of the biggest markets in Europe. Overall, tourism contributes close to £121 billion to our economy annually, with outbound tourism contributing around £30 billion.
Strong consumer protection is vital to underpin confidence in that important sector. By its very nature, there are a number of risks in the holiday market which have existed ever since those first excursions. It is common for consumers to pay up front on the promise of a holiday, which may be many weeks or even months away. There can be a lack of awareness of the financial stability of holiday providers, particularly as services are often provided by third parties. In the rare event of a company failure—I mentioned at the outset that it is rare—consumers may experience a financial loss from a cancelled holiday, or significant difficulties from being stranded abroad. It was against that backdrop that the air travel organiser’s licence scheme, the ATOL scheme, was introduced in the 1970s for UK holidaymakers flying overseas.
I will not tire the House with a long, exhaustive history of the ATOL scheme. I see that that is disappointing to you, Madam Deputy Speaker, and to others, but I want to give all Members as much opportunity as possible to contribute to this important debate. Suffice it to say that the ATOL scheme protects consumers if their travel company fails. It does that in two ways.
First, travel firms that sell flight packages in the UK must hold an ATOL licence, issued by the Civil Aviation Authority. That helps to regulate entry into the market and to filter out companies that are not financially robust. Secondly, the scheme acts as a fund to compensate consumers who might be caught up in a failure. The ATOL licensed company must pay a small levy, £2.50, for each person protected by ATOL. That money is then held in the air travel trust fund and used by the CAA to ensure that consumers are returned home or refunded when a company fails.
Mr Gavin Shuker (Luton South) (Lab/Co-op)
The Minister looks delighted to give way on that specific point; I am sure he will want to say more about it. First, a correction—Luton airport is in the constituency of Luton South. My hon. Friend the Member for Luton North (Kelvin Hopkins) and I have many a competitive conversation about it. On the £2.50 levy, I understand that there is a significant surplus in the fund now. Is the Minister confident that, under the new arrangements, where airlines may look around European member states in considering the best regime into which to pay, £2.50 is competitive and the right figure to charge?
Mr Hayes
First, I apologise for ascribing Luton airport to the constituency neighbour of the hon. Gentleman, and not to him. As he will know, in a previous ministerial job, I was able to visit Luton South and to enjoy his hospitality there alongside the local authority. Luton is playing a bigger part in this debate than we may have expected; both Luton Members have contributed to it. As he will know, the fund is administered by the CAA, with trustees appointed by the Secretary of State. It builds up and is invested accordingly.
As we speak, there is about £140 million in the fund. If a major holiday company collapsed, it would be essential that there were sufficient moneys in the fund to cover that collapse. That could happen more than once in a short period; that is not inconceivable. The critical thing is that the fund is never short of money. The guarantee is that we will protect consumers and get people home safely from perhaps far-flung destinations and that they will not lose out as a result of things that they could not have anticipated or affected.
If it is helpful, I will be more than happy to provide the whole House with a further note on how the fund has changed and grown over time. I have mentioned what it is comprised of. I think it would be helpful for me to make available to the Library, and therefore to the House, more details of the kind the hon. Gentleman has asked about. It will help to inform further consideration of these matters as we move from Second Reading.
Lilian Greenwood (Nottingham South) (Lab)
The Minister is right to say that there is cross-party support for greater protection of consumers, but he also mentioned safety. Could he take this opportunity to tell us whether Transport Ministers intend to introduce legislation to deal not just with the dangers posed by laser pens, but with the dangers posed by drones, which we have heard about again today?
Mr Hayes
The hon. Lady will know that that, too, was raised in our discussions on what was originally known as the modern transport Bill—or at least apocryphally known as such—and became the Vehicle Technology and Aviation Bill. She will also know—because of her keen interest in transport matters and her enthusiasm to take those matters further with an election, to which I will not refer more than obliquely—that we are consulting on those matters; the consultation has finished and we will bring our conclusions to the House and elsewhere very shortly. However, she is right to say—I am happy to put this on the record—that that is a matter of some concern. Existing legislation provides some protection. For example, if a drone were interfering with military aircraft or a secure site, existing legislation would cover that to some degree, but there is a case to do more, which is why we have consulted on the matter. I know that she will give the results of the consultation and our response to it her close attention, as she always does.
Let me move on; as I said, I do not want to prolong this exciting speech too much. As I said, the scheme also acts to compensate consumers who might be caught up in a failure. I have talked about the fund which is administered by the CAA to ensure that consumers are returned home, and since the 1990s the ATOL scheme has been the primary method by which the UK travel sector provides insolvency protection under the UK and Europe package travel regimes. Today the scheme protects over 20 million people each year, giving peace of mind to holidaymakers in Luton and elsewhere.
Kelvin Hopkins
It is reported in the notes that between 1998 and 2009 the proportion of ATOL sales fell from 90% of leisure flights to just 50%. That is a substantial drop in just 11 years. Were some passengers affected by not being covered during that period?
Mr Hayes
As I said at the beginning of my remarks, the purpose of this Bill is to ensure that ATOL remains fit for purpose. The hon. Gentleman is right that the way people travel, the means by which they book their holidays, and the organisations they use to do so are changing. That is why we must look again at ATOL: not because it has not worked or because its principles are not right, but because it needs to reflect those changes. This Bill is the first step in doing so. Anticipating—although not impertinently—what the shadow Secretary of State might ask me, it is also true to say that this Bill is just that: a first step that creates a framework that will allow us to update ATOL.
Further steps will be required, which might come through regulation or further review of the appropriateness of what we are putting into place today. The hon. Gentleman raised that point when we debated these matters briefly before, and I have no doubt that he will want to press me on it again today, but there is an absolute acknowledgement that this is a rapidly moving marketplace that will require rapidity in our response.
Iain Stewart (Milton Keynes South) (Con)
Having also served on the Vehicle Technology and Aviation Bill Committee, I have a sense of déjà vu here. I agree with the general nature of the measures the Minister wishes to introduce, because he is right that it is a fast-moving market, but there is also some concern in the industry, which plans typically 12 to 18 months ahead, that it will need some of the detail of the secondary legislation as soon as possible, to allow it to prepare effectively for that.
Mr Hayes
My hon. Friend might have raised that point in that Committee; my memory is good but not encyclopaedic, but I do seem to recall that he has made this point previously. He is both authoritative on matters regarding transport, having served with distinction on the Select Committee, and consistent in his line of argument. His is a perfectly fair question, and it is what the Opposition and the whole House would expect, so we will provide as much information as we can about what further steps we might take in terms of regulation. There is nothing to be hidden here; there is no unnecessary contention associated with this and certainly no desire not to get this right, and the best way of getting it right is to listen and learn—as is so often the case in politics, in Government and in life.
I have talked a little about the diversification of the market and the growth of the internet and smart technologies. That is not a bad thing: consumers now have many options at their fingertips to buy holidays and put together their own packages. Indeed, an ABTA survey estimates that about 75% of UK consumers now book their holidays over the internet. As methods of selling holidays modernise, we must adapt the schemes and regulations that protect them.
“Quality is never an accident; it is always the result of intelligent effort”,
as Ruskin also said. That is why we took steps in 2012 to update the ATOL scheme; we introduced the ATOL certificate confirming the protection covered, and broadened the scope of protection to include “flight plus” holidays. These interventions have had a positive impact, extending consumer protection, levelling the playing field for businesses and improving clarity for all. The key here is that consumers know when and how they are protected: making sure the system is as comprehensible and comprehensive as possible is an important aim.
We now need to build upon the changes we made then, and make sure that ATOL keeps pace with the changing travel market. In particular, the new EU package travel directive was agreed in 2015 to bring similar, but further-reaching, improvements to consumer protection across the whole of Europe. I said earlier that the United Kingdom had led the way in this field. It is not unreasonable to say that Europe is now saying it wants similar provisions across other countries to the ones we have had here for some time. So that travel directive is both reflective of, and perhaps even, to some degree, inspired by, the success of our arrangements. This will need to be implemented into the UK package travel regulations by 1 January 2018.
The Government supported the rationale for updating the package travel directive. It will help to modernise and harmonise protection across Europe. Broadly, it will mean that the protection offered across Europe will be closer to the protection we have enjoyed from the beginning of ATOL, but most especially since the changes we put in place in 2012. It will ensure there is a consistent approach to the protection.
Kevin Foster (Torbay) (Con)
The Minister is giving an interesting and full explanation of the benefits of this Bill.
Will the Minister clarify that the point is that the ATOL regulations currently apply to first-leg flights out from the United Kingdom and a UK airport, but that under this Bill the intention will be that in future if a UK ATOL-regulated operator sells a package virtually anywhere in Europe, as long as they comply with the rules here, that will be covered by the ATOL scheme and the potential levy?
Mr Hayes
Yes, that is part of what we aim to do: the aim is to ensure that if a holiday is bought here, wherever the person goes they are protected in exactly the way my hon. Friend described. He is also right to say that part of the change is the way people book and make their holiday plans, and part is about how and where people travel. The package holidays people first enjoyed in the 1960s and ’70s are less routine now in that they are no longer the routine way people travel to the continent and further afield, and ATOL was of course born in that period when things were simpler—thus my point for the need for it to evolve, as it has to keep pace with these kinds of changes. That consistent protection of holidays across Europe will ensure that informal package holidays booked online will get the same protection as traditional package holidays booked on the high street—holidays of the kind that had their beginnings in the ’60s and ’70s.
For the first time, these measures will also bring protection to a new concept of “linked travel arrangements”, which I think is what my hon. Friend was referring to. This concept is designed to provide some protection to business models which are not packages, but which often compete closely with packages.
Overall, the new directive has the potential to provide a greater level of protection to UK consumers, whether they purchase from a company established in the UK or overseas. It will also help to level the playing field for companies whether they are in the UK or overseas, and whether they operate on the high street or online.
That point matters in itself. This is about protecting consumers, and about the clarity and comprehensibility that I described. It is also important for those in the travel sector and the industry to know where they stand. Creating a greater degree of consistency for them matters too, particularly for smaller businesses that really need to know, as well as to feel, that the regulations apply across the board in a consistent, fair, reasonable and implementable way.
In order to bring the new directive into force by July 2018, the four clauses simply enable the ATOL scheme to be aligned with the updated package travel regulations. The combined clauses will mean UK-established companies are able to sell holidays more easily. They will be able to protect these holidays through ATOL, and they will not need to comply with different schemes in each country. That is the essence of what we are trying to achieve today. The Bill will also extend the CAA’s information powers so that they are more able to regulate the scheme and this cross-border activity.
Finally, the Bill will allow the scheme to be able to adapt more effectively to changes in the travel market. I have said that I anticipate further change as time goes on, and the Bill paves the way for that. Overall, the updates we will make to the ATOL and package travel regulations will mean that consumer protection can extend to a broader range of holidays. This will mean that protection is provided for traditional and online package holidays, but also for looser combinations of travel, which have previously been out of scope.
Of course, we also need to be mindful that the regulatory landscape will need to be able to adapt to changes in our relationship with the European Union. The changes we are making are in keeping with this principle. They will help UK consumers, businesses and regulators to transition to the new package travel regulations in 2018 with minimal impact, but we will also retain flexibility in ATOL regulations to adapt to the changes in our relationship with the European Union, ensuring that we continue to have strong consumer protections in place as we leave the EU.
I hope that that has given a clear and reasonably concise picture of the Bill and the reasons for introducing it. As I have said, the UK has always been a leader in this field. We have led in so many ways and so many areas, and when it comes to providing protection for holiday makers, the Bill will ensure that the UK continues to lead, whether we are inside or outside the EU. It will provide UK businesses with the opportunity to expand and grow, and it will provide a framework to ensure that ATOL remains flexible enough to cope with future trends. The Bill is indicative of a Government who are willing to act to protect and preserve the people’s interests, and I stand here as a Minister ready to do that. It is a Bill for the people from a Government of the people.
Andy McDonald (Middlesbrough) (Lab)
It was all going so well until that last comment! The Minister has it right, however, when he says that the Bill is to be welcomed. The events of failure are rare, but it is imperative that this market and the response to it should develop so that people who experience those failures have recourse to a remedy. He will find a great deal of support on this side of the House for what he has said and for the Bill. I thank him for his summary and his account. He is right to say that matters in the related Bill were conducted with a great deal of conviviality, courtesy and humility, and he is to be credited with ensuring that that was so.
As the Minister said, it is with a sense of déjà vu that we are debating these changes to the air travel organisers’ licensing system. It has been only four months since these self-same clauses received their Second Reading when they made up part of the Vehicle Technology and Aviation Bill—or VTAB, as we liked to call it. It ought to be an Act by now—VTAA—but sadly we must still refer to it as VTAB. The Prime Minister’s decision to call an early election meant that VTAB, along with a whole host of other legislation, had to be dropped.
Given that we had wasted a great deal of parliamentary time and effort, it was quite a surprise to see that there was no reference to VTAB in the Queen’s Speech. Instead, the Government have decided to fragment the legislation, splitting it between the Bill we are debating today and the automated and electric vehicles Bill that will be introduced later in the Parliament. It is interesting to note that 50% of the legislative programme relating to transport for the next two years of this Parliament will merely be clauses that have been copied and pasted from VTAB, a Bill that should have already been passed into law. This surely highlights how this minority Government are out of ideas and have very little new to offer the country as they focus their attention on a desperate attempt to cling to power.
Mr John Hayes
With the greatest respect, I think that the hon. Gentleman is underselling himself. The progress we made in Committee and on consideration of the previous Bill meant that, when the Government came to look at the model of what good legislation should look like, they needed to look no further than the work that he and I had done. I take most of the credit for that, but I think he should take some too.
Andy McDonald
As ever, the Minister is extremely generous in his praise. He is right, however, to say that we made a lot of progress. I just hope that we do not have to do it all over again. That is the point.
The Government do not have a plan to reintroduce VTAB in its entirety, even though it should already have been taken through. Madam Deputy Speaker, you could be forgiven for asking why the Government do not dare to try to pass legislation that has already passed through this place and received support from both sides of the House. Indeed, it is a matter of considerable concern that a number of important clauses from VTAB appear to have been left out of the Government’s forthcoming legislative programme. They include the clauses in part 4 of VTAB that related to vehicle testing, the shining of lasers—which the hon. Member for Kilmarnock and Loudoun (Alan Brown) mentioned earlier—and diversionary driving courses. The clauses in part 3 relating to air traffic services also appear to have been axed. Perhaps the Minister can offer some explanation of why he previously deemed it a necessity to legislate on those issues, as they are not being reintroduced now.
Moreover, during the progression of VTAB, Labour Members raised concerns over the absence of legislation to create a regulatory framework to deal with drones. With the proliferation of drones in recent years, we have seen a sharp increase in the number of near misses with planes. The latest figures show that there were 33 such incidents confirmed in the first five months of this year and 70 last year, compared with only 29 in 2015 and just 10 in the five years before that. Representatives of the aviation industry have expressed their concern over the Government’s failure to bring in legislation to tackle this worrying trend.
Iain Stewart
I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving way; I enjoyed our exchanges in the Committee stage of the previous Bill. I may be wrong, but given the intervention I made on the Minister earlier, I believe that it is important to get this Bill on to the statute book as early as possible so that the subsequent regulations can come into effect in an industry that has to plan 12 to 18 months in advance. The other measures that the hon. Gentleman mentioned are important, but they could be put into a different Bill. Perhaps that is the reason they are not in this one.
Andy McDonald
The hon. Gentleman makes a reasonable point, but those matters were considered an important part of VTAB, as were the bits relating to ATOL. It is a gross omission for us to come this far and not deal with such important matters now. Certainly, if the roles were reversed, we would want to introduce legislation before a near miss turns into a catastrophic incident that could have been avoided. We have heard about an incident at Gatwick airport in the past 24 hours, and this matter should concern everyone in the House. I make a genuine offer to the Minister that we will be nothing other than wholly supportive if the Government wish to bring forward legislation and regulations better to protect our airports and other places of great sensitivity. This is a huge issue, and the drone industry and others who support such legislation believe that the freedom to indulge in this activity is coming ahead of safety at the moment. I put it gently to colleagues that we should really be looking closely at this.
Mr John Hayes
The hon. Gentleman does the House a service in raising this matter. The hon. Member for Nottingham South (Lilian Greenwood) challenged me on it in an earlier intervention, and I made it clear that we had consulted on it—the hon. Gentleman will be familiar with the consultation exercise that we have been engaged in—precisely because we agree that the matter requires further consideration. I am happy to engage directly in discussions with him so that we can find a way forward on drones. He is right to say that this a changing and potentially challenging matter, and we need to work not only as a Government but as a Parliament to address it, so I am happy to take up his offer of discussions on the back of that consultation and our response to it.
Andy McDonald
I am again grateful to the Minister for his consistent, collegiate attitude and for his co-operation. His approach to this Bill is exactly the same as it was with the previous Bill, and that should be acknowledged. The Labour party shares his objective of making this Bill and the forthcoming transport Bills relating to automated and electric vehicles and to the space industry the best possible pieces of legislation as they pass through the House. We only wish that the Government were prepared to respond to the rapid technological advances of recent years and to bring forward legislation in the areas that I outlined, which are in urgent need of a regulatory framework. It has become quite clear in recent weeks that inaction can risk lives.
As we stated when the measures in this Bill were first laid out in VTAB, the broad substance of the changes to ATOL are necessary and, for the most part, welcomed. The changes will harmonise UK law with the latest EU package travel directive, leading to many benefits for UK consumers and UK travel operators. A wider range of operators, including more dynamic package providers, will likely be covered under the changes, bringing protection to many more UK holidaymakers not covered under existing ATOL provisions. The requirement for travel companies to be in line with standards at “place of establishment” instead of “place of sale” will now mean that UK companies can sell far more seamlessly across Europe by simply adhering to the widely respected ATOL flag.
However, the EU-level changes do bring about something that could have adverse effects for some UK consumers purchasing from EU-based travel companies. The changes made through the directive will now mean that EU-based companies selling in the UK have to adhere only to an ATOL-equivalent insolvency protection laid out in the member state where the business is based. In practice, that could have unintended consequences and, more significantly, costs for UK consumers. Processes and timescales for recompense may be distinctly different to what many travellers would expect under the gold standard of ATOL. The impact assessment warns:
“If consumers purchase a trip from a business established elsewhere in the EU and the company becomes insolvent there may be some costs to the consumer of processing a claim with a non-UK insolvency protector.”
Based on the latest CAA figures, that is not just something that will impact on a relatively small number of holidaymakers; it would currently compromise over 500,000 passengers. It is therefore important the Government take appropriate steps to anticipate and prepare for any negative impacts. As suggested by the Opposition when the Vehicle Technology and Aviation Bill was in Committee, making it a requirement for the Government to monitor the impact for UK consumers using EU-based companies would help inform the Government about whether they should consider further guidance or co-operation with consumers and EU member states to ensure that adequate protections are in place.
Mr Hayes
The hon. Gentleman will know that the existing legislation contains an obligation to review it after five years. He is making an argument that he has made previously, and it seems to have some weight. I am open-minded about how we consider such things, and I will certainly reflect on his point about our need to consider the impact of the changes that he describes. I am more than happy to include that in our discussions about drones.
Andy McDonald
I am grateful to the Minister for that clarification.
The Bill’s second clause is not directly relevant to harmonising UK with EU regulation, but it contains a dormant power that the Government will retain, enabling them to make considerable changes to ATOL with regard to air travel trusts. During an evidence session when VTAB was in Committee, we heard from Richard Moriarty of the CAA, a trustee of the current air travel trust, who recognised the possible merits of separating the trust to reflect the variations of products in the market. However, he explained that we simply are not there yet and that it would be wrong for the Government to use this Bill as a means of making wholesale changes without due consultation. The Minister made it clear in a letter to me that changes would be made only through the affirmative procedure, yet the Bill does not account for any further consultation as part of this measure. Labour will therefore be again seeking a commitment from the Minister, which he gave in Committee during the progress of VTAB, that the Government will conduct a thorough impact assessment and consultation before implementing the power. Mr Moriarty said at the evidence session that he hoped that the Government
“will follow the practice that they have followed today: consult with us, consult the industry, do the impact assessment, and so on.”––[Official Report, Vehicle Technology and Aviation Public Bill Committee, 14 March 2017; c. 30, Q150.]
Accordingly, if the Government were to undertake a full impact assessment and consultation before bringing forward regulations to create any new air travel trusts through the affirmative procedure, that would be fair and reasonable and would guarantee scrutiny of any further changes to ATOL.
To conclude, while the Opposition are frustrated that the general election meant that the Vehicle Technology and Aviation Bill was dropped and, moreover, we are concerned with the Government’s decision to omit a large proportion of the legislation as it is reintroduced in this Parliament, Labour none the less broadly supports this Bill. We welcome the changes that will harmonise UK law with the latest EU package travel directive, which will have many benefits for UK consumers and UK travel operators. However, we have concerns about the levels of protection given by EU-based companies selling in the UK and about whether UK consumers could lose out following the change. We will be pressing Ministers for reassurances on that during the passage of the Bill. As we did with the Vehicle Technology and Aviation Bill, the Opposition will seek further detail from Ministers on the assimilation of the directive, the impact of Brexit, and Government accountability as the Bill progresses through this House.
Robert Courts (Witney) (Con)
It is an honour to be called to speak in the debate on the first piece of substantive legislation in this Parliament, and to be the first Back Bencher to do so. The Bill brings back some traces of memory lane for me; I declare an interest in that I practised in consumer protection at the independent Bar before my election to Parliament. Indeed, I was involved in lecturing and cases in this very area. Somewhat optimistically, I called it “holiday law”, which makes it sound—I can hear one of my colleagues saying this—like rather good fun. Having spent years prosecuting trading standards legislation and defending criminal law, as well as working in the personal injury sphere, I must have been on my way back from holiday while looking for a new area to branch into, and then an opportunity came up. I obviously decided that if I could not actually be on holiday, I might as well at least talk about being on holiday. I therefore produced a lecture, which I covered with lots of rather attractive pictures of happy people on holiday, sun-dappled beaches and palm trees, but that of course rather missed the point, because when one goes to see a lawyer, one is telling them not how good a holiday was, but that something has gone wrong. That is the all-important point that I was addressing in my career and that the Government are seeking to address through this Bill.
Things occasionally go terribly wrong when people are on holiday and, from my experience at the Bar, that can be anything from simply poor quality through to a catastrophic failure of holiday, injury or, in some cases, even death. That is what we are seeking to address through the Bill.
I started my lecture to the Bar with the same story that the Minister told of the temperance campaigners—it is one of those throwaway anecdotes we tell at the beginning of what can sometimes be detailed lectures—and I thought for one moment that I was about to hear him repeat my lecture back to me. I am glad that he went on to more substantive matters.
In my constituency I have not only a great many places that people come to visit—I will refer to some of them in a moment—but, of course, many people who, as we all do, look for places to tour abroad. It is for the constituents of Witney and west Oxfordshire that I most strongly desire to see the Bill enacted.
I express my support for the Bill at the outset, because ATOL protection is a critical part of the protection that we all rely on when we book a tour. It is only right—and necessary—that we seek to extend that protection to a broader range of holidays. When ATOL protection started in 1973, the world was very different from the one that we inhabit now. It was a world with few airlines—a world of British Caledonian and nationalised airlines such as British European Airways and British Overseas Airways Corporation. One might even say that it was an era before the benefits of a free market were fully explained and realised in this country—we should perhaps remember that at all times in this debate. It was a day before the internet. It was a day when going abroad was full of uncertainty, and sometimes even danger. It was into that world that the package tours regulations came into being, and rightly so.
Kevin Foster
Does my hon. Friend agree that at that time it would have been unimaginable that someone could use a mobile phone to book a holiday with an operator in Germany, France or another country in Europe? At that time, walking into a travel agent on the high street was the only real way of booking this type of project.
Robert Courts
My hon. Friend makes an outstanding point. We could be sitting in the Chamber now, if we were not paying attention to the debate—I am sure every Member is paying attention with alacrity—and booking ourselves a holiday on our mobile phone. Such a world was not even envisaged in 1973, but we did have the advent of the package tour, and British Airtours, a subsidiary of British Airways, was one of the leaders. People’s ability to have their package holiday protected, provided that they had a flight, was a major innovation, and it is something that we have now lost.
I say that from personal experience because, through my work, I have first-hand knowledge of how the package holiday industry now works. Not only do we have what is called “dynamic packaging”, in which a vast choice of providers, destinations and activities are available to members of the public, who can tailor bespoke packages for themselves, but those selling holidays can seek to step around some of the relevant legislation. A website might purport to be operating and offering a package but, when one actually looks, it turns out that the flight is offered by a subsidiary, the accommodation is operated and offered by another company, and other packages—perhaps excursions—are dealt with by someone else. It is quite easy in this day and age to step around the regulations that ATOL provides, which is why the Bill is so necessary. The travel market has changed significantly in recent years. In those days, and it was a romantic era—
Mr John Hayes
Talk of romance was not what drew me to my feet, although it might have done. My hon. Friend talks about the changing character of the industry and the need to ensure that the regulations are updated. Reflecting on the remarks made by the hon. Member for Middlesbrough (Andy McDonald), who speaks for the Opposition, I reaffirm my commitment to consult further before any regulations are brought before the House under the affirmative procedure. I draw the attention of my hon. Friend the Member for Witney (Robert Courts) to section 71B of the Civil Aviation Act 1982, which already makes provision for consultation by the CAA in the light of any such changes.
Robert Courts
I am grateful to the Minister for making that clear. The prospect of amendment has been ongoing for some time, so I am delighted that we are addressing it in the House today.
Although the image we all have of walking down the high street, flicking through a brochure and speaking to somebody behind a till still happens in many cases—many people avail themselves of the services that exist, including at the excellent travel agencies in my constituency—many people do not do that. It is now so easy to go on the internet to put together a bespoke package for ourselves. In a sense, we have become our own travel agents, but that brings challenges as well as opportunities for this new generation of travellers. In this House we embrace the opportunities that come with those challenges. Indeed, I would go so far as to say that we have seen the free market in action with the expansion of providers, destinations and activities. We have seen so many of the advantages that a free market can bring in the interest of consumers. Indeed, the online travel market has led to reduced costs for holidaymakers, as well as increased choice and flexibility.
Of course, we have to reassess protections at the same time as we reassess, and benefit from, those changes. The mix and match of lower prices and wider opportunities has to be seen alongside the protection. Many holidays now fall outside the scope of ATOL, which is very different from the situation in 1973. In 1998, approximately 90% of all leisure flights were covered by ATOL, but I understand that the figure has fallen to under 50% in recent years. I welcomed the Minister’s comment at the start of his speech. As much as I have praised the free market and its benefits in terms of opportunities, choice and reduced costs, I also understand that there is a role for Government. I agree with him that it is appropriate for the Government to step in and ensure that consumers in this field are protected.
That is why I welcome the measures in the Bill to address such changes. The Bill will ensure that the ATOL scheme keeps pace with innovation in the online travel market, while also ensuring that protections are in place, regardless of whether someone books online or on the high street. We will therefore ensure that more than 20 million holidaymakers each year continue to be protected.
Kevin Foster
Given my hon. Friend’s comments, will he say something more about clause 1, which extends ATOL to sales made by UK companies within the European economic area? Does he think that that provision is worth while?
Robert Courts
I am grateful for my hon. Friend’s timely intervention, as the next page of my notes deals with clause 1. Existing ATOL legislation applies only when the first leg of a relevant flight booking departs from a UK airport. The new legislation introduces a single-market approach to insolvency, whereby EU-established companies will be required to comply solely with the insolvency protection rules of the state in which they are established, as opposed to the place of sale, which is the current position. The legislation is therefore much wider, and the company will only have to be established.
Julian Knight (Solihull) (Con)
Does my hon. Friend agree with me and several consumer groups that £2.50 is a low price to pay for ATOL protection compared with the cost of standard travel insurance? In the longer term, we might see a decline in the cost of travel insurance as more holidays are covered by this enhanced ATOL protection.
Robert Courts
My hon. Friend makes an excellent point. He is right that the ATOL scheme is funded by a levy of approximately £2.50 per protected passenger and that it would be extremely unwise of any holidaymaker to go abroad without adequate travel insurance. I encourage everyone always to have such insurance, although it can sometimes be pricey, especially if someone is looking to protect themselves against some of the more routine failures that are easily covered in the ATOL scheme. However, more serious misfortunes can occur when people are on holiday, which is why travel insurance is, of course, still advisable. As my hon. Friend suggests, the cost of insurance may come down in time as a result of this enhanced package.
Clause 1 will allow travel companies established in the UK that sell flight-inclusive packages to use their ATOL membership and protection to cover all EU-wide sales without needing to comply with the insolvency protection rules of any other member state. Clause 2 deals with funding and qualifying trusts within the ATOL trust management structures. The Department for Transport is alive to the fact that because we have seen significant changes to the travel industry—not only since 1973, but since 2004, as well as more recently—it might be necessary to enter into separate trust arrangements for the greater business model, such as linked travel arrangements, to give greater transparency to businesses and consumers. It might be necessary to introduce a new form of qualifying trust to ensure that the ATOL trust will still protect consumers in the all-important area of flight accommodation. The Bill allows the flexibility under trust arrangements so that we can increase funding and ensure that ATOL is adequately funded as time goes on.
Clause 3 addresses a slightly different point: the ability of the CAA—the House will realise that the authority is responsible for running the ATOL scheme—to require and request information from airlines selling ATOL-registrable products within the UK and more widely. Under the Bill, an important change would apply to airlines that have an air service operator’s licence from another EU member state and therefore would not need any of the licences that have been granted by the Civil Aviation Act 1982.
The House will be delighted that this is a short Bill, containing only four clauses. I have needed to deal with only three, so I do not need to go through the other one—I am sure everyone is delighted. [Interruption.] The Bill is short in terms of clauses, as the House will realise.
Kevin Foster
My hon. Friend referred to clause 3. Those who have an air service operator’s licence from other European countries will not need a CAA licence. Is he satisfied that the measure will still give full consumer protection?
Robert Courts
I am indeed satisfied that it will give full consumer protection. I say so because the Government have consulted widely. Once again, my hon. Friend has somehow, with extraordinary prescience, managed to prompt me to move on to the next stage of my speech, which may have been his subtle intention.
The Government have consulted widely, and the industry’s response has been favourable. We have received broad support from a majority of respondents to the proposals to harmonise ATOL with the scope of the EU package travel regulations. I noticed that during proceedings on the Vehicle Technology and Aviation Bill, evidence given by the group director of consumers and markets at the CAA stated:
“There are a number of important and welcome developments from”
the Bill
“which will be good for UK consumers. First, the directive makes it much clearer what the definition of a package is.”––[Official Report, Vehicle Technology and Aviation Public Bill Committee, 14 March 2017; c. 63, Q143.]
I hope that the House will forgive my mentioning that in detail. I do so simply because of my experience of having argued the concept of what a package is in the courts of this country throughout my career at the Bar. The Bill has wide support in the industry.
I wish to make one more point, which is simply to note the educating effect of tourism. We are of course leaving the EU, but we are not turning our back on Europe or ceasing to be a European country—I will not make more detailed comments. As all Members will appreciate, travelling to a new country and appreciating a new culture is one of the most educating and enlightening things an individual can undertake. We will want people from this country to be able to expand their horizons throughout the EU, as indeed we will want people from the EU to be able to come here. West Oxfordshire has a plethora of tourist attractions, such as Blenheim palace, the great stately house; Cotswold wildlife park; and Crocodiles of the World, which is an excellent attraction that I invite all hon. Members to visit—I have been. We have many picturesque villages throughout west Oxfordshire, including Bampton, of “Downton Abbey” fame.
I have gone on at some length. The House will probably realise by now that this Bill has my full support, and I urge Members to give it its Second Reading.
Patricia Gibson (North Ayrshire and Arran) (SNP)
Let me take this opportunity to welcome you to your place, Madam Deputy Speaker. I want to thank the Minister for his summary of the Bill’s provisions. The decision to update the ATOL scheme to provide more protection to travellers when they go on holiday, and to align it with enhancements to the EU and UK travel package regulations that predate people booking their holidays on the internet, is of course to be welcomed. We need to ensure that the public are protected by updating the UK’s financial protection scheme for holidaymakers. It is important to keep pace with the innovation in the online travel market and ensure that appropriate protection is in place, regardless of whether consumers choose to book online or on the high street. Of course we want to make it easier for UK companies when selling holidays across Europe, and they will be able to trade under the UK’s ATOL scheme as opposed to the regimes in each country they sell to. The measures in this Bill are important as we need it to cover new digital business models and modern consumer purchasing models.
We know that more than three quarters of consumers booked their holidays online last year. The EU package travel directive of 2015, applicable from 1 January 2018, extends the protections beyond traditional package holidays organised by tour operators and also gives clear protections to 120 million consumers across the EU who book other forms of combined travel. The directive is expected to reduce detriment to consumers by about €430 million per year across the EU, and reduce administrative costs and burdens on business.
Passenger rights have been enshrined in EU law, and consumers and businesses deserve to know, need to know and are keen to know how Brexit will affect them. They seek cast-iron assurances that the rights and protections of travellers will not be diminished after the UK leaves the EU, and I know that the Minister understands that.
Existing EU directives mean that UK passengers are currently entitled to a number of benefits if a journey is cancelled or delayed. Such protections give consumers some peace of mind when they are booking travel. Since the EU legislated to provide a comprehensive system of air passenger rights in 2004, the increased awareness of those rights and the chance to complain or appeal has led to a significant increase in the number of people doing so. That is a good thing, because it democratises the market and gives consumers proper routes of redress—the Minister mentioned the importance of intervening when the market has failed.
It should be noted that there are examples of court cases that have ruled on the circumstances in which airlines must pay compensation. Appeals against some of those judgments have demonstrated the reluctance of some airlines to pay out compensation unless the legal position is made absolutely clear. The rights of passengers must be clear and they must be upheld; otherwise, there will be a detrimental impact on passenger numbers and, ultimately, jobs will be put at risk.
Brexit clearly poses challenges in respect of passenger rights. It is essential that the UK develops its own system of passenger rights and compensation in the aviation sector, and there must be clarity on how such a system will affect non-UK airlines and passengers. Will we have such a system in the UK, post-Brexit? A system will clearly be required, but we, and non-UK airlines and passengers, need to know how similar it will be to current arrangements. In the post-Brexit world, what is to become of all the EU protections currently in place? Will they continue under the UK Government? What reassurances can UK passengers be given? The Minister referred to the “minimal impact” on consumers and business post-Brexit, but more detail is obviously needed, and it is keenly awaited.
The collapse of Lowcostholidays was a stark reminder of the importance of the EU package travel directive, which offers consumers protection in case of insolvency. Will the Minister give due consideration to the points I have raised and update the House as soon as it is practical to do so? He spoke of the need to revisit the relevant consumer protection as technology advances, but the question at the forefront of everybody’s mind is what will happen post-Brexit.
Mr John Hayes
I welcome you to the Chair, Madam Deputy Speaker.
The hon. Lady invited me to respond as quickly as possible, so I shall respond now. The reform of ATOL and the package directive will bring the arrangements throughout Europe more into line than they have ever been before. It is imperative that we protect consumers through regulation in the way I have described, so it is inconceivable that, post-Brexit, we will not want to reflect the protections that already exist here and that we see increasingly abroad.
Patricia Gibson
I thank the Minister for his response. The clear guarantees that businesses and consumers are looking for must not be eroded after Brexit. If we have guarantees and the Minister can give us further detail on them, passengers and businesses will be reassured.
Clause 2 will give the Secretary of State power to reform the ATOL scheme and the air travel trust fund, with only an affirmative resolution by each House of Parliament required. Any changes that the Secretary of State wishes to introduce to the scheme must be preceded by a full consultation and an impact assessment that allows for proper scrutiny of the proposals.
Although we absolutely welcome the move to update the ATOL scheme to ensure that a maximum number of travellers are protected when they go on holiday and to align it with the EU travel directive 2015, passenger rights have been enshrined in EU law and consumers and businesses deserve clarity on how Brexit will affect them. The UK Government must provide more flesh on the bones and explain how such rights will be written into our laws. The updating of the scheme is to be welcomed, but the post-Brexit world poses a range of challenges on which consumers and airline business require clarity. I forward to hearing more detail from the Secretary of State in due course.
Several hon. Members rose—
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)
I call Rachel Maclean to make her maiden speech.
Rachel Maclean (Redditch) (Con)
Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. It is a great pleasure to follow the hon. Member for North Ayrshire and Arran (Patricia Gibson).
It is a great privilege to make my maiden speech in this debate as the representative of Redditch. Improving consumer rights is a priority for the Government, and the Bill is needed as a response to the change in how people book their holidays, as more and more people use the flexibility of the internet to book their breaks. I know that the hard-working people in Redditch will welcome the protections when they book their well-earned summer holidays.
The Redditch constituency that I am proud to represent has a proud tradition of returning women MPs to this place. If there is one woman to whom I owe the greatest debt, it is my daughter, Ruth, who at the age of 14 said to me, “Mum, why aren’t there more women MPs? You ought to stand!” I replied, “I will try to find a few moments in between running my own business, taking your three brothers to football and scouts, washing your school uniform and supervising your homework.” Nine years later, I am honoured to have been elected by the people of Redditch.
Redditch is a new town, originally built to accommodate people from a rapidly expanding Birmingham. As another Brummie newcomer to Redditch, I am following in their footsteps. Other hon. Members have extolled the virtues of their wonderful constituencies—the natural wonders up and down the country—and I only wish I had time to visit them all. However, most people in our nation live in towns, and we must remember that people need beauty in their lives, whether they live in the countryside or in towns. I am proud that in Redditch any student of town planning would find the best example in the country of a well laid out, modern urban landscape. Developments such as Church Hill, Matchborough, Winyates, Lodge Park and Woodrow have all been designed to allow maximum amounts of green space, quiet streets and traffic-free highways.
At the heart of the town is a lovely, natural oasis: the Arrow valley lake and country park, which comprises 900 acres of green space and is packed with wildlife rarely seen in an urban setting—although unfortunately no crocodiles—and also provides a focal point for our community events. To the west the modern shopping centre and the historical centre of the town exist harmoniously. One can understand why so many people wanted to move to Redditch to live, work and bring up their families.
Along with our excellence in town planning, we are not without sites of natural beauty. The constituency includes some beautiful areas of rural Worcestershire, such as the villages of Feckenham, Inkberrow, Hanbury and the Lenches. Hanbury church, which I visited this past weekend with the local ramblers group and my dog, is said to be where the bells on “The Archers” radio show are rung. I am mindful of the diverse challenges I face in representing the issues throughout the whole constituency, including a brownfield-first policy for new developments, broadband provision and farming.
Redditch is also a great centre of enterprise and business, with a wealth of manufacturing companies, although it is particularly famous for its needles. At one point, Redditch made 90% of the world’s needles, and needle-making still occurs there today. In preparing for this speech, I read a play that Members may have seen, “This House”, in which my predecessor Hal Miller features. In one scene, he complains that, despite his envisaging his constituency as one of
“meadows and steeples and farmyards and haystacks”
upon his election he found a somewhat different reality, angrily declaring to the Whips:
“You can’t find a haystack in Redditch because of all the needles!”
Redditch has been fortunate to have had a number of formidable MPs among its previous champions. I pay tribute to my predecessor, Karen Lumley, who sadly retired due to ill health after seven years of dedicated service. She was an MP who fought on behalf of her constituents for the Alexandra hospital, for apprenticeships, for mental health, and for fairer funding in schools. People will remember her for that and with great affection for her ability to bring additional colour to the House, with her varied and unique choices of hair colour. I promise Members that the next time they see me I will still have the same hair colour as I have today—we could not say that about Karen. I would also like to acknowledge Jacqui Smith from the Opposition—the Member for Redditch before Karen—for her great service to the country as our first female Home Secretary.
One issue dominated my general election campaign: our local hospital, the Alexandra hospital, known as the Alex. I want to reassure my constituents that the Alex and its service to patients and their families is my No. 1 priority as their Member of Parliament. I raised that and the issue of the Worcestershire acute trust that runs the hospital on my very first day in the Chamber, and I will continue, again and again and again, to fight to protect and strengthen local health services.
When I reflect on the challenges facing the Alex I am reminded of why I strove to enter Parliament for some years. The Alex hospital, like all our public services, depends on a strong economy. It relies on the taxes that ordinary people pay, and we should never forget that or where those taxes come from: the wages earned by people in jobs created by their employers—the small business owners who have created 2.9 million more jobs since 2010. For the very first time in my life, my wages are paid by the taxpayer. I do not take that lightly, because I know the sacrifice needed to create that money. Before I entered Parliament I spent my career working in teams that started and grew small businesses in the digital technology sector, as a small business owner and employer. One of those businesses started small, but is now medium-sized and is Britain’s leading publisher of technology content.
Over the years, I have created many jobs for people that enabled them to fulfil their potential and build a secure future for themselves and their families. It has not been easy. I have been through the devastating failures that many entrepreneurs face, losing my home and livelihood before picking myself up and starting again. Anyone who builds a business will recognise that journey. My four children learned at an early age not to ask their mum for pocket money. They learned that we could not go on holiday, that their clothes came from charity shops, that they could not have new toys, phones or trainers, and that their mum and dad did not sleep at night because they were worrying about how to pay the wages of their staff.
Businesses are not some abstract concept. They are built by people from all walks of life up and down this great nation of ours: people who differ from one another in many ways, but who have one thing in common—the desire to work hard, take a risk and create a better life for their children than the one that they had. I want everyone in Redditch to have that opportunity. There are people who feel overlooked and left behind where deprivation and poverty exist and where communities struggle with issues of physical and mental health. I therefore welcome the commitment in the Gracious Speech to mental health, to investment in our national health service and to affordable housing. I look forward to working across the local community in Redditch to tackle mental health issues proactively and make sure that there is help on the ground where it is needed. I shall work with organisations such as the Sandycroft Centre, which offers a wide range of services to support vulnerable families as well as many other people in the town.
Our Prime Minister said in the House that not every problem in society could be solved by an Act of Parliament. I agree, because many problems are solved by the diligence, commitment and sacrifice of ordinary citizens such as the people behind the 275 new businesses that have started in Redditch since 2010. It is our job in Parliament to provide a solid economic foundation so that those people can do what they do best: building businesses; creating jobs; changing our country. I am grateful for the opportunity to make my maiden speech in this debate. I look forward greatly to supporting the Second Reading of the Bill and other important pieces of legislation in the coming months. I will never forget the privilege of speaking up in this House for the wonderful people of Redditch.
Mr Gavin Shuker (Luton South) (Lab/Co-op)
I am extremely grateful, Madam Deputy Speaker, for the opportunity to speak in this debate. May I begin by commending the new hon. Member for Redditch (Rachel Maclean) on an erudite and passionate speech about the place that she represents? I am certain that if she finds a way to bring that passion to every issue that we debate in the House, while keeping in mind the constituents about whom she clearly cares a great deal, she will make an impressive impact on this Parliament. I noted the news about her predecessor, Karen Lumley. I have known Karen since she came to Parliament at the same time as me, and I am certain that the whole House sends her its best wishes. If the hon. Lady carries on in the vein of her immediate predecessor and her predecessor before that, Jacqui Smith, she will achieve great success in the House.
I served in the last Parliament as a member of the Women and Equalities Committee—a fantastic institution that we are rightly going to put on a statutory basis from tomorrow. The hon. Lady may wish to turn her attention to our most recent report, “Women in House of Commons after the 2020 election”. I hope that it is not entirely redundant, given the actions in 2017.
If it is in order, Madam Deputy Speaker—and I look forward to your guidance—may I welcome you to your position in the Chair? Opposition Members have benefited greatly from your wisdom, friendly arm around the shoulder and occasional quite straightforward direction in your previous role as Chief Whip. I note from those discussions that your leather whip has not made it to the Chamber, as it did to the Whips Office. I shall check the Chair to see if a new place has been installed to store it, but I wish you every success, Madam Deputy Speaker, in your new role.
We are here to debate the measures introduced by the Minister. The changes are welcome. Given the various models for selling flights and package holidays, the divergence created by the internet and innovations in the market, it is right that we seek to comply with those changes and bring about better consumer protections. The irony that we have debated this in the previous Parliament is not something on which I seek to reflect at length. However, as a Member of Parliament who represents two FTSE 100 companies with direct links to the travel and tourism industry, easyJet and TUI in my constituency, where I also represent Luton airport, there is a great irony at the heart of the Bill, which could be misunderstood as a piece of legislation that is linked to our future relationships under Brexit and is about giving Ministers greater flexibility to handle that. That is one aspect, but the genesis of the Bill is as a piece of legislation that seeks to comply with EU directives, including the package travel directive, which seeks to standardise and give greater consumer protection to the 500 million or so people in the single market. Compliance with that is a welcome measure, and it is right that we should make parliamentary time available for it.
The measure must be complied with by 1 January 2018, and it will apply by 1 July 2018. However, the key date that is not discussed in the Chamber and which is the most important is 31 March 2019, only 15 months later, as that is the day on which we will leave the European Union. Despite the best intentions of the Minister, the Department and the Government, they cannot yet tell us the framework for the measure after that date, so everything we debate today is essentially on a temporary footing.
I raised my concerns directly in the last Parliament, as I was fortunate enough to be granted the Adjournment debate that first put on record in Hansard the concerns of the whole industry in the past year about aviation and leaving the European Union. We need a comprehensive air services agreement that not only allows for consumer protections, but which is the most basic starting point for the industry in the first place, allowing us to take off in one place and land in another, not just in the European Union. Even our relationship with the United States is governed through the European Union. This is a significant piece of work.
Britain is leaving the EU and it is incumbent on the Government to bring forward a Brexit deal for approval by this House. But, however people voted, they did not vote to weaken consumer protections, to add cost and complexity to UK operators or to find themselves in a situation where they cannot get the flights that they wish for. The directive being enacted today has significant advantages for UK aviation and consumers, and I very much hope that we will take that spirit forward by seeking a comprehensive air services agreement that includes the measures in the package travel directive. Our membership of the European Union has had other advantages that I hope we will replicate as closely as possible and enact. For example, the most recent changes to the ability to roam with a mobile phone will make a significant difference to many travellers over the summer.
The alternative is that laid out for airlines and travel agents inside the single market, whereby businesses outside the EU will be required to comply with the different rules of each member state to which they sell. That is opposed to the situation issued by this directive and the Bill, whereby each member state recognises the jurisdiction of the others. That reduces risk, complexity and cost. Will the Minister lay out the Government’s intentions regarding the measures being enacted today? It would be a great disservice to UK operators if they were bound by the different regimes across 27 member states having spent only 15 months covered by the protections given by the provisions in the Bill.
In answer to the hon. Member for North Ayrshire and Arran (Patricia Gibson), the Minister said that it was inconceivable that we would not want to uphold these consumer guarantees. But, with respect, the reciprocal is not within our gift and, therefore, any negotiations must seek to include this newly enacted settlement.
One further issue raised in the meat of the Bill is that of consumer protection. Will we transpose and adopt the promises of EU regulation 261, which provides compensation when flights are significantly delayed or cancelled? I would appreciate it if the Minister could say a word about that. On the comprehensive air services agreement, does he agree that the most important thing is to try to change as little as possible, given that UK airlines are planning and blocking flights that will take off—or not take off, dependent on the deal—to other EU member states after 31 March 2019? We should seek to get as much stability in the industry as quickly as possible.
Mike Kane (Wythenshawe and Sale East) (Lab)
My hon. Friend is making an extraordinarily powerful point about the importance of aviation to our economy. Manchester airport is in my constituency. Does he agree that aviation is unique because it does not have World Trade Organisation rules to fall back on, and that it is imperative that the Government secure a deal quickly?
Mr Shuker
My hon. Friend pre-empts my point; we are working from the same page. As aviation is not covered by WTO rules, it would be quite conventional to have a separate stand-alone air services agreement with the European Union. It is my view that we should try to bring that about now before the meat of the major deal to come, not least because aviation is governed in a different way, but also because establishing those links is generally viewed as the prerequisite to any future trade deal.
In conclusion, the Bill is welcome and brings forward provisions that we all want for consumers and our constituents, but more must be said and done on the issue during this Parliament. The Minister will be acutely aware that he will be judged not on the passage of the Bill, but on the content of any future deal that covers these issues.
Vicky Ford (Chelmsford) (Con)
It is a great pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Luton South (Mr Shuker), who cares passionately about Luton airport in his constituency, and to follow my hon. Friend the Member for Redditch (Rachel Maclean), who has just given an outstanding maiden speech. I thank her so much.
In a modern and outward-looking Britain, it is significant that the first piece of legislation in this new Parliament is a Bill making it easier for consumers—our constituents— to travel overseas and for people from other countries to travel to Britain. It is also significant that this first Bill is about consumer protection, because this Government believe that we should put people first.
The ATOL system offers protection to holidaymakers if their tour operator goes bust. The UK is proud of having had the system in place since the 1970s. It is robust consumer protection that gives confidence to people booking their holidays and, therefore, contributes to our vibrant travel markets. The system supports the economy—not only the destinations to which people go, but also our local tourism industry. I am particularly thinking about the 800 residents of Chelmsford who work at Stansted airport. It is important for their jobs that we continue to have a vibrant holiday market.
Although holidays are always meant to be the happiest time of year, that happiness so quickly turns into a nightmare if there is a problem with a tour operator. Last summer, 27,000 British travellers found themselves overseas when the company, Lowcostholidays, collapsed. Another 110,000 British consumers had booked their holidays through that operator and did not know what the future would hold. Lowcostholidays had, of course, moved its location from Britain to Spain, so it was no longer ATOL-protected. That reminds us exactly how important it is to look at the consumer protection we offer people buying from British-based companies and that we offer British consumers who buy from companies based in other countries. That is why the EU countries agreed new changes to the package travel directive in 2015, requiring all European countries to have ATOL-type protection. The bit of law we are discussing today will implement that decision.
In the European Parliament, the committee that looks at such issues is the Committee on the Internal Market and Consumer Protection, because consumers are at the heart of the market. As the person who chaired that committee, I chaired the negotiations on the package travel directive. It is important that we ensure that the measure is implemented equally across all of Europe, otherwise we could find that some countries bring in a different system. There is an important difference in that ATOL membership will now be based on whether or not a company is based in Britain, as opposed to whether it just sells into Britain.
As colleagues have said, another important part of the legislation was updating the guarantee system so that it is fit for purpose in a digital age. If someone buys their flight from the wonderful Stansted airport, they will probably click on the airline operator. They will then click through from the airline operator to buy their hotel and then on again to buy their car rental. That might feel like buying a package to some of us, but it was not covered under the old rules in the package travel directive. I welcome the Minister’s work on modernising the measures, which will ensure that those click-throughs are now covered by the ATOL protection.
However, we had many other discussions in those detailed negotiations. For example, should business travellers get the same protection as consumer travellers? That is where we have tended to have a bit of a difference between Conservative Members and Labour Members. My excellent hon. Friend the Member for Redditch has just explained the challenges for small businesses, and an extra cost burden may be unaffordable for them, so we were concerned that they should not automatically have to pay the extra cost of ATOL protection. That is the sort of discussion I hope we will now be able to look at in more detail.
There were also discussions about whether the package should cover add-ons. For example, if someone gets to their holiday destination and decides to buy excursions, or if they bought them before they went, should those be included in the package? We had a lot of representations from small businesses saying, “No, please don’t put these in the package, because it will add bureaucracy and reduce consumer choice.” While I am absolutely passionate about the need to provide consumer protection, we also need to take a step back from time to time and to be on the side of consumer choice and of not adding additional, unnecessary costs for businesses.
In a post-Brexit Britain, our consumers will still want to purchase goods and services from those in other countries, and it will be important to continue to engage with other countries—especially our nearest neighbours in Europe—on issues such as consumer protection. It is important in the Brexit negotiations that we focus on getting a deal that works for consumers as well as businesses, because a vast range of consumer rights are embedded in EU law, on issues to do with not only holidaymakers but misleading advertising, unfair contract terms and the right to seek redress. Crucially, there is also really important legislation about the safety and standards of food. It appears that the tragic fire at Grenville Tower may have started because of an electrical fault in a domestic appliance, which is a brutal reminder of how important it is that we maintain high standards for consumer products.
Today’s consumers are changing, and they embrace innovation. Markets are also constantly evolving, and we are constantly getting new products. Of course, we also have the digital revolution. We therefore need to be constantly working on making sure that our consumer protection, consumer laws and consumer standards are fit for purpose.
The excellent consumer organisation Which? has sent us all a briefing on what it would like from the Brexit negotiations, and it makes a strong case that the UK should continue to work with our European neighbours on consumer standards, on measures to counter fraud and on developing and sharing best practice. In particular, it recommends that we should at an early stage reach agreement on continued co-operation with such agencies as the European Medicines Agency, the European Food Safety Authority, the European Chemicals Agency and the European Aviation Safety Authority. We should listen very carefully to what our consumer organisations are saying.
As the hon. Member for Luton South mentioned, there are other issues that affect holidaymakers, such as the need to negotiate landing rights. There is also an issue about making sure that any deals about how we use our mobile phones overseas are covered. The UK was a great champion of removing expensive mobile phone roaming charges, which put such a huge burden on consumers. However, other issues, such as the motor insurance directive, have not been perfect for the UK; indeed, that directive is causing great uncertainty in the motorsports industry in the UK, and we will need to continue to engage on that.
When the Prime Minister talked about our offer on EU citizens, I was pleased to hear her offer to keep the European health insurance card, which makes it easier for people to get medical care when they travel across Europe. That is a very generous offer from the UK to the rest of Europe, and we should welcome it.
To wrap up, maintaining consumer confidence is key to a modern, dynamic economy. As we seek to leave the EU and to create a new, deep economic partnership with those across the channel, it is important that we continue to stand on the side of consumers and that we find new ways to co-operate with our neighbours and those across the world who seek to make sure that consumers are fairly protected.
Laura Smith (Crewe and Nantwich) (Lab)
May I offer you my congratulations on your new role, Madam Deputy Speaker?
First, I would like to acknowledge my immediate predecessor, Edward Timpson, who served the previous Government as Minister of State responsible for children and families. Edward was known for his desire to improve the care system for vulnerable children.
I would also like to pay tribute to the late MP Mrs Gwyneth Dunwoody, who was, and is to this day, regarded as one of the greatest parliamentarians to have sat in this House. I intend to serve the diverse communities in my constituency with the same unwavering tenacity as Gwyneth did during her 25 years’ service.
It is a source of great pride to have been elected to represent the constituency where I was born and raised, and where I continue to live with my family today. As the granddaughter of a Scottish miner, I was brought up on a diet of working-class values. During my childhood, our family had real times of struggle, but that tough resilience and determination engrained in my roots has always driven us forward. I know what it is like to grow up living with loved ones who are plagued by mental illness, and I know what it is like to be a single mother with a modest income, struggling to make ends meet. I can promise today that I will never, ever forget where I have come from.
As a teacher and a parent, my love for education will not come as a surprise. Before my journey into politics, I was known for leading the fairer funding campaign in Crewe and Nantwich, which I am still committed to. I stand here today for the children in my constituency, and I will continue to prioritise their education and my children’s education—the future of this country’s education—for as long as I am in the House.
Nantwich is a picturesque market town, home to the world’s biggest cheese awards, and we will, in fact, be celebrating the best of cheese later this month. We are also proud of our annual jazz and blues festival, which attracts more than 40,000 revellers to the town.
Needing little introduction, Crewe is synonymous with railways. At its height, Crewe Works employed 20,000 workers, but that has now fallen to fewer than 1,000. Crewe deserves investment, and I welcome the commitment in the Queen’s Speech to bring forward legislation to deliver the next phase of High Speed 2, as this will undoubtedly benefit Crewe.
The surrounding areas of Crewe and Nantwich are scattered with villages steeped in local tradition, and it is important that the people of Shavington, Willaston, Wistaston, Wybunbury and Haslington know that I will work hard to support their communities. These places are all united by the hard-working, community-spirited, salt-of-the-earth, proud northern folk who live and work in them. It is the nature of my hard-working constituency that I want to focus on in this, my first speech. I want to pay tribute to the British workforce. Every single one of Britain’s 31 million workers ought to be recognised and celebrated as the real wealth creators in this country. Without them, this country would grind to a halt.
Unemployment levels in Crewe and Nantwich are lower than average for the north-west, and lower than the UK average. Yet, food banks in my constituency provided more than 50,000 meals last year, and almost 4,000 children are living in poverty. These are not mere statistics for me to be concerned about; each and every one is nothing less than a travesty. This reflects the changing nature of poverty in the UK. There are now more people in working poverty than in out-of-work poverty. It would seem that in 21st-century Britain work simply does not pay in many cases.
I have just a few more facts for you. More than one in five workers earn less than the living wage, and more than half of working households have seen no improvement in their disposable income in more than a decade. Under-25s are not even entitled to the Government’s national living wage, which is in itself inadequate and falls short of a real living wage. Full-time working lone parents are often the worst affected. Having been a single mother myself, I know how tough and isolating it can be. Forty-seven years after the Equal Pay Act, the gender pay gap still stands at wholly unacceptable levels. This inequality follows women into their retirement as lower pay translates into lower occupational pensions. Instead of addressing this, the previous Chancellor prioritised changes to the state pension that have shattered the retirement plans of women born in the 1950s, with devastating consequences. I stand with the WASPI women fighting against this injustice. We should also celebrate the fact that there are now a record number of female MPs in Parliament by acting finally to eradicate gender inequality in the workplace.
We have a duty to address all forms of poverty as a priority, but the fact that we have in-work poverty in the fifth richest country in the world is shameful, and it is a sad indictment of our economic policy. Work should be an escape route from poverty. It is wrong to claim that we are “all in this together”. CEOs can earn in two and a half days what it takes the average worker an entire year to earn. I also cannot help but wonder whether action on poverty pay might be addressed more urgently if we in this House had to do our jobs on a worker’s wage. Is it any wonder that so many people are infuriated by the hypocrisy of MPs receiving inflation-busting pay rises themselves while voting to cap the pay of dedicated professionals who work in our public services? If this Government want to show the UK workforce that they value them, they can—they can start by giving them the pay rise and financial security that they deserve. Actions speak louder than words, and I will continue to hold the Government to account on this issue. In the words of Nelson Mandela,
“As long as poverty, injustice and gross inequality persist in our world, none of us can truly rest.”
Fellow Members, I have no intention of resting.
Paul Masterton (East Renfrewshire) (Con)
Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker, for giving me the opportunity to speak in this debate. It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Crewe and Nantwich (Laura Smith) in her powerful maiden speech.
With a three-year-old and a one-year-old at home, the thought of enduring a plane ride to sunnier climes on a family trip is somewhat terrifying, so I suspect it may be a little while before I will be in a position to benefit from the additional protections this Bill looks to bring into force. Nevertheless, I welcome its Second Reading.
It is an honour and a privilege to be standing here as the Member for East Renfrewshire, but I must confess that I committed the ultimate sin as a successful candidate at the count: I forgot to thank my wife, who was standing a mere six feet away. So if I could indulge myself for a moment, I would like to put on record for ever more my thanks and love to my wife, Heather, and our two children, Daisy and Charlie.
I would also like to start by paying tribute to my predecessor, Kirsten Oswald. Kirsten was a diligent and conscientious MP who did superb work as her party’s spokesperson for veterans. She achieved a great deal in her short time in this place with much patience and charm, and I wish her and her beautiful family well for the future.
I would like to give special mention to the last Conservative Member for the seat, Allan Stewart, who sadly passed away in December. I know how much it would have meant to Allan to have seen East Ren turn blue again, and he and his wife Susie were in all our thoughts on election night.
Madam Deputy Speaker, despite what other new Members may have led you to believe, it is of course East Renfrewshire that is the most beautiful constituency in the land. It is a beauty found not only in its famous green spaces but in its people. East Renfrewshire is home to Scotland’s largest Jewish community. It has a significant Muslim community, a growing Sikh community, and a strong Christian community. It is home to people of all faiths and none—but the key thing is that none of that matters. The constituency is a fine example of everything a modern, open, multicultural and tolerant Britain should be. Testament to that rich diversity and community cohesion is the fact that the constituency will soon be home to the world’s first-ever joint Catholic-Jewish school in Newton Mearns.
Throughout East Renfrewshire flows an entrepreneurial spirit. From Stamperland to Eaglesham, Busby to Clarkston, home businesses are thriving. Family businesses like Valentini’s ice cream parlour in Giffnock and McLaren’s plant nurseries in Uplawmoor sit at the heart of their local communities. From small enterprises like Optimal Physio in Newton Mearns, or the Enchanted Forest children’s nursery in Thornliebank, through to household names like—appropriately for this debate—Barrhead Travel and Linn Products, ambition, aspiration, innovation and a desire to build a better future for those who follow are proud values that underpin the people I am privileged to represent.
Today’s entrepreneurs are following in a grand local tradition. In 1868, John Shanks opened a foundry in Barrhead to make brassware. In the decades that followed, he developed the bath and lavatory fittings for which his name is famous. Barrhead’s history stretches back much further, however, with the Arthurlie Cross, a stone sculpture dating back to the 9th century, rumoured to mark the grave of Arthur, King of Britons. Nearby Neilston was famed for its cotton, the industrial revolution of the 1800s seeing textile mills dominate the area, powered by the stunning Levern Water. The thread spun at Crofthead mill reached the summit of Everest, being used in the boots of the climbers on the famous British expedition in 1975. Thornliebank printworks, established by the Crum family in 1778, was one of the first smoke-free factories in the world. It has since been replaced by a business park, including a unit inhabited by two Members of the Scottish Parliament, and now myself—so I suspect there is far more hot air emanating from the site now than there was 250 years ago.
East Renfrewshire’s natural history is equally prevalent. The outskirts of the constituency provide a stunning landscape punctuated with lochs, hills, moors, woodlands and dams, and the community are rightly protective of it. It is little wonder that the constituency boasts the UK Park of the Year in Rouken Glen, and, according to the Royal Mail, the most desirable location to live in the UK, with three other spots in the top 10.
East Renfrewshire’s more recent history brings me back to this place via two Prime Ministers. Gordon Brown was born in a maternity home in Giffnock, now the site of the Orchard Park hotel; and the former Member for the constituency, the redoubtable Betty Harvie Anderson—the first lady to sit in the Speaker’s chair as Deputy Speaker—shared her first parliamentary office following her election in 1959 with none other than the then new Member for Finchley, Margaret Thatcher. So for those new Members who believe that history repeats itself, I am open to offers.
While the results of this election may not have been what those on these Benches hoped in their entirety, north of the border the picture was a little brighter. Much like indyref2, the panda jokes are dead, and I am proud to stand alongside 11 fellow Scottish Conservative faces. Together, we will continue to fight against the destructive politics of socialism and the divisive politics of nationalism. But we shall do so with an outstretched hand, not a clenched fist, because when the UK Government and the Scottish Government do come together in common cause, that partnership is capable of truly transformational change. East Renfrewshire will receive around £44 million of investment through the Glasgow region city deal for projects as diverse as a business incubation hub in Newton Mearns to a wakeboarding centre at the Dams to Darnley country park. I am not sure, Madam Deputy Speaker, if wakeboarding is high on your agenda, but I will extend an invite none the less.
The people of East Ren are renowned for their love of democracy—turnout is always among the highest in the UK—but after seven trips to the polls in just over three years my constituents need stability and for their politicians to get on and do the jobs they were elected to do. It is the Scottish Government’s inability to do just that which is one of the reasons I am here today. For my part, I will first and foremost dedicate myself to improving the lives of my constituents and assisting them when life deals them a difficult hand or they just need someone to listen. East Renfrewshire’s leafy reputation hides real pockets of severe deprivation and daily struggle, with people who feel left behind and forgotten. It is those people who look to this place and to each of us to demonstrate the good that Government can do, and we must not let them down.
The Conservative party must remember what it is for: extending the ladder of social mobility while providing a robust safety net for those who make the climb. This Government must remember that just as we on these Benches believe that anyone from any background can reach as far and high as their talents and efforts will take them, so too must we acknowledge anyone can fall on hard times. One of the giants of Scottish Conservatism, Teddy Taylor, coined the phrase “tenement Tories”. It meant something very simple—that Conservatism must offer an aspirational vision to all. I am here to represent the people who, as he put it, “don’t all live in big hooses”.
The 2015 general election was the point at which the Scottish National party was at its peak—dominant and arrogant. It claimed ownership of my flag and of my voice, but it did not speak for me and it did not own Scotland. And so, the day after that election, I joined the Scottish Conservative and Unionist party. In doing so I made a promise to myself that I would do everything in my power to ensure that my children grew up in a Scotland where their opportunities are unconstrained and their ambition never frowned upon; where their talents and potential would not go unfulfilled; where they are never made to feel ashamed of who they are or how they vote; and, yes, where they remain part of our wonderful United Kingdom. Standing here today may be only the first step towards me keeping that promise to myself, to my children and to families and individuals right across East Renfrewshire and Scotland, but let me assure this House that it is a promise I have absolutely no intention of breaking.
Alan Brown (Kilmarnock and Loudoun) (SNP)
I welcome you to the Chair, Madam Deputy Speaker. It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for East Renfrewshire (Paul Masterton). It has been great to hear his and other maiden speeches, which have brought back diversity to what would otherwise have been a one-sided debate. I gently point out to him, however, that the irony of a Conservative Member mentioning divisive nationalism is not lost on us. On the question of the Government getting on with the day job, we are debating this Bill because they actually did not get on with their day job, and chose instead to call an early general election that was not needed.
As a Back Bencher, I find it frustrating when the Chair has to apply a time limit to cut speeches short, leading to frantic scoring out. I think that time limits would actually have been useful for some of tonight’s speakers, because some hon. Members have managed to speak at amazing length about a Bill that is only four clauses long. I will try to be a bit briefer.
This is a small but welcome Bill, although it is perhaps indicative of the Government’s lack of strength and ambition, given that its measures were originally part of the wider Vehicle Technology and Aviation Bill. Even so, this four-clause Bill was heralded in the Queen’s Speech, which, as we all know, lacked ambition.
The air travel organisers’ licensing scheme is well known and has provided comfort to thousands of holidaymakers over the years. It has rescued people financially and literally got them home in a timely fashion. It is a fantastic scheme. As other hon. Members have said, holiday travel and booking arrangements have changed over the years, so it is only appropriate that protections change too.
The Minister was keen to say that the UK has led the way in Europe with ATOL. I do not dispute that, but over the years the European Union has also strengthened passenger rights, and it is imperative that those rights are not weakened post-Brexit. The UK Government need to provide assurances that the rights and protections of travellers will not be diminished after the UK leaves the EU.
In fact, it is the 2015 EU package travel directive, which will be applicable from 1 January 2018, that is the driver for this Bill. The fact that three quarters of those who booked holidays last year did so online highlights the need for further protections. It is to be welcomed that protections will now extend beyond traditional package holidays. The new directive applies to three sorts of travel combinations: pre-arranged packages; customised packages; and linked travel arrangements.
I also welcome the fact that clear protection will be provided to 120 million consumers across the EU who book other forms of combined travel. A further advantage is that the measure is expected to reduce detriment to consumers across the EU by about €430 million a year, while at the same time reducing the administrative burden on businesses. It is suggested that compliance costs for traders will reduce from €11 to €8 per package.
Yet again, we have to be grateful to the EU for taking on big businesses, including the airlines, and extending consumer rights to meet modern travel needs. Since the EU legislated to provide a comprehensive system of air passenger rights in 2004, increased awareness of those rights, and of the ability to complain and appeal, has led to a significant increase in the number of people doing so.
That has been supplemented by a number of court cases that have ruled on the circumstances in which airlines must pay compensation. Appeals against some of those judgments have meant that some airlines have been reluctant to pay compensation until the legal position is absolutely clear. There is therefore still industry resistance to the current compensation schemes. I repeat that it is absolutely vital that the UK does not weaken any legislation in the future.
Patrick Grady (Glasgow North) (SNP)
I welcome you to the Chair, Madam Deputy Speaker, and congratulate the hon. Member for East Renfrewshire (Paul Masterton) on a fluent maiden speech. I am sure it will not be the last such speech he gives in this House.
Does my hon. Friend agree that this Bill demonstrates why we need Government assurances about the impact of Brexit? There are so many uncertainties about so many aspects of consumer protection and its impact on individuals’ daily lives. If we had had such assurances and clarity this time last year, perhaps we would not be in this situation.
Alan Brown
I completely agree with my hon. Friend. There seems to be great reticence on the part of the UK to come out and give the necessary cast-iron guarantees. We are a year down the line since the vote, but we have not moved forward in many regards. Too often we keep hearing how everything will be okay, but we need to start seeing some flesh on the bones.
We still do not know when the UK will develop its own system of passenger rights and compensation in the aviation sector post-Brexit, how similar that will be to the current arrangements and, importantly, how non-UK airlines and passengers will be affected. That brings me back to the point that we need a clear guarantee from the UK Government.
On a slightly different theme, Scotland has a large number of regional airports, many of which are completely reliant on low-cost airlines and outbound tourism to survive and be an economic success. Recent reports have stated that Prestwick airport in my neighbouring constituency is vulnerable to Brexit, given the number of low-cost airlines there and the type of passenger traffic, which is mainly outbound. Despite the fact that the Scottish Government have voted to reduce air passenger duty by 50%, which they hoped to use as a mechanism to grow the number of routes operating out of Prestwick, Ryanair has confirmed that, because of the uncertainty surrounding Brexit and the open skies agreement, it will not expand further at the airport. That is a cause for concern with regard to local jobs in my area.
The International Air Transport Association predicts that just a 12% reduction in sterling would result in a 5% decline in outbound travel from airports. Since the EU referendum, sterling is down 25%, so it has become even more vital for Prestwick airport that we continue within the open skies agreement and maintain outbound passenger numbers. It is incumbent on the UK Government to give an unequivocal guarantee that the UK will stay in the single aviation market after we are taken out of the EU.
Remaining in the open skies agreement—the single aviation market—is vital to ensuring that our airports remain economically viable, and low-cost airlines are vital for regional airports to be a commercial success. EasyJet is setting up a separate operation outwith the UK to ensure it can continue to fly without restrictions after the UK leaves the EU, which is in no small part due to the lack of clarity over the aviation agreement that the UK will eventually come up with.
It is clear that, despite the mantra that everything will be okay when we leave the EU, or even better than the current arrangements, the risks are materialising in front of us. It is clearly worrying if airlines are finding other EU member states a more attractive proposition, and the UK Government need to think seriously about how they are going to counteract that problem for our regional airports. The UK Government really must provide clarity and certainty sooner rather than later.
Clause 2 gives the Transport Secretary the power to reform ATOL and the air travel trust fund using only the affirmative procedure in each House of Parliament. The UK Government need to provide assurances that any changes that the Secretary of State makes to the ATOL scheme through secondary legislation will be preceded by a proper consultation of members of the industry and consumer groups, and by an appropriate impact assessment.
We welcome the Bill but, as I said in an intervention on the Minister, we are concerned about the status of legislation on laser pens and, as the shadow Transport Secretary said, drones. It is imperative that the Government move quickly to provide reassurances on those matters.
Steve Double (St Austell and Newquay) (Con)
It is a pleasure to be called to speak in this debate by you, Madam Deputy Speaker, in your first session in the Chair. I congratulate you on your new role. It is also a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Kilmarnock and Loudoun (Alan Brown). I also congratulate the hon. Members who have made their maiden speeches today—we have heard some excellent ones.
One of Cornwall’s earliest tourists was the spirited and adventurous Mary Kelynack, a Cornish fishwife who in 1851 travelled to London to visit the Great Exhibition. That took her longer than some say it should have done, but then again she did walk the 600 miles there and back, and she was 84 years old. At the time, Cornish travellers did not have many other options. Some will try to give the impression that little has changed when it comes to travelling out of Cornwall today, but that would give the wrong impression because, thanks to the support of this Government, Cornwall is enjoying record investment in our transport infrastructure.
If Mary had made her journey today, she would have had several options. She could have travelled by road, in which case she would have seen the soon to be completed upgrade of the A30, with the dualling at Temple that will be opened in just two weeks’ time. My hon. Friend the Member for Hereford and South Herefordshire (Jesse Norman), the roads Minister, is in the Chamber, and I acknowledge and welcome the Government’s announcement today of their support for the next phase of the upgrade of the vital A30, the main road through Cornwall.
Mary could have travelled on one of the new Great Western Railway’s bullet-style Hitachi trains, the first of which we saw in Cornwall just over a week ago—a £146 million investment in our railways which will be fully rolled out next year. Or she could have taken one of the three aeroplanes a day from Newquay to London.
Karl Turner (Kingston upon Hull East) (Lab)
Riveting though the hon. Gentleman’s speech is, it has nothing to do with the Bill. Many hon. Members want to speak, so perhaps he could get to the relevant aspects of the Bill.
Steve Double
I am not sure I thank the hon. Gentleman for that intervention, but I am about to come to the very point.
Newquay airport is booming. Passenger numbers are increasing year on year, and by some measures Newquay is now regarded as the fastest growing regional airport in the country. Only recently The Independent declared Newquay the best regional airport in the country. It has regular flights to UK destinations and an increasing number of holiday destinations in Portugal and Spain. That is why I welcome the Bill.
The way in which tourists book their holidays is changing, with fewer and fewer booking the traditional package holiday by popping down to the offices of the travel agent in the town centre. In 2016, 76% of the UK’s 20 million holidaymakers booked their holidays or travel online—a staggering increase even compared with recent years. There was a partial reform of the regulations in 2012, but I am pleased that the Department of Transport firmly believes that more should be done to protect consumers. Holiday providers, market options and ever more varied flexi-packages change, and with that comes the confusion of not knowing whether ATOL cover applies, depending on where the holiday or travel provider is based and what terms and conditions apply in the event of business failure. The Bill seeks to rectify that.
The Government has said that they will
“harmonise ATOL with the scope and definitions of the EU Package Travel Directive. It was widely agreed that this will bring greater clarity and protection for consumers and help to level the playing field for businesses selling similar holidays.”
I welcome this key development and note that the Bill also seeks to build in future-proofing so that as the packages on offer—and where and how they are sold—change, they will come under the new legislation.
The travel industry has seen enormous change in just a few years, and the Bill seeks to reflect that so that travellers and the industry are served more effectively. Many if not all of the changes in the travel industry have been to the benefit of consumers, including greater competition, more choice and greater flexibility. It is important that the legislation keeps pace with those changes. It is essential that flexi-packages of all types are covered by ATOL protection and that travellers are clear and confident at the time of purchase, which might be many months prior to a departure date, that the cover is in place. The Bill serves to ensure that very purpose.
Future-proofing the legislation around ATOL protection is a necessary move that is broadly welcomed by all parties throughout the industry, but I want to push the Minister a little on that point. I am sure he would be disappointed if I did not take this opportunity to mention the potential spaceport at Cornwall Newquay airport. I was delighted to see that the legislation to enable that was included in the Gracious Speech. While it will initially be focused on commercial satellite launches, there is also no doubt of the future potential for space tourism. I know that some will scoff, but do not underestimate the Cornish. Trevithick was a pioneer of steam that revolutionised the world and Davey transformed mine safety. The Cornish have it in their psyche, in their history and in their blood to be pioneers. Surely the day will come when Newquay welcomes its first space travellers. With Cornish inventiveness in our being, “Beam me up, Denzil” is surely only just round the corner. I therefore ask the Minister—with tongue only slightly in cheek—whether the ATOL protection in the Bill can be extended to space tourism when the time comes.
I welcome the additional protection that the Bill will offer to Cornish travellers and believe that it will only enhance the opportunities for smaller regional airports such as Newquay to continue to grow and expand their tourist flights.
Luke Pollard (Plymouth, Sutton and Devonport) (Lab/Co-op)
It is a privilege to follow my comrade from Cornwall, the hon. Member for St Austell and Newquay (Steve Double).
I am in an odd position in this debate as I have worked for the Association of British Travel Agents and Thomas Cook, and I now sit on the other side of the fence examining the ATOL regulations for which I made the argument several years ago. It is great to be back on this subject again.
I hoped that the first Bill we addressed in this Parliament would be about food banks or a new train line to the south-west, but ATOL reform is as good a place to start as any. I welcome the Bill. The updating of consumer protection for holidaymakers is long overdue and it comes on the back of several improvements in recent years in the way in which holidays have been sold and protected. I spent many years in Brussels working with colleagues of the hon. Member for Chelmsford (Vicky Ford) and others on how we could strengthen the consumer protection for people buying holidays. As other hon. Members have said, the way in which holidays are sold has changed considerably in recent years. The travel industry operates under legislation that has not kept pace, in the UK or the EU, with the way in which travel is sold, partly because of the inventiveness and ingenuity of innovators and entrepreneurs in the travel industry. We are fortunate that the UK sector is second to none in how entrepreneurial it is.
My starting point for considering the Bill is to ask whether it will give certainty and confidence to consumers. The ATOL certificates introduced several years ago by the coalition Government were a step forward, but more can be done. In particular, people are often confused by the protection given when they buy a package, when they buy a flight-plus arrangement or when they buy separate arrangements sold at the same time with transferred data—a linked travel arrangement. The Bill does not say much about what secondary legislation will accompany it, and it will be essential that we get the detail right. The industry and consumers have been waiting for the Bill for some time and it is important that there is no further delay.
Having listened to the debate and having worked in the travel industry for a number of years, I think it is important that the House understands the clear distinction between the protection afforded by ATOL for package sales and those that can be afforded by buying decent holiday insurance, including SAFI—scheduled airline failure insurance. As the hon. Member for Milton Keynes South (Iain Stewart) remarked, time is running out. We are six months away from legislation needing to be in place and 12 months away from full compliance. For an industry already selling holidays 12 to 18 months ahead, that creates a difficulty for consumers when it comes to understanding what protections will be in place for their holidays.
The package travel directive, which I have learned to love and hate at the same time, introduced many new concepts and requirements, particularly in relation to the notable systems changes required to facilitate additional information provisions within the directive. It gets even more complicated when one starts looking through it. Travel businesses need to have sufficient time to prepare for the effective date of 1 July and to plan sales beyond 2018. That preparation is already at an advanced stage. We need the Government to publish the regulations quickly so that they can be properly consulted on and so that industry can take the necessary steps to adapt to them. I am thinking particularly of small businesses that may be captured for the first time in the scope of the regulations.
Travel is a complex fast-paced industry full of fantastic people. These technical updates need to be fully understood and implemented over time for many different booking systems, both in UK companies and those that operate internationally. That is why the draft regulations cannot come a moment too soon. The Bill will help to clear up confusion about which holidays are protected and which are not. There was an interim stage of flight-pluses: buying a flight plus another element, such as holiday accommodation or car hire. Wrapping them all together is a positive step forward, but will the Minister look again at how linked travel arrangements are treated in the Bill? He mentioned an attempt to bring LTAs into the scope of the protection. I would like to see more detail on that, because how they are treated is especially important. If those transactions are not treated in the right way, they can fall outside the scope of the protections.
The people of Plymouth should not need to look into the small print of their contracts or their regulations to work out if they are protected. At the moment, there is still too much detail for people to understand whether they are fully protected. Given my newness in this House and the fact that this is the first Bill to be presented, will the Minister do me a favour and address a few things in his summing up? Will he clarify whether the implementation date for all bookings is from the point of sale or the point of departure? That is really important in terms of understanding whether holidays being sold now, which may be captured by the regulations after the implementation date, need to have retrospective protection added to them or whether that needs to be added subsequently. That could result in real confusion for consumers, so I would be grateful if the Minister cleared that up. I would also be grateful if the Minister reaffirmed that the protections afforded by not only the package travel regulations but the air passenger and other passenger rights regimes will be carried through when we leave the European Union.
I would like to spend a moment on the air travel trust fund. For those who have not spent time looking at how the ATTF operates, the fund provides back-up support in the event of a holiday company going down. It should ensure that there are sufficient resources not only to bring people stranded abroad home but to refund passengers who have not yet taken their holiday. Will the Minister provide an update on how it is going? Now there is £140 million in the fund and provisions in the Bill to create what I suspect are protected cells within the air travel trust fund—the Government have up to this point shied away from doing that—will he clarify how it will work in practice? Should a new entrance cell in the ATTF be exhausted by the failure of a company in that cell, will the ATTF for the remainder of the holiday industry need to top it up? If a company already covered goes bust and the fund is insufficient, will the ATOL protection contributions—the £2.50 we pay for protection—be transferred into that element of the ATTF to ensure that people are brought home? The ATTF has been exhausted in the past so these technical questions could help to provide reassurance for consumers to know that the fund will always be there.
Finally, on enforcement of the Bill, I note that the Civil Aviation Authority and Trading Standards are to take a larger role. The CAA has, for quite some time, done a good job of enforcing the ATOL regulations. I am, however, concerned about Trading Standards, which is already under a huge amount of pressure and stress to deliver the work it currently undertakes. This could further add to that difficulty and complexity.
It is great that so many people are familiarising themselves with the intricacies of ATOL protection. I hope that all right hon. and hon. Members do so during the passage of the Bill. I hope that the Bill will also be the start of a greater focus on tourism by Government. Outbound tourism, which is the type of tourism that ATOL protects, has fallen between a number of Government stools for far too long, with split responsibilities between the Department for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport, the Department for Transport and the Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy. It sometimes seems that this is a hot potato that no Government Minister wants to touch. I am grateful that the Bill has been introduced, because it is time to consider a single regulator for the travel industry and whether there can be a clear Department responsible for bringing together all the elements of outbound protection for holidaymakers.
We are very lucky to have an outstanding outbound tourism sector. I notice that nearly all Members who have spoken to date have praised their local airport. Plymouth’s airport closed in 2010. I implore the Minister to look again at how measures can be put in place to help us to reopen our airport in Plymouth so that I can join the cohort of Members who have praised their own airport. At the moment, my airport is growing grass on the runway. I hope it can open again soon, so that holidaymakers in Plymouth can enjoy the same protections that ATOL affords holidaymakers leaving other airports.
Lee Rowley (North East Derbyshire) (Con)
Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker, for giving me the opportunity to contribute for the first time in this place. It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Plymouth, Sutton and Devonport (Luke Pollard). I cannot hope to live up to his erudition and obvious knowledge of the subject. I am also grateful for the opportunity to be able to speak on the Bill, which I wholeheartedly support. When times change there is sometimes a need for regulations to change. Sometimes there is a need for no regulation, but in this case there is a need for regulations to change. I support that and I look forward to supporting the Bill in the coming months.
It is an honour and a privilege to represent the beautiful constituency of North East Derbyshire, a constituency of stunning landscapes, vibrant communities, rich ambition and a proud, proud heritage. We sit two hours away from here, nestled between the steel city of Sheffield in the north, the beauty of the Peak District in the west and the market town of Chesterfield in the east. My constituency has been happily and completely intertwined with Chesterfield for hundreds and hundreds of years. From that market town rises the crooked spire, with which some Members may be aware: a church that has been in place for over six centuries and which is notable for its spire not quite being as straight as it should be. It dominates the landscape of Chesterfield and my constituency for miles around. I am a son of that crooked spire. I was born only a few hundred metres away from where it has stood for those six and a half centuries.
There is something unique about having the privilege to serve in this place and I look forward in the coming months and years to doing so, but there is something particularly unique about having the opportunity to represent the place where I grew up and the people who gave me the very values I will speak of in this place when I have the opportunity to do so and to be able to talk about the area that made me. I have that privilege and I am incredibly grateful for that.
Before I enter North East Derbyshire into the obligatory most beautiful constituency competition—I assure hon. Members that my constituency will win hands down—I would like to spend a moment talking about my predecessors. I walk in huge and assured footsteps: the progeny of one of the founders of the industrial revolution, Francis Arkwright; one of the people who opened up the Derbyshire coal field, for which my constituency is so thankful and to which so much of its legacy is accorded, Alfred Barnes; and even a Nobel peace prize winner, Arthur Henderson, the three-times leader of the Labour party who did so much during the dark days of the 1930s for the causes of disarmament and peace.
I would just like to dwell for a moment on one particular person who had the privilege to represent North East Derbyshire: my immediate predecessor, Natascha Engel. I have been here but a moment, and I can already see the love and the respect that Members across the House have for Natascha, and I am happy to report that that love and respect is reciprocated in the constituency. In a time of fierce partisanship and, in my view, unnecessary rancour, I am happy to say that, despite having a different rosette from Natascha, I believe she was an exemplary Member of Parliament. I thank her for her 12 years’ service in the constituency and I hope she returns to public life soon, albeit representing a different area, if she chooses to come back to this place.
North East Derbyshire is a constituency of contrasts, from the beauty of the richly undulating hills of picture postcard-perfect villages such as Ashover and the beauty of the Cordwell and Moss valleys in the north and east, to the fiercely independent market town of Dronfield, with its monument to Sir Robert Peel’s repeal of the corn laws in the 1850s—an indication, I am sure, of my constituents’ dislike of unnecessary regulation, which is something I will remember. They give way in the east to a landscape at once both scarred by the endeavours of man and then rebuilt over time, as we return to our former glory in North East Derbyshire.
My constituency came of age in the service of its nation in the provision of energy. At one point a century ago, a predecessor of mine stood in this place and talked of 40,000 men in my constituency who were mining under its ground every single day. Mining is in my constituency’s blood and, like the hon. Member for Crewe and Nantwich (Laura Smith), I share that trait, in that both my grandparents were miners, including one who mined for a time at Westhorpe colliery in Killamarsh, a town that I now have the privilege to represent.
I am the son of a milkman who left school at 15 and went out to work every day before dawn in order to provide for his children and his wife. I am the son of a lady who left school at 16 and, through sheer force of will, went back to school in her 30s and, while holding down a job and bringing up two boisterous young boys, got two university degrees so that she could provide for her kids and make her life better. I am the great-nephew of the lady who ran the post office at Renishaw, a village in my constituency, and I am the nephew of an aunt who once went to work for the National Union of Mineworkers during the miners’ strike.
North East Derbyshire has demonstrated by electing its first Conservative Member of Parliament since 1931 that it has changed. I do not say that in the spirit of partisanship; I say it as it is merely a fact. In the same way that my constituency has changed, I think my family somehow reflects that change as well, from the descriptions that I have just given. That I am stood here today, a working-class boy able to talk in this place and represent the people I grew up with, is something that I will never forget. I will always seek to do my best for my constituency as a result.
Beautiful as my constituency is, and honoured as I am to be the winner of the competition that I have spoken about, my constituency also suffers from unique challenges and problems. We currently have the issue of inappropriate housing developments in the beautiful valleys that I have talked about, because the local council did not put in place the plans that it should have done years ago to avoid that. We have a fracking proposal in the beautiful Moss valley, which my constituents neither want nor wish to see happen, and I will support them in their opposition for as long as it is on the table. We also have the ever-growing burden of congestion, across a constituency as disparate as mine, which stops people getting around and stops businesses doing their daily work and which we have to tackle in these debates.
But my constituency is more than that. I pledge to my constituents that as long as I have the privilege to speak in this place, however long or short that is, I will work hard on their behalf and try my hardest every single day to make life better for them. Although I cannot guarantee that I will solve the problems that I have described or the ones that may come in future, I will try my hardest to mitigate the effects on them and resolve them where I can. If I have any time beyond my constituents, I will seek to dedicate it to this place, in trying to answer one of the big challenges of our time—a challenge that I, as someone new here, believe is growing and urgent and needs to be resolved. That is the challenge, at its most basic, of creating healthy, happy and prosperous communities that are bound together in tight union by energy, grit and determination.
I was born in 1980. According to some social commentators I am, to use that ugly word, a millennial and I sense something deeply amiss in my generation and the one that comes after it—a grave uncertainty, not about the politics of today or the policies that my Government are pushing forward, and which I wholeheartedly support, but something that is more visceral, more structural, more underlying. I feel that my generation is unsure about its place in the world. I feel that it is uncertain about where the world is going—that it feels that it is hurtling untethered into a place unknown and has been for 20, 30 or 40 years. I fear that my generation believes that it may be the first to hand over the world in a worse state than it found it, despite the best efforts of those on these Benches and all Benches in this place. We have to consider that as parliamentarians. We have to realise that my generation and other generations are unsure and uncertain.
However, I would also say to my generation, as frustrated as it is, that the easy words and warm allure of anecdote and emotion that I have seen in recent weeks, months and years is no substitute for good governance. In whatever time I have in this place, I will stand up for cool thinking and understanding and for articulating problems in a proper and clear way. In the time I have here, I will also stand up for the values of my constituency—values of compassion and emotion, but also the values of hard work, aspiration and ambition that my constituency has imbued in me. I will also stand up for the creed of free markets, liberal economics and capitalist progress—unfashionable as they may be in a field in Somerset, but the only engine for us to unshackle ourselves from the bonds of yesterday, that we may face the challenges of today and look forward to the future of tomorrow. While I have the opportunity to serve here, those are the things that I will put forward.
Mike Amesbury (Weaver Vale) (Lab)
Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker, and congratulations on being re-elected—very good choice, may I add? It is great to follow the hon. Member for North East Derbyshire (Lee Rowley), who made an excellent maiden speech.
As is customary in a maiden speech, I want first to acknowledge the work that my predecessor, Graham Evans, did for the constituents of Weaver Vale during his seven years in office. Graham’s contribution to parliamentary life was richly diverse. He both chaired the all-party group on beer and encouraged many hon. Members to take up running—although I am assured that this did not involve running in the direction of the bar. Graham completed the London marathon many times, raising a great deal of money for good causes both local and national, and he encouraged many Members from all parts of the House to do likewise. I wish Graham and his family well in the future.
The House of Commons Library and a plethora of MPs from all parts of the House advise me that it is important to research some notable historical facts and figures about my constituency. Its three major conurbations are Northwich, Runcorn and Frodsham. Weaver Vale takes its name from its association with the River Weaver in the heart of my Cheshire constituency. People and things of historical association include Sir John Brunner, founding member of ICI and a former MP for the patch, Tim Burgess of The Charlatans—a band that are a favourite of mine—who hails from Northwich, and the excellent comedian John Bishop, a Runcorn lad with excellent taste in politics. Weaver Vale is also the place where Daniel Craig served his James Bond apprenticeship in the Ring o’ Bells pub in Frodsham, undoubtedly doing stunts across the bar. Another person of note associated with Runcorn is my wife Amanda, who was born there and has stuck with me through thick and thin—I think it was a wise and necessary move to include Amanda in my maiden speech.
As Members will know, Britain is a diverse, rich and vibrant nation, and much of that can be said of my constituency. An array of industries and business sectors are represented in Weaver Vale, with no one industry dominating the life of the entire constituency. Northwich, Weaverham, Frodsham, Helsby, and the eastern part of Runcorn comprise much of the urban life of the constituency, woven around rural areas. I am obviously going to say this, but it is one of the best places in the country in which to live, visit and work.
What grabs me most about the diverse fabric of Weaver Vale is how it has changed over the centuries and decades. At Runcorn is found Norton Priory, the most excavated monastic site in Europe, where the remains of the 12th-century abbey are found alongside the urban estates from the 1970s, where I must now focus much of my attention in assisting constituents. Weaver Vale has a proud industrial heritage, spanning back to Roman Britain, from the salt mines in Northwich to its association with ICI, historically employing thousands of workers throughout Runcorn, Northwich and surrounding areas. Although many people are still employed in the chemical industry, new high-tech industries have emerged and are thriving at Daresbury laboratory, using nanotechnology and robotics and providing the high-skilled, high-knowledge jobs that our community and our nation need. During my tenure as Labour MP for Weaver Vale, I will encourage new and emerging green industries to locate in my patch, and to employ local people. My hon. Friends and I want an economy that works for everyone. We want a race to the top, creating access to highly skilled, fulfilling and sustainable jobs, not a race to the bottom, with insecure zero-hours contracts and fake self-employment franchises.
Like the nation itself, Weaver Vale is a tale of two communities. It has some beautiful countryside, towns and villages. Just picture that rural idyll, with thatched cottages and country pubs such as the White Lion in Alvanley, which I visited only on Sunday. Some residents in my constituency are fortunate enough to have incomes above the national average, but many of my constituents in places such as Windmill Hill and Palacefields in Runcorn face real poverty in their daily lives, from childhood onwards. Despite what Conservative Members claim, there is a real lack of work, too much insecure part-time employment, a growth in zero-hours contracts and a welfare system that lacks compassion and common sense.
One person who experienced the shortcomings of our current welfare system is Sheila, who, very recently, had an operation to remove a brain tumour. When I met Sheila, she could barely walk a metre to the TV. That was a result of the operation, but also of the side-effects of the steroid drugs that she was taking to help to prevent seizures. Sheila had worked hard. She had played by the rules, and paid her taxes. But in her time of need, when the welfare state should have been there to care for her, she instead received a £1,500 cut in her income, and was labelled a shirker by a system overseen by a callous, out-of-touch and now, I would say, chaotic Government. The Prime Minister talks about a nation that works for everyone, but it is certainly not working for Sheila and many thousands like her.
Let me also tell the House about another growth industry that is not a welcome sight in my constituency. I am talking about the sight of hard-pressed residents and families having to use food banks. In the past year the use of food banks has gone up by 25% in the Northwich part of my constituency alone, an issue that was highlighted only recently by one of the local newspapers, the Northwich Guardian. It seems that those who are most in need in our society are paying the price of a failed austerity programme that has more to do with an ideological drive to shrink the state, while living standards go into reverse gear and the national debt is now more than £1.7 trillion. This is not a society that works for everyone.
Finally, I want to thank the thousands of constituents who put me here, especially the young people who came out to vote for the first time, inspired by the politics of hope and opportunity and by a manifesto that wants to put them first for investment rather than cuts: a manifesto for the many and not the few. This rather weak and unstable Government need to take note: I took my seat from one of your own, because my constituents want more bobbies on the beat, not less. They do not want to see individual school budgets cut by hundreds of thousands of pounds. They want smaller class sizes, and they want teachers and support staff who are secure in their jobs and not fearful for the future. They also want to keep their local hospitals open—and yes, those with the broadest shoulders should pay their fair share in taxes and invest in our future.
As a lad born in Wythenshawe, Manchester, I never envisaged that I would have the honour of sitting on these green Benches to represent Weaver Vale. I was the first in my family to get a degree, and I gave back to society by becoming a careers adviser, helping young people to get into work, training and education. I was the first in my family to become a city councillor, serving the good people of Manchester for 11 years, and I am now the first Amesbury in my family to become an MP—a Labour MP.
Unlike some in the House, I do not have a long line of ancestors who served this House and the other place next door. My family made me who I am. My dad, Barney, was a carpet fitter, then a publican. My late mum used to clean caravans and serve school dinners, and my younger sister is a teaching assistant. All those people would be hit by the pay cap. All of them were and are extraordinary people in their own right: grafters, fighters, and real people.
I bring my real life experience into the Chamber as a check and balance on the Government and as a champion for my constituents, especially those who are most in need. To represent the people of Weaver Vale now is the greatest privilege of my life. Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker, for giving me the opportunity to introduce myself to the House.
Giles Watling (Clacton) (Con)
It is a great honour to follow the hon. Member for Weaver Vale (Mike Amesbury), who made an impassioned speech. It is also a great honour to follow my hon. Friend the Member for North East Derbyshire (Lee Rowley), who spoke without notes. I intend to do no such thing.
ATOL equals peace of mind. It is safe to go on holiday if the holiday is protected by ATOL. That makes sense. Peace of mind is good; it is happy. I therefore support the Bill.
It is also an honour to be here at all. Just a few short weeks before I stood for election—at the by-election in Clacton in 2014—I was on tour with Jason Donovan in a production of “Priscilla, Queen of the Desert”. I have played on many stages across the world in 45 years, but this has to be the finest. Thank you, residents of Clacton; I will do my very best for you.
I was honoured and indeed humbled when the residents of Clacton gave me the overwhelming support they did at the last election, but I had one other overwhelming sensation, which I am sure many others have, when they first take their seat in the House—that was, what on earth have I let myself in for? When I relayed my concerns to my wife, Vanda—she gets a namecheck as well—she said, “It’s a stage and an audience. What could possibly go wrong?” What a stage and what an audience!
In preparation, I looked up the advice on maiden speeches. It tells us that the typical maiden speech is divided into three parts. Part one consists of being nice about the previous incumbent of the seat. I remind Members that my seat is Clacton. Part two involves a glittering description of the constituency, outlining its fabulous assets and its wonderful potential. In part three, one is advised to lay out some of the plans one has to enhance the wonderful area one represents, left even more wonderful by the splendid previous incumbent.
So to part one. My immediate predecessor was the notable Douglas Carswell, against whom I fought two parliamentary elections. It must be said that we did not always see eye to eye, but I will say this: Douglas was an extremely good constituency MP. As a district councillor, I was regularly in contact with him and I saw at first hand his competent dealings in the constituency. You would send him a note and he always gave you a considered reply—a good example to me. Even after he moved gently on from our party, he always behaved like a gentleman and it is to his credit that we fought those two elections without any mud-slinging, however tempting it might have been. We fought on the issues, not on the personalities. I had respect for him holding his views, even if I did not agree, and I frequently did not.
When I made my speech on being elected, I touched on the subject of respect. I paid tribute to my fellow candidates. I respect them for going on the sometimes gruelling journey that we all know about in this place, pacing the streets, taking some flak, but meeting some wonderful people. I may have stoutly disagreed with my fellow candidates on many issues, but I never once attacked them personally. You can check Facebook, Twitter or any of the other social media platforms and you will see that I never denigrated the other candidates. It seems a pity that we have reached a nadir through social media where a lot of plain nastiness is regular. If we all had a little more respect, the world would be a far happier place.
To part two. Over the last 10 years, I have been fortunate to represent my residents at Tendring District Council. My ward, Frinton-on-Sea, has always been at the forefront of my mind when dealing with issues at district level and, from now on, Clacton, my constituency, its residents and their views will always be at the centre of all I do here.
The Clacton constituency is roughly half of Tendring district, a stunning peninsula with the Colne to the south-west, the Stour to the north and the North sea to the east; I think Members can see where I am going with his. As a result, we have 36 miles of the most stunning coastline pretty much anywhere in the country. We have the sandy beaches of Walton, Frinton and Clacton. Probably the best beaches of all are at Jaywick Sands. We have the Walton Backwaters, a mysterious area of tidal creeks, mudflats and islands— salt marshes and marsh grasslands which in the late ’30s gave Arthur Ransome the inspiration to write his book, “Secret Water”. It is called “Secret Water” because, when one approaches from the sea, it is difficult to see that there is an entrance there. So we have the buzz of Clacton, the quiet of Frinton, the rustic charm of Walton, the beautiful village and priory of St Osyth, and the bucolic hinterland of gorgeous villages and countryside. It is no wonder that we have a fast-reviving tourism industry. We are the sunshine coast.
Which brings me neatly to part three. I find it absolutely incomprehensible that this extraordinarily special place so dear to my heart, lying as it does a mere 70 miles from London, has historically been constantly overlooked. That 70-mile journey takes the best part of one hour 40 minutes by train, which is simply not good enough. A journey by car during peak times is an adventure only for the very brave. The A12 is known to be one of the worst roads in the country. It is often argued that we should be thankful that we are so hard to get to, but there is the old adage: down good roads wealth flows. Imagine if we could bring that journey closer to an hour. Seventy miles in an hour—not unthinkable; not even illegal. We would suddenly get the wealth of London on our doorstep and we would regenerate.
Clacton faces many challenges, most of which we have been taking head-on at the district council, and we have had some success. The long-awaited regeneration of Jaywick has begun. It has new roads, new buildings and a great sense of community. It is on the up. Walton-on-the-Naze has new developments and quality shops arriving. It is on the up. In the last five years, at the district council, we have managed to obtain £50 million-worth of investment for the area, £36 million of which has been spent on new sea defences in Holland-on-Sea and Clacton. You have to go to see them. We have created new lagoons, reefs and beaches over a 5 km stretch. We are on the up. But we need that infrastructure, and that is just one of my priorities for our much overlooked constituency.
I just want to remind everyone that we do exist in Clacton and that all are welcome to come and see us. I will take pleasure in taking visitors to the Naze Tower, built in 1720 by Trinity House as a landmark for mariners. It stands on the highest point in the constituency and gives breath-taking views across to Suffolk and over the beaches and looks down on those treasured backwaters.
We are a jewel of a place with many facets. It is well worth that 1 hour 40 minute journey; do come.
Mr Bob Seely (Isle of Wight) (Con)
I want to say what a great privilege it is to follow my hon. Friend the Member for Clacton (Giles Watling), but such was the brilliance of his speech that my heart rather sank.
I am genuinely humbled by listening to some of the wonderful speeches including those by the hon. Member for Crewe and Nantwich (Laura Smith) and my hon. Friends the Members for East Renfrewshire (Paul Masterton) and for Redditch (Rachel Maclean), and my hon. Friend the Member for North East Derbyshire (Lee Rowley), who really brought home why we are in this place; we listened in silence, and I thank him.
I think I am going to support this Bill, although I have to say that any Bill relating to tourism that encourages anyone to go anywhere other than the Isle of Wight seems to suffer from what our philosophical Front Bench would call an a priori flaw. However, my constituents are as generous as they are understanding, and I am sure that they would allow me to support this otherwise very sensible Bill.
I also want to pay tribute to my predecessor. Andrew Turner was a kind man, a good listener, attentive to his constituents and held in very high regard by many of them. He worked hard for our island for 16 years and I wish him a long, contented and happy retirement.
Representing the Isle of Wight—we call it the island, and I apologise if I refer to it as such—is for me a labour of love. It is my patch of England. I have loved it ever since I was knee high to a grasshopper, and it is close to my heart.
It also has a special place in the nation’s heart, serving as a source of inspiration for islanders, visitors and our nation’s greatest artists. Turner’s first great work was for the Royal Academy: “Fishermen at sea” in the Solent, with the Needles as a moonlit backdrop. The poet Alfred Lord Tennyson settled here, and we hear our sounds and understand our sense of place in his work. When we listen to the seawater today rushing off the stones at Alum Bay, we understand the line in “Maud”:
“Now to the scream of a maddened beach dragged down by the wave”.
Swinburne and Keats wrote here:
“A thing of beauty is a joy forever”,
from “Endymion” is one of Keats’s greatest lines, and was inspired by visits to Shanklin and Carisbrooke. The wonderful eccentric Edward Lear tutored Queen Victoria at Osborne, the Bonchurch watercolourists painted near Ventnor, Julia Margaret Cameron, the wonderful feminist, pioneered portrait photography at Dimbola Lodge, and the Pre-Raphaelites hung out in Freshwater. And today we remain a home for many island artists, as well as cultural and sporting events of world renown.
We have a special place in science, too. We had the world’s first telegraph station, the hovercraft and the seaplane were built here, and the Blue Streak missile system—what a great name for a missile system—was test-fired from the Needles. And today the island’s experts produce some of the most sophisticated radars in the world for the Royal Navy.
My hon. Friend the Member for Spelthorne (Kwasi Kwarteng) eloquently assured us a fortnight ago that he was still thrusting. I am sure of it, but let me remind the House that our Thrust 2 jet-engined supercar, built largely on the island, won and held the world land speed record for our nation for over a decade, at some 633 mph. So on the Isle of Wight, even our thrusting is world class.
Moving from science to pseudo-science, Karl Marx was a regular visitor, a point I might have to make should the right hon. Member for Islington North (Jeremy Corbyn) ever come to power—although if the victory last month was any harbinger of the future, let us wish Opposition Members many more such victories in the years to come.
On a more serious note, I mentioned our arts and science not to provide a potted history lesson or to express my love for my constituency—which I hope is self-evident—but because they are what we need for our future. We need again to embrace art, science, technology, innovation and education to inspire, to enrich and to employ. Our island is special in many ways, but our wealth has not always been of the financial kind and there is a perception that Whitehall sometimes overlooks us. In the 1990s, the Government promised the Isle of Wight and the Scilly Isles that they would study the extra costs of being an island. Sadly, that promise came to nothing, but those costs are recognised in Scotland through the special islands needs allowance, which provides an uplift in funding for some half a dozen councils with island seats. I believe that we need a better deal for our island, and it is not just a question of money, although every little helps and I will fight for extra spending on health and education. It is about islanders working with the Government to generate ideas for the public good, and about the Government working with us and being keen to listen. I know that there are good examples of that happening, and I wish to encourage more of it.
We need to embrace the knowledge economy and higher education. I look forward to working with the Department for Education and with universities to provide opportunities for such engagement. We need to continue to drive all education standards on the island, and I will continue to fight for the future of the Sandown Bay school. I look forward to the Government’s continuing support.
Our cultural offer is getting stronger. We have the wonderful Isle of Wight festival—I think Rod Stewart topped the bill this year, as part of a tartan revival that is clearly taking place in politics as well. We also have the wonderful literary festival and the cutting-edge Ventnor fringe festival—look out, Edinburgh! However, I wish to work with Culture Ministers and institutions to find out how they can help us to improve our museum offer and possibly attract a major gallery to the island, to help with year-round cultural tourism.
I look forward to engaging with Sport England and with trade and investment Departments to work with our high-tech sailing industry and with the sailing clubs of Cowes and others to ensure that the town of Cowes remains the centre of the sailing world. I also hope that it becomes a global centre for disabled sailing. That would be an important move that would have practical and moral implications. I was privileged last month to meet the captain of our national blind sailing team, who were prepping for their world championships, and I wish Lucy and her inspiring team all the very best.
We need to work with the Department for Work and Pensions, and organisations such as Help the Aged and our wonderful Mountbatten hospice, to make the island a national leader in ensuring quality of life for those in later life, combining health and social care and voluntary and state support to enrich life.
In transport, we need to ensure the future of the Island railway line and improve our cycling routes to make us Britain’s leading cycling destination. We also need to engage with the ferry firms to provide a better service. Let me be clear: privatisation did a great deal of good in the ’80s and ’90s nationally, but the privatisation of our ferries was not such a great success. I do not have all the answers, but I know that we should not have started from that point. I am uncomfortable with the levels of debt that Red Funnel and Wightlink have, because islanders—who are not the richest people in the country—have to help to subsidise it in order to cross the Solent.
I welcome the Government’s commitment to social housing and starter housing from the bottom of my heart. I find it difficult to explain to my fellow islanders why rich property developers were able to build houses there that most of my constituents could not afford. We do not need large-scale projects, which are heartily disliked by many islanders. They do significant cumulative damage to our precious landscape, on which much of our tourism—which accounts for half our economy—depends. We do, however, need genuinely affordable projects to provide homes for islanders, and we will work with the Government to build them. Our island plan should reflect that. For my islanders, housing is hope, especially for the younger ones. Working with many others—our chamber of commerce, our council, our excellent tourism team, voluntary groups and individuals—we will present ideas for a brighter future for our island.
Nationally, this Government have laudable aims of social justice, hope, meritocracy and opportunity for all, values which were inherent in manifestos and are absolutely inherent in our hearts, but we sadly failed to translate them during the campaign. I want those principles, aims, values and aspirations for my fellow islanders and for our nation. Let us deliver real change and real hope in the next few years and set an example, whether economic, moral, or political, that we are the natural party of government.
My fellow islanders deserve nothing but the best, and I will do my best to give them the voice that they deserve. Some Members, such as my hon. Friend the Member for North East Derbyshire, have explained why we are here far more eloquently than I have, but I will battle for my island. I cannot promise to win every battle, but I will fight every battle on their behalf for as long as I have the honour of serving in our Parliament what Wordsworth called “that delightful Island”.
Stephen Kerr (Stirling) (Con)
There is much acclaim for my hon. Friend the Member for Isle of Wight (Mr Seely), whom I am delighted to follow. Thank you for calling me to speak, Mr Deputy Speaker.
Friends and family have asked me what it feels like finally to be here, and I simply say, “Surreal,” but in the best possible meaning of the word. I could add “overwhelming”, and that sense is multiplied today as I speak for the first time in the Chamber as the new Member for Stirling. I am acutely aware that so many people have placed in me a sacred trust to do my best to serve all the people of Stirling and to do what is right for my constituents and in the national interest.
I am proud to call Stirling my home. It is situated at the heart of Scotland and its story is long and dramatic. The famed legend of Stirling’s wolf comes from the 9th century, when the Anglo-Saxon defenders of the castle were roused from their sleep by the howling of a wolf, warning them of an impending Viking attack. The wolf is still celebrated to this day.
Stirling remains as steadfast as the rock upon which its castle sits. Last week, I had the privilege of marching with the people of Cambusbarron on the annual march of the gillies, which commemorates the actions of the sma’folk and camp followers at the Battle of Bannockburn, who came over the hill making such a din that they caused the English to flee. We Scots have always had a knack for causing a stooshie. The march now focuses on saving this important historic site from the threat of quarrying.
Stirling constituency is more than the city. It stretches from Drymen and Strathblane in the west to Cowie, Fallin and Plean in the east, and from Killin, Crianlarich and Tyndrum in the north to St Ninians and the Whins of Milton in the south. Through the good offices of our auction houses, Stirling hosts the premier bull sales in Scotland. Dairy, meat production, and some of the best shortbread in the country are all mainstays of my constituency, not to mention the two whisky distilleries making great use of our prodigious rainfall and fertile soils. Our financial services sector and high-tech businesses in the digital economy all make up a diverse, high-value economy that contributes to the success of Stirling and of the Scottish and the UK economies.
I am a graduate of the University of Stirling, which is now in its 50th year and has a reputation in research and teaching that is second to none. Stirling hosts the oldest and the second oldest charitable trusts in Scotland. Spittal’s Trust and Cowane’s Trust are part of the centuries-old tradition of Stirling’s voluntary sector in providing relief for the needy members of the local trades and guilds and their relatives. Social enterprise is alive and well in Stirling, whether through the encouragement given to local food and environmental initiatives such as the Forth Environment Link, the work of Town Break in helping those with dementia, or the work done by the Trossachs Mobility group in ensuring that people with disabilities can access our magnificent landscape from Callander, which is fast becoming Scotland’s outdoor capital.
Today we are debating the travel industry, and Stirling has a unique connection to the things that make up the modern travel industry. Stirling proudly owns Britain’s answer to the Wright brothers. Frank and Harold Barnwell, originally from Lewisham, made their homes in Balfron in 1882. They came from a family in the shipbuilding business, and they were great innovators. They built their first full-size biplane in 1908. Unfortunately, it failed to take flight but, undeterred, they produced a second design at their works, the Grampian Motor and Engineering Company, under the shadow of the Wallace monument in Causewayhead. And then, on Wednesday 28 July 1909, they were responsible for the first powered flight in Scotland when their aircraft flew to an altitude of 13 feet and travelled for 80 yards before a somewhat abrupt crash-landing.
It is down to the great innovators, like Stirling’s own Barnwell brothers, and the pioneering paths they forged in manned, powered flight that today we have the aviation industry we have. Frank and Harold Barnwell represent the great things that Britain has achieved—in this case, two English entrepreneurs who moved their business to Scotland—to create the inventions and businesses that made the modern world.
I say to entrepreneurs and innovators across the globe: Stirling is evidently the place to be—just as I say to all hon. and right hon. Members that when the peoples of Scotland, England and the other nations of the United Kingdom work together, they have achieved and can yet achieve remarkable things that, in turn, make this world a better place.
Stirling’s best days lie ahead. The enthusiastic support of Her Majesty’s Government for the Stirling city deal, so expertly prepared by the officers of Stirling Council, is most welcome, and I will make it my top priority to work with the Secretary of State for Scotland, my right hon. Friend the Member for Dumfriesshire, Clydesdale and Tweeddale (David Mundell), to secure and deliver the Stirling city deal.
This Bill is especially important to the way in which regulation works for innovative companies that have revolutionised the travel industry in the digital space. The new digital district at the heart of the Stirling city deal will encourage the birth, survival and success of many more innovative digital companies.
The pace of technological change in the world today is staggering. We book travel and transport in completely different ways from how we did it only a few years ago. Gone are the days of flicking through teletext to snap up package deals to the sun. The internet revolution has empowered consumers and disruptive new companies to turn old market models inside out, and the provisions of the Bill are very welcome. It is important that consumer protection rights keep up with the pace of technological change. We must shape future measures in a way that adapts to the new market conditions being created by the entrepreneurial skills and talents of our challenger digital businesses, and not stifle creativity by holding on to outdated and outmoded regulation.
I take this opportunity to pay tribute to my predecessor, Steven Paterson. His tenure was short, and I make no apology for that. That said, he was an honourable and worthy opponent whose passion for Stirling and Scotland cannot be doubted. I wish him well for the future.
His predecessor was Dame Anne McGuire. She was Stirling’s Member of Parliament for 18 years, and her public service was especially noteworthy for her tireless work to promote and extend the rights of disabled people. Hers is a wonderful personal legacy, and one in which we should all take pride. I pay tribute to her.
I should also like to make a special mention of my friend Lord Forsyth of Drumlean, the previous Conservative Member for Stirling. His record of service in this House on behalf of the people of Stirling and Scotland, and the United Kingdom, is remarkable. In his maiden speech in 1983, he spoke of the problems facing rural Stirling in the field of telecommunications. That, I am sad to report to the House, remains an issue, although it is now about broadband and mobile telephony, rather than phone connections. I assure the House that digital connectivity is a subject I will keep coming back to.
Public service is often cited as a reason for Members taking seats in this House, and I add myself to their number. A body politic that exists to serve its citizens is one worth aspiring to. I was raised on politics, listening as a small boy as my grandfather held forth on the merits of the then Prime Minister, Harold Wilson. He was not a fan, but his trenchant view was that the Government of the day should govern in the national interest. Henry Campbell-Bannerman, a former Member of Parliament for Stirling and a former Prime Minister, said:
“Good government could never be a substitute for government by the people themselves.”
That is also the perfect encapsulation of my personal political credo. I believe in liberty, in freedom and choice. I enlist to the moral argument for free enterprise and free trade as the most powerful means of lifting people, whole nations and regions out of poverty. I believe in law and order, equality for all before the law and in the good that government can do. I believe that the family, in all its forms, is the basic unit of society; thriving and successful families make for a thriving and successful society, and social policy is always best seen through the filter of what strengthens the family. I believe in fair dealing, competition that advantages consumers and justice in all its realms. I believe in giving power to the people and in respecting local democracy, in the constructive tension of public accountability, and in listening carefully to the voice of the people.
Whether right hon. and hon. Members reflect on those last words in terms of the implementation of a Brexit sanctioned by the people or the results of the referendum in Scotland to confirm its place within the United Kingdom, respect for the voice of the people and following their democratically delivered instruction is now the business of this House. And so it is that we must be ready to implement the will of the British people, and I make it my part to do so.
The British people have spoken and we will leave the European Union. So much of the work of this Parliament is now focused on the job at hand, and much of our work as Members must be focused on working together to get the best deal for our constituents and our country. I believe that, in doing so, we have a duty as parliamentarians to personify civility. We should resist trading in dubious charges, misrepresentations and ugly innuendos. We should demonstrate respect for all people, become good listeners and show concern for the sincere beliefs of others; although we may disagree, we ought not to be disagreeable.
I am here, then, on a mission: a mission to restore civility in politics; a mission to represent and defend the interests of Stirling; and a mission to promote and be an advocate for my home constituency and, above all, to serve the people and national interest of this United Kingdom.
Eddie Hughes (Walsall North) (Con)
It is difficult to follow my hon. Friend the Member for Stirling (Stephen Kerr), as I stumble my way through my maiden speech. The best thing is, though, that he and I will be sharing an office for the next five years, so I will have the opportunity to polish my public speaking with the benefit of his advice.
It is interesting that this Bill is the first one that we are discussing. People are talking about the problems air travellers might have, but according to the 2011 census, nearly one in four of my constituents do not even own a passport. The Bill is clearly very important for those who do have a passport and manage to undertake overseas travel, so that their money is protected. For some people, air travel is not something they do every week or every year—it represents a one-off opportunity. It would clearly be the worst thing that could happen to them if their funds were in any way threatened by companies going out of business, so the Bill is incredibly important.
Some Members might not have been present when the Minister opened the debate, but I firmly endorse his sartorial standpoint of not taking interventions from male Members who are not wearing ties. I bought this suit at the weekend specifically to wear when making my first speech in this Chamber—[Hon. Members: “Hear, hear!”] I will obviously be wearing exactly the same suit for the rest of the week, but at least for today I am looking my best.
I thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker, for calling me in today’s debate, because the good people of Walsall North, which includes Willenhall, Bloxwich, Leamore, Blakenall and Short Heath, have had to wait 41 years to hear a maiden speech from their Member of Parliament. You can only imagine how disappointed they will be when they see that the seven people who made speeches immediately before me were funny, erudite, clever and interesting—they will think, “What the hell did we wait 41 years for this nonsense for?”
In preparing for my maiden speech, I sought advice from experienced orators from both sides of the Chamber, but I think that the best advice I received came from Brendan Fisher, one of our ever-present, ever-helpful Doorkeepers. I have made a freefall parachute jump with my wife Clare and my two children, Sam and Corrine, and Brendan suggested that making a maiden speech was like doing a freefall parachute jump: there is the nervous anticipation while boarding the plane and ascending to the required altitude, before leaping, screaming, through the doors, only to find that the sensation of racing towards the ground at 100 mph is actually a pleasurable one—something that you want to repeat as soon as your feet hit the ground.
Hitting the ground running was what I needed to do to stand any chance of beating my entrenched predecessor, David Winnick. Many Members will be familiar with David as a tenacious parliamentarian. If I remember correctly, it was David’s amendment to legislation on the detention of terror suspects that led to the then Prime Minister, Tony Blair, losing his first whipped vote in this Chamber in 2005. When I knocked on doors during the campaign, I realised just how assiduously David had worked on behalf of his constituents. I found many people who were not minded to vote for the Labour party—at least not under its current leadership—but were prepared to vote for David because of the good deeds he had done for them, their friends or their family. It was David’s 84th birthday last Monday and I wish to extend my best wishes to him for his birthday and his retirement.
I grew up in a house with six brothers. My dad was an Irish bus driver, and we did not have a lot of money to celebrate birthdays. There was not much money for presents, but with six lads there was quite a lot of fun and quite a lot of fighting. My parents were delighted—and, I guess, relieved—that I went to grammar school. I then went on to university—I was the first in my family to do so—and it was at university that I developed an interest in politics. As soon as I graduated, I went back to night school to do A-levels in politics and economics to give me a bit of a basic grounding. Although, unfortunately, I voted Labour the first time I voted—[Hon. Members: “Boo!”] I know, but I was actually a closet Conservative—[Hon. Members: “Hear, hear!”] It was then a quick journey from joining the party as an enthusiastic activist to standing for the council, and I have served on Walsall Council for the past 18 years.
What a privilege it is now to be the MP for Walsall North. I will be building on some bostin’ work that is already going on in my constituency. For example, I recently met Peter Shirley—the irrepressible Peter—who started the Midland Food Group in 1976 on his own. Today, that business turns over in excess of £50 million a year and employs more than 250 people. It sources quality meats and cheeses locally, and its export market includes the Falkland Islands. Similarly, Walsall Housing Group—I am proud to chair the board—recently signed a deal for a joint venture to build 400 new houses in the Goscote Lane corridor. Indeed, according to a recent edition of Inside Housing, within the next two years, Walsall Housing Group will complete just over 1,100 new houses. That is what is going on under the Government: creating high-quality affordable houses and the jobs that go with their construction.
To get a job, people need a good education, so what better place to start that education than Beacon primary school in New Invention? Two years ago, the school was rated by Ofsted as requiring improvement. Boy, did that improvement come in the shape of Paul Drew, the innovative headmaster, who has raised standards not just for staff but for students. Ofsted has recently rated Beacon as a good school. It does not take money to persuade the admin staff at the school that they should be trained to help children with reading practice. That just takes forward thinking—the type that we need to see. Better education is not always about throwing money at it: it is about employing inspirational leaders.
And so to my inevitable Brexit peroration. Sixty-eight per cent. of people in Walsall North who voted in the referendum voted to leave the EU. They want a good deal for themselves and a good deal for the country, but they do not want a deal that is good just for the 68%—they want a deal that is good for the 100%. They want to know that there are local entrepreneurs who are going to create jobs and find new and exciting export markets around the world. They want to control immigration while ensuring that we have the skills to maintain a strong economy and a strong public sector. They want low-cost affordable housing for every stage of their life, and they want inspirational headteachers to give their children the best start in life. It is a privilege to speak this evening, Mr Deputy Speaker, and I hope that you will call me many times in future to advocate on behalf of my constituents.
Several hon. Members rose—
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)
Order. We have another maiden speech. I call Bill Grant.
Bill Grant (Ayr, Carrick and Cumnock) (Con)
Thank you very much, Mr Deputy Speaker. I compliment my hon. Friend the Member for Walsall North (Eddie Hughes) on both his note-free speech and his choice of suit, which I have been admiring like other colleagues.
The Bill deals with ATOL and is relevant to people who choose to travel by air. Like my colleagues, I am minded to welcome and support it for three reasons: it is modernising; it is harmonising; and it provides good consumer protection.
May I begin my maiden speech by saying that I am indeed honoured and humbled to be in this Chamber today, having been elected by the people of Ayr, Carrick and Cumnock? It is a privilege, and I will always remember that they trusted me with their vote. I value that and will do all that I can for the constituency of Ayr, Carrick and Cumnock. May I share with hon. Members part of my life’s journey? It would be terribly boring if I gave them my whole life’s journey, but for the past 10 years I was an elected councillor in South Ayrshire. My ward was in the town of Ayr on the coast. There are many good things about Ayr, but I will touch on two. Ayr racecourse is one of the UK’s premier racecourses. I invite Members to come along and spend their money there—they might even make money that they can invest to make some more. Odds on, they may lose some money. In addition, we have hosted the Scottish international air show for the past three years. For the moment, it is a wonderful event. It is not a threat to Farnborough but, in years to come, one never knows.
My time on the council was preceded by 31 years in Strathclyde fire and rescue service. I served throughout Ayrshire and the central belt, was based in headquarters for 10 years as a member of the technical support team, and finally served as a senior officer covering Argyll and Bute, and the beautiful islands—I would name them, but there are too many. It was a complex and diverse fire service, with Glasgow sadly being remembered as a tinderbox city many years ago, and I was well aware of that. Given my background, it is particularly poignant for me to deliver my maiden speech so close in time to the tragic Grenfell Tower incident, which must surely have been a hell on earth for all concerned. I await with interest the outcome of what must be a thorough and effective public inquiry.
I pay tribute to my predecessor, Corri Wilson, for the good work she undertook in this Chamber and in the constituency during her period in office. I thank her and wish her well for the future. Some further thanks are due to my appointed buddy, Joanna Freeman, who is a tolerant and lovely woman. She guided me—a lost soul as one of the new MPs—through what I describe as the wonders of Westminster. I will also take a wee moment to thank my long-suffering wife, Agnes, our two daughters, Angela and Karen, and our family, who have been helpful in the journey that has brought me to this Chamber. Sandra Osborne, Phil Gallie and George Younger preceded Corri Wilson as MPs for Ayr, Carrick and Cumnock. They were all excellent parliamentarians who may be remembered by some in this House.
Let me take Members back to the dark days of the second world war of 1939 to 1945, when the Labour MP for South Ayrshire was Alexander Sloan, better known locally as Sanny Sloan. A former miner and a workers’ champion, he served his community well, but regrettably, like so many miners, he was dogged by ill health and died in 1945, soon after his second victory in an election to this House. The commonality is that we were both born to mining families in the small Ayrshire mining village of Rankinston, albeit we were born some 72 years apart.
There are many proud British institutions, but I shall mention just two: this Parliament and the national health service. One wonders—dare I say it?—what the outcome would be if there were a referendum on which should be closed. I suspect that this Chamber would be empty. I thank the national health service, and Dr Nykerie and his team at the Golden Jubilee hospital in Clydebank near Glasgow, for the successful double bypass surgery that I successfully underwent in 2014. My family and I are eternally grateful to them. However, I must apologise to my constituents in Maybole, a town just south of Ayr. I waited three months for my bypass, but they have waited nearly 30 years for theirs. The town is severed by the A77, which is—excuse the pun—a main artery from the central belt of Scotland to the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Dumfries and Galloway (Mr Jack) for the important ferry ports at Cairnryan that serve the ferry traffic to and from our neighbours in Ireland. It is an economic driver, so the A77 is an essential link. The punishment of the 30-tonners and 40-tonners taking that journey through the villages needs to be rectified, particularly at Maybole, and I am sure that it will be.
Ayr, Carrick and Cumnock is a rural and coastal community that is, to some extent, the bread basket of Britain, with Ayrshire tatties, bacon and cheese, and Ayrshire cattle, not forgetting the—albeit smaller—fishing communities along our coast from Dunure to Maidens and Girvan, which is still an active port, and to Ballantrae in the southernmost part. The good food and eateries in the constituency are considerably more reasonably priced than those in London; they have wonderful prices. After consuming the lovely food of various eateries, visitors may wish to toast that good food with a fine whisky or a delicately distilled Hendrick’s gin from William Grant & Sons in Girvan. There is no connection. Although I am Bill Grant and they are William Grant, I do not have a distillery. Their product is wonderful. Hendrick’s gin and Grant’s whisky are global.
As an area, we have attracted many famous people. Post-war, President Eisenhower was gifted access to and the use of apartments at the beautiful Culzean castle. More recently, another President—President Trump, although he was known as Donald at the time—secured the Turnberry hotel and golf course. I thank his son Eric for the investment in this world-class facility and for securing its future and the associated employment.
We were home to Sir William Arrol, who resided at Seafield House in Ayr. More recently, that was a children’s hospital, where Dr John McClure MBE was the senior paediatrician for many years. Sir William Arrol was the engineer responsible for building the Forth rail bridge—I nearly said road bridge, but that is not the case—the gantries at Harland and Wolff in Belfast, where the infamous or famous ship, the Titanic, was built; and Tower bridge here in London.
This being an Ayrshire constituency, it would be remiss of me not to mention Scotland’s bard, Robert Burns, who was born at Alloway—the ploughman poet, whose fondness for women is renowned. The women were far more fertile than the fields he ploughed, producing numerous offspring, and I am sure he would have faced immense challenges from the Child Support Agency.
But his passion went far beyond the fairer sex, and he penned many poems and songs, with lines such as
“Ye banks and braes o’ bonnie Doon”.
From its source at Loch Doon, the River Doon gently winds its way past Dalmellington, Waterside, Patna, Polnessan, Dalrymple, Alloway and finally to the Firth of Clyde at the aptly named Doonfoot.
There is also “Afton Water”:
“Flow gently, sweet Afton, among thy green braes”.
The River Afton gently winds its way past New Cumnock, where I shall pause for a moment and mention the local football team, Glenafton Athletic, better known as The Glens, who, during the election campaign, won the Scottish junior cup by beating nearby rivals Auchinleck Talbot. To see New Cumnock bedecked in the team colours of red and white, with virtually every home displaying them, and with the lampposts adorned with bunting, was a credit to the strength and community spirit of New Cumnock, and I commend it for that and for the victory on the football park.
As we move onwards, we come to Cumnock, sometimes referred to as Old Cumnock, which plays host to Emergency One (UK), bespoke builders of fire appliances and emergency vehicles that are used throughout the United Kingdom. I commend them for their good work as they export—yes, I will use the word “export”—from Cumnock in Scotland all over the United Kingdom.
As we move on towards Ochiltree, I will stop for a moment at Dumfries House. May I give immense thanks to His Royal Highness Prince Charles for his involvement and, indeed, vision in not only saving Dumfries House for the nation but securing job opportunities in catering and tourism within and, indeed, beyond the constituency? Ayr, Carrick and Cumnock has a proud past. As the Member of Parliament for that constituency, I will endeavour to do my best to secure a promising future.
Finally, an extract from Robert Burns’s poem “To A Mouse”, which may be reflected on by many parliamentarians from all parties, whether past, present or future. It reads simply:
“The best-laid schemes o’ Mice an’ Men
Gang aft agley,
An’ lea’e us nought but grief an’ pain,
For promis’d joy!”
Neil O’Brien (Harborough) (Con)
It is a pleasure to follow my hon. Friend the Member for Ayr, Carrick and Cumnock (Bill Grant). Before he spoke, he promised me that he would make me look good. By speaking so powerfully, so poetically and so brilliantly, he has already broken his first political promise—so thanks a bunch for that.
It is also a pleasure to follow my predecessor, Sir Edward Garnier. He was a brilliant constituency MP for 25 years. He is independent-minded and he is brave, but above all he is just an exceptionally nice man. He will be missed in all parts of this House, and he will be massively missed in our constituency.
It is an honour to represent the people of Harborough, Oadby and Wigston in this House, and I would like to thank them from the bottom of my heart for sending me here. There are four really striking things about my constituency. The first is the staggering amount of community and voluntary work, whether it is local charities such as Rainbows, LOROS, VAL or VASL; the award-winning work of Market Harborough in Bloom, which is visible all over the town and makes it beautiful; the strength of our local army, sea and air cadets, with whom I celebrated Armed Forces Week just the other day; or community campaigns such as the campaign to save the children’s heart unit at Glenfield hospital, which I support. The strength of our civic life is incredibly visible from the briefest look at The Harborough Mail or the Leicester Mercury, or by tuning into our community radio station, Harborough FM. A huge number of people in my constituency dedicate themselves to improving the lot of their fellow citizens, and it is absolutely inspiring.
The second striking thing about my constituency is the strong culture of enterprise. There are now nearly 4,500 businesses in the constituency—a quarter more than in 2010. There is simply nothing that the people in my constituency cannot do well. From milk floats to jet engines, we have made everything. Although we have heard speeches this evening about the invention of powered flight in Scotland, you will be relieved, Mr Speaker, to hear that we have never tried to combine the jet engine and the milk float, as that would lead to dangerous adventures, I think. My constituency is famous for farming and food, and also for textiles. One of its most famous family businesses, Symingtons, actually managed to combine both of those things, because one brother made soups which fattened us all up, and the other brother made corsets with which to constrain our bulging waistlines. You will agree, Mr Speaker, that that is a very cunning business model. Given the culture of small business, the have-a-go culture, and the culture of enterprise in my constituency, I will work to make sure that important initiatives such as the Midlands Engine and the new industrial strategy work for small business as well as big.
The third really important thing about my constituency is the open and welcoming nature of the people. Perhaps that is because we have been plugged into the global economy ever since the Romans came and built the road that now forms the eastern boundary of the constituency. I have to tell you, Mr Speaker, that not all of that road is now passable by car due to several centuries of disgraceful underinvestment by the Vikings, Normans and Saxons, but none the less, later on the canals came and put the constituency back on the map. The fantastic staircase of locks at Foxton Locks is a testament to the time when it was the spaghetti junction on the M1 of its day. In more recent decades, the constituency has welcomed people from all over the world. Sometimes they have come with absolutely nothing but the clothes on their backs, particularly the Ugandan Asians who came and settled there when they were fleeing from Idi Amin. Wherever they have come from, they have often started brilliant businesses and powered our economy forward. In our constituency, we have very good relations between all the different communities, and I will work to keep it that way.
The fourth and final thing, Mr Speaker—you will perhaps see this coming—is of course that my constituency is strikingly beautiful, from the well-kept gardens of Oadby, Wigston and Market Harborough to the gently rolling countryside, it is a lovely place to be. When we are walking near our home—me, my wife Jemma, and our little daughter Florence—tramping through the tall buttercups and the nice pink clover flowers under the big Leicestershire skies, that is about as close as it gets to heaven.
My constituency is a place of beauty, a place of opportunity, and a place with a strong community, and I want to keep it that way. To keep it beautiful, we have to start by reforming our broken planning system. We have made progress in recent years, and of course we must build more houses, but too often at the moment our planning system only builds resentment. It puts development in the wrong places and does not match new housing with the necessary infrastructure, and councillors and the community simply have too few powers relative to developers.
To extend opportunity we have to focus on education. I grew up in Huddersfield, went to a comprehensive, got to go to Oxford and have ended up in this House. I want young people in my constituency to have the same chances as I have had. It simply cannot be right that school pupils in Harborough, Oadby and Wigston get so much less funding than children in identical circumstances in other areas. The new national funding formula will start to address that injustice, and I hope that the Government will press on with it as soon as possible. I also want the forthcoming review of council funding to address the wider underfunding of Leicestershire.
To make the most of our community spirit, we have to make sure that everyone in it is included. We are an ageing society with more people living alone so loneliness is a growing problem. I commend the work of the Jo Cox Commission on Loneliness and the fantastic work being done by mainly community groups in my constituency to address loneliness. I will get right behind them.
I am an optimist by nature. Yes, we are in a global economic race, but this country has better schools than ever before and a brilliant culture of enterprise. Yes, we are an ageing society, but I believe that, with more older people and time to volunteer, we have the conditions for a massive boom in our social and community life. Although this country faces some challenges, I for one believe that our best days still lie ahead.
Mr Alister Jack (Dumfries and Galloway) (Con)
Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker, for giving me the opportunity to speak in the Second Reading debate on this important Bill. I look forward to working with colleagues from across the House to improve the protections available to British holidaymakers.
I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Harborough (Neil O’Brien) on his excellent maiden speech. I must also express my appreciation for the advice and guidance I have had both from hon. Members and from Officers of the House as I take my first faltering steps in this place.
I must pay tribute to my predecessor, Richard Arkless, who was elected in 2015. Richard did not have long in his role, but he made a positive contribution in those two years and I wish him very well for the future. I also pay tribute to Russell Brown, his predecessor, who served our region with aplomb for 18 years, until 2015. Russell defeated the Conservative candidate in 1997, riding on a Labour tidal wave, if you remember those days. I do: I was standing in Tweeddale, Ettrick and Lauderdale, John Major was going out and Tony Blair was coming in. It was a painful experience—this is sort of therapy for me tonight. Poor old Russell came in on the Labour tidal wave, only to go out in an SNP tsunami in 2015. We may not have seen anything so dramatic at the polls in Scotland this time, but the tide is rising for the Scottish Conservatives and long may that continue.
I have the honour to represent the electors of Dumfries and Galloway, which, measuring more than 2,500 square miles, is the sixth largest constituency in the United Kingdom. From Dumfries to Stranraer, it is a combination of rolling farmland, sparkling waters and beautiful hills and forests. It captures not only two and a half counties, but the hearts of those who live there and all who visit.
Historically, Dumfries and Galloway is the birthplace of John Paul Jones, the founding father of the American navy. No President has visited us to thank us for that. There is one at the moment with a golf course in the neighbouring constituency to the north, but we are not holding our breath. It is also the resting place of Scotland’s national bard, Robert Burns—a fertile poet, as my hon. Friend the Member for Ayr, Carrick and Cumnock (Bill Grant) has covered in his excellent maiden speech. I will say no more on that subject. Thanks to Kirkpatrick Macmillan, in 1840 Dumfries and Galloway gave the world the first bicycle, which I see has really caught on in this city.
Today our industry is centred on agriculture, tourism, forestry and food processing. In particular, the tourism and farming industries are the bedrock of the local economy, and are based around the small market towns of Castle Douglas and Newton Stewart. My constituency is host to some of the finest dairy herds in the United Kingdom, some of the most expansive upland sheep farms in Scotland, and of course the world-famous pedigree beef cow that is the Belted Galloway.
Our tourism market is very important to our region, and we look forward to welcoming old friends and new to treasures such as the Scottish national book town of Wigtown, with its excellent festival; the ports at Portpatrick and Kirkcudbright, the latter also famous for its artists; and the rugged scenery of the Galloway coastline and hills.
Our small communities are dependent on fishing, field sports and walking tourism, but they are also dependent on faster and wider broadband to develop home-grown businesses, and that is something I seek to improve in my new role.
I am well aware of my obligation to play my part in sustaining those rural communities, but I must also encourage economic development in the larger towns of Stranraer and Dumfries. I was born in Dumfries so I know well its issues. However, I also want to make a positive impact in Stranraer, which has seen its ferry terminal move five miles north to Cairnryan in recent years. That move has resulted in many fewer visitors to the town, but they are a resilient lot in Stranraer, with a wonderful community spirit, and I intend to support them in their regeneration efforts in every way possible. The biggest win for them would be an upgrade of the A75 Euroroute from Carlisle to Stranraer, something I have been telling the hon. Member for East Antrim (Sammy Wilson), my neighbour across the water. I hope that he has taken it on board. That important economic artery has been ignored by Scotland’s Government for far too long.
I would like to take this opportunity to send another message to the Scottish Government. In the 2014 independence referendum, my constituents voted overwhelmingly to remain in the United Kingdom. The leadership of the SNP should respect that decision.
As we prepare to leave the European Union, it is the task of us all in this House, and in all corners of our great country, to ensure that the United Kingdom goes forward economically, socially, and constitutionally, as one nation. To that end, I look forward to working with my neighbours on both sides of the border, to bring forward the borderland growth deal for the economic benefit of the whole of the north of England and the whole of the south of Scotland.
In conclusion, I thank the House for the consideration that it has shown to me this evening. I would add only that I am proud to have been elected to represent Dumfries and Galloway; proud to be one of a baker’s dozen of Scottish Conservatives returned to Westminster; and proud that we have turned the tables and imposed a Conservative Government on the English! [Laughter.]
Iain Stewart (Milton Keynes South) (Con)
It is a pleasure to make a brief contribution to this debate and to follow my hon. Friend the Member for Dumfries and Galloway (Mr Jack) and all the other hon. Members on both sides of the House who have made wonderful maiden speeches today. Indeed, I wonder whether their eloquence in painting pictures of the treasures of their constituencies has made the Bill irrelevant. Who would want to travel abroad when we have such a wonderful array of treasures in these isles? For some inconceivable reason, people will still wish to holiday overseas so the Bill is incredibly important.
As we have heard, the way people book their holidays and travel has changed remarkably. Not that long ago, people would toddle off down to the travel agent and book a fortnight in Lanzarote or Torremolinos—whatever was their destination of choice—as one package, and that was it. People now mix and match using the internet to add on all sorts of different parts of their holiday, and it is important to upgrade the regulation—the valuable ATOL scheme that has been in place for many years—to reflect those changes. The market will continue to evolve, so it is absolutely right for the Bill to set a general framework for the new legislation that can then be augmented by specific regulation. It was a pleasure to serve with the Minister, the shadow Secretary of State and other Members on the Public Bill Committee in the previous Parliament. I am glad that today we are revisiting those provisions.
I will make one very brief point, which I made when I intervened on the Minister’s opening speech. It is important to have the detailed regulations in place as soon as possible. The hon. Member for Plymouth, Sutton and Devonport (Luke Pollard), who made an excellent speech and who is very knowledgeable in these matters, echoed that point. The industry has to plan 12 to 18 months ahead and it is anxious that we get the regulation in place as soon as possible, so that people booking holidays today for that period ahead can have the coverage and protection the scheme should provide. I will support the Bill on Second Reading tonight, but I hope the Minister will address that point in Committee. Regulation must be in place as speedily as possible.
Kevin Foster (Torbay) (Con)
It is quite something to be the last Back Bencher called in a debate where we have had, I think, nine maiden speeches back-to-back. We are ending with one of the old regulars. One point I would make to new Members is that when I arrived two years ago I was told to find a nice quiet spot from which to speak. They can see the spot I decided to pick: directly opposite the then 56 Scottish National party Members. There are now slightly fewer of them.
I represent Torbay, which is a main tourism area. Indeed, I struggle to think why anyone would not want to enjoy our beaches and our history. It is one of the most beautiful constituencies in the whole country. It is right, however, if people do go abroad, that there are important protections—the ATOL regulations—in place.
One point made in a number of interventions is that the market has changed massively since the start of ATOL. It is likely to change again so it is important that our regulatory system is kept up to date. I therefore welcome the Bill. A lot of Members mentioned their birthplaces. I enjoyed the speech made by the hon. Member from my own birthplace, the hon. Member for Plymouth, Sutton and Devonport (Luke Pollard). I was born in Freedom Fields, which he will know, and it was interesting to hear the points he made. This is a changing market, where the travel agent with a selection of brochures has been replaced by a smart phone with an app that connects people immediately with a site that can sell them everything, but not necessarily a package holiday. It is important that we keep up to date and it is right that changes are made.
Reference was made to the origin of package holidays, which can be traced back to a temperance meeting. Sadly, one of the earliest package holidays arranged by entrepreneurs out of Torbay was a trip to a public hanging in Exeter, with a trip to the races thrown in on the way back. There was a slight problem, however. The individual concerned was reprieved and spent 30 years in jail, which rather ruined their plans.
It is right that we have talked about the importance of making sure that British travel agents can compete in a marketplace larger than their own. I therefore welcome the changes that will mean it is the place where they are established that governs what system they are related to, rather than from where the first flight departs, which is the current situation under the ATOL regulations. Realistically, firms will want to sell different flights and different packages, and not be constrained by the point of origin. I hope that travellers will see the benefits of booking through British and UK-based travel agents, knowing that they have the certainty of a scheme, supported by a large pot, that has worked well for over 40 years. I do not normally rush to favour extending taxation powers, but it is appropriate that clause 1 provides the ability to extend tax-raising powers to those selling direct to consumers in a European economic area country, rather than just those in the UK.
This has been a fascinating debate. I feel like I have been on a tour of various parts of the United Kingdom, with all the maiden speeches we have heard, in a debate on people taking trips abroad to see what is on offer over there.
I certainly think that this Bill is worthy of its Second Reading. There are clearly points to go over in Committee, but the protections to ensure that nobody will be stuck abroad without being able to return are welcome. It is right that industry should bear the cost of that rather than the UK taxpayer, which would be the case if we allowed the current system to continue and did not reform it in the way suggested. It will make a real difference, and I look forward to seeing the Bill progress into Committee.
Karl Turner (Kingston upon Hull East) (Lab)
This has been an excellent debate, in which we have had 22 Members speak and no less than 13 maiden speeches. There have been too many to mention, but the contributions have been truly excellent, in what has been a non-contentious debate, given that the Opposition agree with the Government’s position. As my hon. Friend the Member for Middlesbrough (Andy McDonald) stated at the outset of the debate, the Opposition are not opposed to the Bill; indeed, we are broadly very supportive of it. There are, however, some concerns about the impact of some provisions, so we want to press the Government on some issues.
The Bill will bring ATOL up to date and ensure that it is harmonised with the latest EU package travel directive, extending coverage to a wider range of holidays and protecting more consumers, as well as allowing UK travel companies to sell more seamlessly across Europe. Labour welcomes the extensions, which will ultimately help to protect more holidaymakers, but we want clarity on how UK consumers will be protected by EU-based companies, as they will no longer be subject to ATOL, but to member state equivalents.
Karl Turner
If the hon. Gentleman does not mind, I will not give way at this stage. I am hoping to mention some of the wonderful maiden speeches if I have time later.
The implications of ATOL after Brexit are also a cause for concern. Hidden in the Bill are proposals that the Secretary of State will require only the affirmative resolution procedure to significantly reform ATOL and the air travel trust fund. Labour recognises the merits of some reforms, but we believe that an impact assessment, full consultation and full scrutiny will be required before any fundamental changes are made to this well-respected consumer protection. These issues bring to the forefront uncertainties about the future of UK aviation following the decision to leave the European Union. Labour has been clear that whichever framework is chosen, the Government should prioritise retaining an essentially unchanged operating environment.
In conclusion, the Labour party broadly supports the Bill, as it will extend protections to many more holidaymakers. However, we want clarity on how EU-based companies—which will no longer be subject to ATOL, but rather to their respective member states’ equivalents—will provide protections to UK consumers. We are committed to securing the best possible framework to ensure that the sector flourishes, but this means adequately preparing ourselves for the many implications that Brexit will have for ATOL and our aviation sector as a whole.
Given that I have a few minutes, I want to mention some of the maiden speakers, kicking off with the hon. Member for Redditch (Rachel Maclean). She spoke very passionately about her constituency and the fact that her daughter Ruth encouraged her to stand and continue the long tradition of Redditch electing women to Parliament. That was an excellent move, because her speech was extremely well received and very good. She also spoke warmly of her immediate predecessor, Karen Lumley, who retired from this place due to ill health. We send our very wishes to her from all parts of the House. The hon. Lady also mentioned her predecessor Jacqui Smith, who was the first woman Home Secretary from this place.
The hon. Member for Chelmsford (Vicky Ford) eloquently described the need for consumer protections in this area. She spoke with great knowledge about the EU and the importance of these consumer protections given that we are leaving the EU. I understand that the hon. Lady is a Member of the European Parliament.
My hon. Friend the Member for Crewe and Nantwich (Laura Smith) spoke with great pride about representing the constituency in which she had been raised. She also spoke about the very important issue of gender inequality and the pay gap, and the injustice represented by the WASPI women.
The hon. Member for East Renfrewshire (Paul Masterton) rightly used his opportunity to right the wrong of forgetting to mention his wife in his general election acceptance speech. The hon. Member for North East Derbyshire (Lee Rowley) spoke with great passion about the constituency in which he grew up, and also spoke very warmly about his predecessor, our very own Natascha Engel, who is greatly missed here. My hon. Friend the Member for Weaver Vale (Mike Amesbury) spoke with great passion about his constituency as well, and also, very cleverly, mentioned his wife, referring to the fact that she had been born and bred in Runcorn.
The hon. Member for Clacton (Giles Watling) was, I have to say, very entertaining. He was, I understand, an actor, but he said that this was probably a more interesting theatre. If I remember rightly, he appeared in “Bread”, which I recall watching as a kid. That, of course, was the comedy series about a family in Liverpool who had suffered a terrible time under the Thatcher Government.
The hon. Member for Isle of Wight (Mr Seely) spoke with great passion about notable people in his constituency—too many to mention—but he also decried the privatisation of the ferry service, and many Labour Members would probably agree with him. The hon. Member for Stirling (Stephen Kerr) spoke with great passion about his constituency too, especially when referring to the wonderful shortbread and whisky. The hon. Member for Walsall North (Eddie Hughes) spoke about a very serious issue: the fact that nearly one in four of his constituents do not own a passport, and the importance of the Bill in protecting people who spend an awful lot of their hard-earned money on holidays and expect to be protected by legislation.
The hon. Member for Ayr, Carrick and Cumnock (Bill Grant) spoke of the terrible tragedy that is Grenfell Tower, having had a great deal of experience as a long-standing fire officer. I am sure that the House will benefit from his expertise in that area, and in others.
The hon. Member for Harborough (Neil O’Brien) told us how innovative his constituents were, making everything from jet engines to milk floats. He also mentioned the Jo Cox Commission on Loneliness, and said that he would support it. All of us, in all parts of the House, would be grateful for that support. Last but not least among the maiden speakers, the hon. Member for Dumfries and Galloway (Mr Jack) also spoke about innovation in his constituency, in which the first bicycle was created.
The Bill is not particularly contentious, and Labour supports the Government’s efforts to legislate in this regard.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Jesse Norman)
It is an absolute honour for me to be able to close the Second Reading debate on this Bill. I must tell you, Mr Speaker, that when I first looked at the Order Paper and saw that we had six and a half hours in which to debate a Bill consisting of four clauses, my heart slightly quailed for a second, but I would like to put it to the entire House that tonight has been an absolute triumph. I have enjoyed every speech: it has been just marvellous.
When I heard my hon. Friend the Member for Ayr, Carrick and Cumnock (Bill Grant) stand up and quote, in the context of a number of maiden speeches, the maiden-seducing Robbie Burns himself, and not only that but mentioning his famous poem “To a Mouse”, which begins, as the House will know:
“Wee, sleekit”—
I will not do the accent—
“cowrin, tim’rous beastie,
O, what a panic's in thy breastie!”
I was tempted to think that none of the new Members speaking could count as a sleekit, cowrin or tim’rous beastie, and that the panic was likely to be in the Labour breastie. So it has been a delight. I must say it has been less a parliamentary debate than an episode of “Britain’s Got Talent”, with dazzling speeches and new voices—and especially, may I say with delight, Scottish voices from my side of the House, a rare and delightful occurrence. We have lost great colleagues across the House, but this evening has brought home to us what absolute legends we have received instead.
We have had an extremely useful debate and I warmly thank all those who have taken part, including the many Members on both sides of the House who have made their maiden speeches. As the debate has made clear, this is not a Bill that is politically charged or partisan. We are collectively seeking to act in the interest of the UK businesses that sell holidays, and in particular in the interest of the travelling public who wish to enjoy those holidays free of care. This may not be the largest of Bills when measured in terms of the number of its clauses, but it is a very large Bill when measured by its potential to bring peace of mind to people in every constituency throughout the UK.
That reassurance is what the ATOL scheme was originally created to provide, when it was set up in 1973. Today, not only does it help to prevent rogue traders from entering the market, but it provides important protection to consumers in the event that their travel organiser should fail. It has provided effective protection to consumers for over 40 years and it is well regarded both by those who use it and by the travel sector itself.
Consumer protection is an important pillar of the holiday sector owing to the nature of the market. Holidays are frequently booked and paid for many months in advance of travel, and the consumer may often be unaware of the financial stability, or instability, of their holiday providers. The impacts from the failure of a travel company can be grievous. Consumers may face a serious financial loss from not receiving a refund, or from the cost of having to make alternative arrangements to get home. Even worse, they may experience the trauma, heartache and sheer inconvenience of a cancelled holiday, or of being stranded abroad without accommodation or a ticket back.
Jim Shannon
I thank the Minister for his response to the issue that we face. He will be aware that, for many holidaymakers and travellers, delayed and cancelled flights are an issue. Does the legislation that he is bringing forward address the issue for people who are in that very difficult position, whether domestically, in Europe or further afield?
Jesse Norman
I am not quite sure I have taken the point the hon. Gentleman has raised. If it is about Brexit, I am not expecting this to change at all. He would be welcome to put the question again if we had more time, but I am afraid I will have to move on. I apologise for that.
The ATOL scheme provides important protection in these situations. It ensures that, if an ATOL holder fails, its customers are able to continue their holiday and return home, or that they will not lose out on the money paid if they are yet to travel. Fortunately, the failure of travel companies is relatively rare, but it does happen. In the last financial year alone, 19 ATOL holders collapsed. In each of those situations, the Civil Aviation Authority had to step in to deliver the appropriate protection to consumers through the scheme.
Many colleagues will be aware of the recent failure of the Spanish online travel agent, the Lowcost Travelgroup. When that business failed last summer, it was reported that there were 27,000 customers on holiday and over 100,000 customers who were yet to travel. Although many of those customers were from the UK, the company did not have ATOL protection as it was regulated under the Spanish regime. The collapse of companies such as that is an important reminder of the need to ensure that consumer protection keeps pace with the way people book their holidays. The huge growth in online booking means that customers have a much wider choice of providers, including those based overseas. Yet it is clear from the low-cost holiday situation that not every travel provider is covered by the same level of protection, and inconsistencies apply across borders. That is why we have already begun to take steps to update the ATOL scheme and bring it into line with modern trade practices.
The Minister of State for transport, legislation and maritime, my right hon. Friend the Member for South Holland and The Deepings (Mr Hayes), has already mentioned in his opening remarks the legislative changes that we made to ATOL in 2012. These introduced the flight-plus category, to bring ATOL protection to the many consumers who book mix-and-match holidays online, in addition to those who buy traditional package holidays on the high street. The then Government also introduced the ATOL certificate, so that consumers know when they have booked an ATOL-protected holiday, and who to contact if their travel provider fails. We believe these interventions have had a positive impact for consumers and many businesses. Not only have we seen an increase in the number of protected consumers, but the changes have also helped to level the playing field between online and high street businesses.
For similar reasons, we have also been working with the European Commission and EU member states since 2012 to ensure that the European regulations are also brought up to date. The original package travel directive was agreed in 1990, and its provisions were introduced into UK law through the package travel regulations of 1992. As my right hon. Friend said earlier, the ATOL scheme is a crucial means by which UK businesses can meet their obligations to have insolvency protection under the EU directive.
The EU and UK package travel regulations have contributed significantly to consumer protection rights since their introduction. However, those regulations were originally designed for a world where people booked their pre-prepared package holidays through a high street travel agent or tour operator. The regulations thus pre-date the growth in the internet, where people are able to create their own informal packages online. As the House well knows, the internet has since become a vast travel marketplace, providing opportunities for consumers and businesses. Indeed, we heard at the start of the debate that around 75% of UK holidays are now booked online.
That being the case, it is important that regulations and consumer protections are able to keep pace with major changes in the marketplace. That is why a new package travel directive was finally agreed across Europe in December 2015.
The UK Government have supported the rationale for updating the directive, in order to bring greater clarity on what constitutes a package holiday in today’s marketplace and to improve and harmonise protection across the continent. The updated package travel directive will do just that: it brings protection across the rest of Europe closer to the model we have operated since we updated ATOL in 2012. Once again, the UK is leading in Europe; that is good news for consumers.
Overall, it will mean consumers will see insolvency protection extended to cover a broader range of holidays. In particular, it has updated the definition of a package holiday, so that an informal package booked online will need to be protected in the same way as a traditional package holiday booked on the high street.
As has been noted, it also brings a new concept of “linked travel arrangements” into the scope of protection. Like a package holiday, these involve a combination of at least two different types of travel services purchased together for the purpose of a holiday. However, those arrangements are looser, involving the separate selection and payment of each travel service, and separate contracts with different travel service providers. Linked travel arrangements will not be protected to the same level as a package holiday; however, under certain conditions, a refund or repatriation will apply.
There should also be benefits to business. A harmonised approach will help to level the playing field, with the same rules applying for businesses across the EU selling similar products. This harmonised approach will also help to remove barriers for UK businesses that want to trade across borders.
Concerns have been raised about air passenger rights when the UK leaves the EU. The Government are committed to delivering an orderly withdrawal and are preparing to introduce legislation that will preserve the EU acquis on the domestic statute book for the time being. The Government are also seeking to have UK consumers continue to enjoy the strong protections and effective consumer regime that they currently enjoy both inside and outside the EU.
Today, we are taking forward the ATOL Bill to harmonise our domestic regulations with the changes coming in across the EU in 2018. As the House has heard from my right hon. Friend the Minister, the Bill will update the ATOL powers to align them with the scope of the directive. It is a fine piece of work, and I commend it to the House.
Question put and agreed to.
Bill accordingly read a Second time.
Air Travel Organisers’ Licensing Bill (Programme)
Motion made, and Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 83A(7)),
That the following provisions shall apply to the Air Travel Organisers’ Licensing Bill:
Committal
(1) The Bill shall be committed to a Committee of the whole House.
Proceedings in Committee, on Consideration and up to and including Third Reading
(2) Proceedings in Committee, any proceedings on Consideration and any proceedings in legislative grand committee shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion two hours after the commencement of proceedings in Committee of the whole House.
(3) Proceedings on Third Reading shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion three hours after the commencement of proceedings in Committee of the whole House.
(4) Standing Order No. 83B (Programming committees) shall not apply to proceedings in Committee of the whole House, to any proceedings on Consideration or to other proceedings up to and including Third Reading.
Other proceedings
(5) Any other proceedings on the Bill may be programmed.—(Mike Freer.)
Question agreed to.
Air Travel Organisers’ Licensing Bill
Tuesday 11th July 2017
(6 years, 9 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Air Travel Organisers' Licensing Act 2017 Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: Committee of the whole House Amendments as at 11 July 2017 - (11 Jul 2017)
17:24 - The Committee divided: - Ayes: 271 / Noes: 305 - Question accordingly negatived.
17:44 - The Committee divided: - Ayes: 274 / Noes: 307 - Question accordingly negatived.
18:01 - The Committee divided: - Ayes: 273 / Noes: 308 - Question accordingly negatived.
Karl Turner (Kingston upon Hull East) (Lab)
I beg to move amendment 2, in page 1, line 13, at end insert—
“(4) The Government must publish a review within one year of this Act receiving Royal Assent on the impact on UK consumers using EU-based companies affected by changes to consumer protection introduced by this section.”
This amendment requires the Government to review the impact of provisions under this section to ensure that they are not adversely affecting UK consumers using EU-based companies.
The Chairman of Ways and Means (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)
With this it will be convenient to consider clause 1 stand part.
Karl Turner
The amendment would require the Government to review the impact of clause 1 to ensure that it does not adversely affect UK consumers using EU-based companies. Essentially, the clause updates ATOL—the air travel organisers’ licence—to ensure that it is harmonised with the 2015 EU package travel directive. The provision therefore extends ATOL to cover a wider range of holidays and protect more consumers. UK travel companies, we are told, will be able to sell more seamlessly across Europe, as they will need to comply with protections based not in the country of sale, but the country in which they are established. Those are the objectives that the Government seek to achieve. There is no difference of principle between the Government and the Opposition on this matter. Indeed, it is due to the package travel directive that it has been necessary to put such a provision into the Bill.
However, we seek clarification on some issues, which was why we tabled amendment 2. The amendment would provide a guarantee that the Government will review the impact of the ATOL revisions to ensure that they do not adversely affect UK consumers using EU-based companies. The whole idea of the clause is to improve the range of protections available. The broad substance of the changes to ATOL are necessary and are broadly welcome. As I said, they will harmonise UK law with the latest EU package travel directive, and that should have many benefits. A wider range of operators, including more dynamic package providers, are likely to be covered by the changes. That will hopefully bring protection to many more UK holidaymakers who are not covered under existing ATOL provisions.
For UK travel companies, standards will have to be in line with those of the country in which the company is established, rather than the place where the company sells the holiday. That should mean that companies established in the UK can sell far more seamlessly across Europe by simply adhering to the widely respected ATOL flag. However, the changes at the EU level could have adverse effects for UK consumers who purchase their holiday or travel from EU-based travel companies, rather than British companies that sell into other European countries.
Amendment 2 would address that issue. The changes made through the directive will now mean that EU-based companies selling in the UK will have to adhere to ATOL-equivalent insolvency protections laid out in the member state where the business is based. In practice, that could lead to unintended consequences and, more significantly, costs for UK consumers. Processes and timescales for recompense may be distinctly different from what many travellers would expect under the current ATOL provisions, which are in many ways regarded as the gold standard.
The impact assessment warns:
“If consumers purchase a trip from a business established elsewhere in the EU and the company becomes insolvent there may be some costs to the consumer of processing a claim with a non-UK insolvency protector.”
Based on the latest Civil Aviation Authority figures, this will affect not just a relatively small number of holidaymakers. If this goes wrong, more than 500,000 passengers could be compromised, so a significant number of people could be adversely affected. It is therefore important that the Government take steps to anticipate and prepare for any possible negative impacts.
Amendment 2 would achieve that by requiring the UK Government to monitor the impact on UK consumers using EU-based companies. That would help to inform whether the UK Government should consider issuing further guidance, or co-operating with consumers and member states to ensure that protections are adequate.
The changes envisaged by the clause clearly make sense and are in line with what is required under the package travel directive. There is no doubt that when UK-established companies are selling into other countries, the consumers in those countries will have the benefit of the gold standard of ATOL protection. However, we are concerned about the protection given by EU-based companies selling in the UK. We hope that it will be equivalent to that under ATOL, but it will be subject to the rules and regulations of the EU country concerned. We are nervous about whether UK holidaymakers could lose out, so we are asking the Government to consider the issue and to monitor the situation properly.
As with so many other things, the environment is changing, particularly in relation to Brexit. ATOL will still be there post-Brexit, but we will explore possible changes when we discuss the next group of amendments. The package travel directive will no doubt still be there for those states that will still be members of the EU. What is uncertain at this stage is what the interface will be between the two things post-Brexit.
Stephen Hammond (Wimbledon) (Con)
I have been following the hon. Gentleman’s line of thought carefully. He seems to be seeking full protection for UK consumers buying in the EU. The EU package travel directive applies while we are still a member of the EU, but when we cease to be a member, the repeal Bill will have put its provisions in UK legislation, so surely the hon. Gentleman’s argument is unnecessary.
Karl Turner
With respect, we do not know that yet, and nor do we know what the insolvency arrangements will be for companies abroad. The Government must address this real issue.
Karl Turner
I will not give way.
We ask the Government to get the ball rolling within a year of the Bill receiving Royal Assent, but a regular review is also needed, particularly in the light of Brexit. Our amendment is supported by the Association of British Travel Agents and other travel organisations. Despite ministerial assurances, we want our amendment to be made to the Bill, so we will press it to a Division.
The Minister of State, Department for Transport (Mr John Hayes)
I welcome the spirit in which the Opposition have gone about their business on these provisions. We have had measured and sensible exchanges, first when we started to explore the issues in the Vehicle Technology and Aviation Bill earlier this year, before the election, and subsequently in last week’s Second Reading debate on this Bill. There is a determination across the House to get these matters right and a recognition that the protections that these measures offer travellers are important. Furthermore, as the Opposition spokesman made clear a moment or two ago, there is a recognition that we need to maintain the fitness for purpose of these arrangements to take account of changing circumstances in the travel market.
We must remember the context in which we are considering the amendment. The whole House shares the view that it is right for ATOL to continue and to respond to changing market conditions, and that the Government must do their part by ensuring that the necessary framework is in place. In respect of the amendment, I can go even further.
Mr Hayes
I will happily give way, after I have made this telling and interesting point. I said to Labour Members not long ago that I understand that it is now de rigeur for parties from across the House to work together. That has become immensely fashionable recently; frankly, however, it has been my practice forever. I feel as though the world is catching up with me, and that is a great place to be.
Julian Knight
The Labour spokesman suggested earlier that there might be some rowing back of holidaymakers’ rights after we leave the EU, but is that not quite wrong? The UK has led the charge in the EU for holidaymakers’ rights. Will the Minister reassure the House yet again that we will protect holidaymakers’ rights post Brexit?
Mr Hayes
Although I do not want my sermocination to be excessive, I will deal with those matters at greater length in my later remarks. My hon. Friend is right to say that Britain can be justly proud of our record in respect of ATOL. To be clear, the Labour party acknowledged that on Second Reading a few days ago. There is an acceptance across the House that Britain has done this well; that that is recognised in continental Europe; and that there is a desire to ensure that future arrangements are inspired by, and perhaps even emulate, the best practice exemplified by the United Kingdom.
I said that I could go further still in building a bridge across the House, and that is because I am sympathetic to the aims behind the amendment. It is crucial that we carefully craft our policy, and the regulatory framework is the key to good governance. To gubernate is to be prepared to listen and learn, and it is absolutely right that we do so in respect of the changes that the Bill will make. It would not be fair to set any of this in stone, which is why I accept the need to consider these matters, as the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull East (Karl Turner) set out, in the context of future changes to our relationship with Europe.
As I have said repeatedly, I am open-minded about reviewing the effects of these changes, but let me explain a little more. The Bill introduces the ability for ATOL to protect sales by businesses established in the UK and in other member states. It will be for protection schemes in other member states to provide the protections for UK consumers to which the amendment refers. That is not our responsibility—we do not have the power that the amendment suggests we should have—so I am not sure that the amendment works on a technical level.
The amendment does, however, highlight an important point, which it is right for us to consider. It seems to me that the hon. Gentleman’s argument was twofold: first, that we need to understand the potential impact on UK consumers of purchasing from traders that are based overseas under different protection regimes; and, secondly, that we need to consider how Government should keep that element of protection under review. Let me deal with those points in turn.
Vicky Ford
I do recall mentioning in the Chamber the last time we discussed the Bill that I chaired the negotiations on the package travel directive in my previous role.
My right hon. Friend refers to the technicalities of the amendment. Of course we should continue to review the impact of the changes on British consumers, because the Bill means that the ATOL guarantee will cover companies based in the UK, not companies selling into the UK, so it would not, for example, have caught the Low Cost Holidays situation last year.
On the technicalities of the impact assessment, if we read the underlying package travel directive, member states in Europe are not due to implement—
The Chairman
Order. It is one thing to intervene, but another to make a speech. Please, if the hon. Lady needs to do that, she should do it over a couple of interventions. When I stand and say, “Order,” she should please sit down. I do not want to stop a new Member; I want to try and help you, but you have to help me as well. If you need to come back, I am sure the Minister will give way again.
Mr Hayes
I am extremely grateful, Mr Hoyle.
I will address my hon. Friend’s remarks later in my brief speech. She is right, of course, that it is too early to know how the package travel directive will lead to changes in purchasing behaviour across borders. That was a point that the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull East made, too. We hope—
Mr Hayes
I think this might make the hon. Gentleman’s point even better than it would be otherwise. I described earlier the desire of the Europeans essentially to—I hate to use this word, because it is so often a loaded term when it emanates from the EU, but I will—harmonise arrangements across Europe, but he is right to say, as is my hon. Friend the Member for Chelmsford (Vicky Ford), that we do not know.
Mr Hayes
Yes, which is why I have said that, in principle, I agree. I will come to how I am going to satisfy the hon. Gentleman by assuaging his fears. He has already declared his intent to divide the Committee, Mr Hoyle, but I might be able to persuade him not to. I might be able, in the generous remarks that I am about to make, to discourage him from that course of action. We shall wait to see. If I do not, I am not going to blame myself. Just so you know, Mr Hoyle, there will be no self-blame here; I will blame it on the hon. Gentleman. But let me do my best.
The hon. Gentleman is right to say that it is not clear how this will work out. If other member states implement as they are required to, consumers will be able to purchase across Europe knowing that the protection offered will need to meet the improved standards in the new directive. In practice, that should see insolvency protection across the EU improved to levels, as my hon. Friend the Member for Solihull (Julian Knight) said, that are broadly in line with ATOL.
There is also an increased onus on member states to ensure that businesses in their own territory have effective protection in place, but if the Civil Aviation Authority or trading standards has doubts or concerns about traders based overseas, it will be able to contact designating bodies in other member states to check compliance. We will ensure—I say this directly to the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull East and to the shadow Secretary of State, the hon. Member for Middlesbrough (Andy McDonald)—that compliance in other member states is a matter that the CAA monitors, and that it makes contact with its like in those member states to ensure that proper practice is being observed. But—
Vicky Ford
Given that other member states do not need to implement this measure until halfway through next year, would not an impact assessment within a year be too soon? Should we not be calling for a more constant and regular review of the impact on British holidaymakers, and a review once the system is established in 2021, say, like the European legislation?
Mr Hayes
In that punchy and pithy intervention, my hon. Friend made the point that I made when we debated these matters in the Committee considering the previous legislation of which this was originally a part. That is rather convoluted, but it makes the point. I said that the problem with an early review is that it would be too early and would not take account of the changing circumstances in exactly the way she suggests. But I am minded to go further. Given that we discussed the issue in Committee on the Vehicle Technology and Aviation Bill, I want to make two further points.
First, the Small Business, Enterprise and Employment Act 2015—I have a copy with me for the benefit of any hon. Member who may wish to look at the particular clauses—makes a review obligatory within five years of the passing of the legislation. That existing obligation would of course apply to ATOL. However, we can do better than that. I am proud of my Department’s reputation for producing robust analysis to underpin and inform policy decisions, including providing full regulatory impact assessments to assess the effect of significant changes to regulation. That is a principle to which we have adhered in recent years throughout the ATOL reform process. We have already reformed ATOL once, in 2012, as the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull East knows. We went through a consultation exercise, which I also have with me, and it is important that we continue the process of consulting and publishing the kind of impact assessments I have described before any regulatory changes take place.
It is really important that, when we changed the Civil Aviation Act 1982 in 2012 better to reflect current market practice, the call for evidence on the long-term review of the ATOL scheme produced responses that both informed the changes we made then—as they certainly did—and any further changes.
Julian Knight
My right hon. Friend has been most generous in taking interventions. He mentioned that ATOL was last reformed in 2012. Is not the truth that the process will not end with Brexit or with the Bill? It is an ongoing process of reform and renewal.
Mr Hayes
That is true and in a sense it is more catalysed by the changing character of communications and the way in which people organise and book their holidays than it is by our relationship with the continental countries of Europe. It is affected by both, but my hon. Friend is right to say that even if we were not leaving the European Union—and, my goodness, I am glad we are —we would still need to reflect on and consider changes that take account of the changing patterns of the way in which people organise and book their holidays. Indeed, he is right that the process of reflection, consultation, impact assessment and review needs to be a continual one.
Last year we consulted on the changes to the Civil Aviation Act 1982 that we are discussing today. We are about to launch a series of consultations on the detailed regulations that will follow, including on this particular issue. Each stage of the work will be the subject of impact assessments and consultations, so we will both consult and publish impact assessments on each stage of the changes that I have described and which will be drawn to the House’s attention by various hon. Members—
Stephen Hammond
I always hesitate to stop the Minister in full flow because he is such a joy to hear. Surely his commitment is the key point, because the Government consulted in 2012 and have committed to consulting in bringing in this legislation and aligning ATOL with the European directive. That needs to continue, because we will not transpose it into law until next year.
Mr Hayes
That is also true, and it is certainly true that we cannot be premature about imagining, or speculating about, the outcome of that process; but I think we can offer some certainty about our determination to consult on the arrangements in respect of this particular set of regulations—partly, of course, because they exist irrespective of the European Union. ATOL’s coincidental genesis with our entry to the European Union is just that, a coincidence. ATOL, I guess, would have existed regardless of our relationship with the European Union. Indeed, the regulatory and legislative framework that underpins it is domestic. So the domestic legislation that gave life to ATOL, and continues to do so, was very much at the behest of this Parliament, and of successive Governments—of all parties, by the way—who have continued to support that scheme.
Anna Soubry (Broxtowe) (Con)
This is a fascinating topic. Are we seeing an example of what happens when EU regulation is really rather good, and we accept that and transpose it into our law? Does my right hon. Friend not agree that there are many who supported our leaving the EU on the basis of some, I think, fanciful notion—I am sorry, Mr Hoyle, but I think this is an important point—that we would be stripping away all this sort of regulation and entirely doing our own thing? This proposal, however, seems to be rather a good idea.
Mr Hayes
In the darkest recesses of the darkest places there is occasionally a glimmer of light, and so it is with the European Union. One would not want to claim that every single aspect of every single thing that has been done over all the years of its existence has been malevolent. There is the odd measure which may be said to have shed just a glimmer of light, and in that sense, my right hon. Friend may be right.
Let me move on. During an evidence session earlier this year, Richard Moriarty of the Civil Aviation Authority told the Committee considering the Vehicle, Technology and Aviation Bill that he hoped the Government
“will follow the practice that they have followed today: consult with us, consult the industry, do the impact assessment, and so on.” ––[Official Report, Vehicle Technology and Aviation Public Bill Committee, 14 March 2017; c. 65, Q150.]
For the reasons that I have given, the current process is one from which I will not deviate. We will ensure that any changes that are made after the passing of the Bill, or as a consequence of it, will be subject to that rigorous and transparent process; but I want to go even further in satisfying the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull East, because even that is not enough for me.
The hon. Gentleman will be aware of the Air Travel Insolvency Protection Advisory Committee, or ATIPAC, as it is commonly known. Earlier, I described darkness and glimmers of light in respect of the European Union. So it is with Labour Governments. It is a great mistake in politics to demonise one’s political opponents, because Governments of all colours do some things well and some things less well. All Governments introduce legislation that they subsequently regret, and omit to introduce legislation that they should. In grown-up politics and proper political debate—and this is a mature Parliament that is capable of such debate—we should freely acknowledge that.
In 2000, a Labour Government set up ATIPAC. Its purpose was to provide advice for the Civil Aviation Authority, the Air Travel Trust and the Secretary of State for Transport on policies that should be pursued to protect customers. It consists of representatives of industry, consumers, the CAA and Trading Standards, which means that it is well placed to provide an informed and independent review of policies. That committee already submits a substantial report to the Secretary of State each year. I have a copy of such a report, for the consideration and, I hope, education and enjoyment of any Member who may wish to cast an eye over it. The report includes drawing the Secretary of State’s attention to any concerns on which ATIPAC’s view is that further action is necessary to maintain strong consumer protection. This includes advice on changes in the market and, where appropriate, their potential impact on consumers and the financial protection arrangements.
Julian Knight
Is my right hon. Friend saying that the industry experts—the people who really know—are saying in effect that this amendment is superfluous and is unnecessary?
Mr Hayes
I do not want to disagree with any hon. Member unnecessarily, and certainly not with a Member on my side of the Chamber. However, it is true—as my hon. Friend will know as he is a student of these matters who has taken a keen interest in this Bill from its inception—that ABTA has produced a briefing for this debate, and in a moment I will go through it in some detail. While it is true that ABTA welcomes, as the Opposition have, the changes that we are making to ATOL, and there is a broad recommendation from it that we should be doing just that, it has given a detailed critique of the measures we are introducing and the amendments, and, at face value—that is something of an understatement—it seems rather sympathetic to the Opposition amendment. However, it will not have had the benefit of the further commitment I am about to give, which this Committee will be the first to know, for that is as it should be.
I am now going to catch the eye of the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull East. I am sure that that independent committee, which was set up by a Labour Government for the very purpose of reviewing these matters regularly to ensure they are fit for purpose and with the mission of observing and making recommendations in the interests of consumers will doubtless want to consider the impact of the changes we are making, and will of course be aware of the contextual changes in our relationship with the European Union and the effect of the directive on other countries and their arrangements. Nevertheless, I am prepared to write to the committee reflecting the sentiments the hon. Gentleman has articulated persuasively enough—I was going to say “so persuasively,” but I do not want to overstate the case—to encourage me to make this commitment, and to ask it not only in its annual report to review the implementation of these changes, but also to take account of the other remarks he has made.
Vicky Ford
Will my right hon. Friend confirm that ATIPAC meets every year to review issues affecting consumer protection for British travellers buying not only from EU-based companies, but from anywhere they wish to travel in the world so, of course, British travellers will have this review every year?
Mr Hayes
On the pithiness index that you are clearly keeping, Mr Hoyle, that was not quite as pithy as my hon. Friend’s first intervention, but it is still pithy enough for me—and, I am sure, for you, Mr Hoyle, the ultimate arbiter of these things. My hon. Friend is absolutely right, of course: the committee, set up by a previous Labour Government, does indeed have exactly that purpose. It produces that annual report, which is a public document, but I have said that I would go further than that and request that that committee looks particularly at the very things this amendment seeks. So, not only are we going to have impact assessments and full and comprehensive consultations, not only have I committed to subjecting any further regulations to that kind of transparent and open debate with the appropriate scrutiny, and not only does the committee exist for the very purpose of producing an annual report in the interests of defending consumers in this field of work, but, further than that, I will to write to the committee to tell it that it should do exactly as the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull East has asked.
Vicky Ford
Will my right hon. Friend confirm that, if we pass this Labour amendment, we will be asking for a review that is to take place anyway, and that the amendment is therefore unnecessary?
Mr Hayes
That is a perfect cue for what I was about to say. Knowing that the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull East is a reasonable and sensible man, and knowing that the shadow Secretary of State has some experience in this field, having debated these matters with me on more than one occasion, I cannot believe that a responsible Opposition would, in the light of the pledges I have made today, on the record, push these matters to a vote.
I will ask the committee—which is already there to do as the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull East has asked and is already producing the annual report that the amendment requests—to deliver the very assurance that he has requested. Those experts—for that is what they are—submit their report to the Secretary of State within four months of the end of each financial year. However, I am going to go even further. I am determined that the hon. Gentleman will be so captivated, encouraged and illuminated—not surprised; I would not go that far, because he knows what a good bloke I am—by the offers that I have made that he really will not want to push this matter to a vote. I am going to go further. The committee, which does indeed publish an annual report, can, as necessary, report more frequently if circumstances require. Should it believe that it needed to do so because of this legislative change, we would, ironically, have less scrutiny, fewer reports and less analysis if we were to pass the amendment than is the case now.
Mr Hayes
There are those on my side of the House who take a less generous view than I do of the Labour party. However, I know that what I have just described is not the intention of Her Majesty’s Opposition. They do not want to have less scrutiny, less analysis, less certainty or less clarity. They want the same degree of clarity that I seek. I am prepared to acknowledge that. However, the effect of their amendment might be to leave us in a worse position than we are in at present, and that surely cannot be right.
Ms Nadine Dorries (Mid Bedfordshire) (Con)
I apologise for intervening so soon after arriving in the Chamber. Does my right hon. Friend not agree that most of these issues will be taken care of in the great repeal Bill anyway?
Mr Hayes
That is of course right; the committee will look at all those matters in that context. I said that earlier. I have also said, however, that I want to go further and to ensure that this stands proud as an example of analysis. Of course the great repeal Bill and our relationship with the European Union are bound to be the context in which the committee considers these matters; I guess that that is true. However, these ATOL arrangements predate our relationship with the European Union, or, if they came into force at the same time, it was a coincidence. Given that they are framed in domestic legislation rather than European legislation, I believe that ATOL would have existed regardless of our association with the European Union.
Stephen Hammond
Just for clarity, when I intervened on the Opposition Front-Bench spokesman, he was making a point about insolvency, but the generous offer that my right hon. Friend just made would clearly cover insolvency as well.
Mr Hayes
Generosity needs to be reciprocal. It is not for me to say how the Opposition will conduct their affairs, but surely they will recognise that we are going as far as it is possible to go to ensure that the process is reviewed in precisely the way that the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull East described. He says that we cannot be absolutely certain how things will pan out in practice, and I agree. The spirit of his amendment seems to be the right one, so I have made it clear that I will facilitate just such an analysis of the impact of the changes. The point is that it is not as if the mechanisms do not exist for us to do that, and they do not merely rely on the legislative strength of the Small Business, Enterprise and Employment Act 2015, which says that there must five-yearly reviews. Issues will go to the committee responsible for overseeing such matters, which was set up by a previous Labour Government, and we will insist that the impact is reviewed—more than once a year if necessary.
Jeremy Quin (Horsham) (Con)
May I ask my right hon. Friend for more clarity on that? Can the committee review things as often as it wants? I am sure that the committee will have been taking this debate seriously and that this particular part of it will be receiving attention. Can he confirm that he will be encouraging the committee to take its responsibility to review the proposal very seriously?
Mr Hayes
As you know, Mr Hoyle, it is not my habit to speak at length in this House. I like to abbreviate my remarks to a sufficient degree to make my point, but not to exaggerate the arguments. In the light of that intervention, however, I am inclined to go into rather more detail about the ATIPAC report, which is the document submitted to the Secretary of State in the way that I have described and then made public. The latest report states:
“The Committee’s role is to provide informed advice to the Government and the regulatory authorities on financial protection for consumers in the event of a holiday company’s insolvency. Its Constitution sets out the role and membership of the Committee, and can be reviewed in Appendix 4.”
I will not go into the details of appendix 4.
The Chairman of Ways and Means (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)
Order. The Minister says “by popular demand”, but those Members were not here when he first started. He has had to wait until now.
Simon Hoare
May I say to my right hon. Friend, with the seriousness and candour that the moment demands, that he is a bright flame on a dull and grey afternoon to which the moths of Parliament are being drawn?
The Chairman
Order. The danger is that someone might blow out that light. Come on, Minister.
Mims Davies
I thank the Minister for giving way. It has been announced today that easyJet is to fly for the first time from Southampton airport, which is in my constituency. It is fantastic news, and I am heading off in about 10 minutes—[Laughter.] Like me, is the Minister wary of committing the Government to something that may adversely impact the industry during the Brexit process? I say that on what is a positive day for my constituency.
Mr Hayes
There is no wish to do that on either side of the House. There is general agreement on both sides of the House that the measure must act in the interests of both consumers and businesses. It is certainly in the mutual interest of the travel industry and of those who use it that these protections are in place, which is precisely why Governments of all colours and persuasions have continued to invest in and support ATOL over the years, and it is why I said earlier, before a number of Members entered the Chamber, that there is general cross-party agreement among all contributors to these discussions that it is necessary to reform ATOL to take account of the changing way in which people book their holidays online and in other ways. People plan holidays rather differently from how they once did.
Victoria Atkins (Louth and Horncastle) (Con)
My right hon. Friend and Lincolnshire neighbour, as a Transport Minister, has been diligent in attending to the concerns of my constituents about the infamous Bull Ring bottleneck in Horncastle, where the A153 and A158 cross. Has he paid the same diligence, care and attention to this Bill, such that he is able to reassure the Committee that the amendment is not to be passed and that we must keep the Bill as it is?
The Chairman
I have been quite generous to Members coming in late and intervening. If you are going to intervene, let us have short interventions.
The Chairman
Mr Hoare, I assure you that I do not need any advice. I remind the Minister that there are others who wish to speak, including on his own Benches.
Alan Brown (Kilmarnock and Loudoun) (SNP)
Far be it from me to prevent the Minister from continuing to drag things out. I apologise, but I do not have one of the intervention sheets that have been circulated. A few interventions ago, the hon. Member for Mid Bedfordshire (Ms Dorries) suggested that the great repeal Bill will account for this amendment. Can the Minister explain how the yet-to-be-published great repeal Bill will supersede or take account of it?
Mr Hayes
What I actually said is that the Air Travel Insolvency Protection Advisory Committee, which is missioned to consider these matters in the way I described, will doubtless take account of the contextual changes associated with our independence from the European Union, and I use the word “independence” advisedly. It is inconceivable that the committee would not make reference to that in its annual report, but I also said that I would write to draw the committee’s attention to the specificity of the measures we are bringing before the House to ensure that it carries out the very kind of report and review called for by the amendment.
Mr Hayes
I really must press on.
Appendix 4 of the annual report is categorical about the committee’s constitutional role, and it sets out the committee’s membership, which includes the Association of British Travel Agents, the Association of Independent Tour Operators, the Association of Airline Consolidators, the Board of Airline Representatives in the UK and the Travel Trust Association. The committee also includes up to 10 independent members, of whom one will be the chair. Of course, as I set out earlier, the committee’s independence and expertise mean that it is in a perfect place to do the very work that the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull East perfectly properly recommended to the House and that the amendment seeks to achieve.
Therefore, in the light of the fact that the Government have already obliged in law to review legislation within five years and have set up the independent panel of experts to report; that I have committed to seek guidance on the important issues the hon. Gentleman raises and to write to that committee asking it to review the legislation; and that the committee will report more often than annually as necessary, it would be extraordinary if the Labour party pushed this matter to the vote. It would be unreasonable for it to do so, but in the end that is a matter for it, not for me.
Patricia Gibson (North Ayrshire and Arran) (SNP)
Last week, there was uncharacteristic consensus in welcoming the Second Reading of this Bill, as it is perfectly desirable and sensible to update the ATOL scheme to ensure more protection for travellers when they go on holiday and to align it with the latest EU directive. However, there undoubtedly are a number of questions that will arise in relation to this scheme once the UK leaves the EU. We need cast-iron guarantees that the rights of and protections for travellers will not be diminished after Brexit.
On Second Reading, the Minister was clear in saying that he wished to protect passengers, but we lack the detail on that. We do not know when the UK will develop its own system of passenger rights and compensation in the aviation sector after Brexit, how similar it will be to current arrangements or how it will affect EU airlines and passengers. Scottish National party Members fully support the Government’s reviewing the impact of provisions under this amendment; surely it is right that they review the impact of the provisions to ensure that UK consumers are protected and are not disadvantaged by using EU-based companies. When we leave the EU, passenger rights must not be affected, and consumers and companies based in the UK and/or the EU need clarity on what their obligations are in respect of the ATOL scheme.
We have heard today that this will all be taken care of in the great repeal Bill, and I am sure we all hope it will. Last week, the Minister said he was keen to protect consumers, and I am optimistic that that will be in evidence today. His reasons for resisting reviewing the impact of provisions under this amendment do not seem clear. Periodic reviews still make sense; having a review within one year will inform the impact of the provisions and will still be helpful. The Minister is an eminent and sensible man, but I am at a loss here: if ATIPAC already carries out yearly reviews, why resist this? The reviews we are talking about merely write into legislation something that it appears is already happening. What has the Minister to lose? The committee provides advice, we are told, and this amendment writes into legislation—
The Chairman
Order. That is not a word we would use, and I am sure the hon. Lady can think of something much more pleasant. The Minister is a nice man, after all, and I do not believe he would mislead the House.
Patricia Gibson
The Minister is an eminently sensible man, but the point is that I can only wonder why he is resisting yearly reviews which he has told us already happen. If they already happen, why not write them into this piece of legislation, if for no other reason than to reassure passengers as we face a post-Brexit world? I know he is an honourable man, and I urge him to reconsider and accept the amendment.
Karl Turner
The Minister is a terribly generous chap, but his attempts to pacify the Opposition with his promise of a letter to ATIPAC simply are not enough. That does not cut the mustard, so we will push the amendment to a vote.
Question put, That the amendment be made.
Patricia Gibson
I beg to move amendment 1, page 2, line 10, at end insert—
‘(8) Regulations under subsection (6) may not be laid before Parliament until the Secretary of State has published an assessment of their impact and has launched a consultation on the proposed amendments to the definition of “Air Travel Trust.””
This amendment requires the Secretary of State to undertake an impact assessment and launch a consultation before bringing forward any regulations to amend the definition of Air Travel Trust under this Act.
The Chairman of Ways and Means (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
Amendment 3, page 2, line 10, at end insert —
‘(8) Before laying regulations under subsection (6), the Secretary of State must publish a full impact assessment and consult on the proposals.”
This amendment would require the Government to undertake a full impact assessment and consultation before bringing forward regulations to create any new air travel trusts through an affirmative resolution.
Clause stand part.
Patricia Gibson
Amendment 1, which stands in my name and that of my hon. Friend the Member for Kilmarnock and Loudoun (Alan Brown), would require the Government to undertake a full impact assessment and consultation before introducing any regulations to amend the definition of air travel trust under the Bill. Clause 2 requires that—[Interruption.]
The Chairman
Order. There is a lot of conversation. I really am struggling to hear, and I am not sure whether the mic is picking up this speech. Would hon. Members please have their conversations when they have left the Chamber?
Patricia Gibson
Clause 2 requires only that the Secretary of State has an affirmative resolution from each House of Parliament, but that is not enough. The Government should be required to conduct a proper consultation and assess the potential impact of any proposed changes to the ATOL scheme and air travel trust that they intend to introduce through secondary legislation. Any proposals must be fully transparent, and consumers and businesses alike must be formally consulted in the process to allow for proper scrutiny. We trust that the Minister will accept that and our reasons for tabling the amendment.
Mr John Hayes
I can satisfy the hon. Lady entirely. I fully intend to ensure exactly what she asked for: full consultation and a comprehensive impact assessment in respect of any regulations to be made under these measures. On that basis, I hope she will withdraw the amendment. If she does not, she will look rather daft.
Karl Turner
We will press amendment 3 to a Division. We seek a commitment that the Minister gave in the Vehicle Technology and Aviation Bill Committee—that the Government would conduct a thorough impact assessment and consultation before implementing the power. Clause 2 relates to the Air Travel Trust, which is the legal vehicle that holds the money that is then used to refund consumers under ATOL protections. It gives the Secretary of State the power to define separate trust arrangements to reflect different market models, prefiguring some of the changes in the package holiday market mentioned by the Minister.
Amendment 3 would require the Government to undertake a full and proper review, and public consultation, before introducing any of the changes that would be enabled under the powers in clause 2. Unlike clause 1, clause 2 does not seem directly relevant to harmonising EU and UK regulations. Instead, it is a dormant power that the Government will retain in order to make considerable changes to ATOL, and particularly to the Air Travel Trust. That is where Brexit comes in because, were such changes to happen, they would most likely be in the event of the UK leaving the European Union.
During one of the VTAB Committee evidence sessions, Richard Moriarty of the Civil Aviation Authority—a trustee of the current Air Travel Trust—said that he recognised the possible merits of separating the trust to reflect the variations of products in the market. However, he explained that we simply are not there yet, and that it would be wrong for the Government to use the Bill as a means of making wholesale changes without due consultation. The Minister made it clear in a letter to my hon. Friend the Member for Middlesbrough (Andy McDonald) that changes would be made only through the affirmative procedure, yet the Bill does not account for any further consultation as part of this measure.
The Government’s impact assessment explicitly states that it
“does not consider proposals for ATOL reform, beyond what is required”
in the package travel directive. It would therefore be rather inappropriate for the Minister to go beyond that, without providing assurances that proper consultation and scrutiny will take place if the Government are minded to go beyond changes that were already envisaged.
During the VTAB evidence session, Mr Moriarty said that he hoped the Government would
“follow the practice that they have followed today: consult with us, consult the industry, do the impact assessment, and so on.”
Amendment 3 simply says that. It is fair and reasonable and would guarantee scrutiny of further changes that may come down the track regarding ATOL protection.
Patricia Gibson
In the light of the Minister’s assurances to the House, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Amendment proposed: 3, page 2, line 10, at end insert —
“(8) Before laying regulations under subsection (6), the Secretary of State must publish a full impact assessment and consult on the proposals.” —(Karl Turner.)
This amendment would require the Government to undertake a full impact assessment and consultation before bringing forward regulations to create any new air travel trusts through an affirmative resolution.
Question put, That the amendment be made.
Patricia Gibson
I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
The new clause stands in my name and that of my hon. Friend the Member for Kilmarnock and Loudoun (Alan Brown). It would require the UK Government to report regularly on the effect of Brexit on consumer protection under the ATOL scheme and to report annually on the progress they have made.
Brexit throws up great uncertainties, not least in the aviation sector with regard to passenger rights, compensation schemes and how much change and/or stability can be expected. There is also the question of how EU airlines and passengers may be affected. The overriding concern about the Bill, welcome as it is, is that consumer protections must be safeguarded and, furthermore, that such protections must continue to be enhanced and updated as society and technology evolve, just as has happened during our EU membership. The UK cannot be left behind, stagnating in a post-Brexit world.
New clause 1 is an extremely important move to provide some comfort and confidence to consumers; a lack of guarantees will otherwise leave passengers vulnerable and might put people off booking holidays. That could only be bad news for our outbound tourism economy, which is so vital for jobs in Scotland and the rest of the UK. We intend to press the new clause to a Division.
Mr John Hayes
As I did with the amendments, I start by saying that I fully endorse, and indeed support, the purpose of the new clause. By the way, I am grateful to the hon. Member for North Ayrshire and Arran (Patricia Gibson) for withdrawing her earlier amendment following the assurances that I gave her. I say to the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull East (Karl Turner) that I am fully committed to full consultation and a full impact assessment on the regulations as they are rolled out as a result of the Bill.
The point is that the ATOL legislation is not dependent on the package travel directive. The Bill will harmonise ATOL with the package travel directive in the immediate term. As I made clear earlier, ATOL legislation and protection will remain in place as we leave the European Union. They are made by, framed in and supported by domestic legislation.
Although I understand the point that the hon. Member for North Ayrshire and Arran makes, I have to tell her that the new clause is unnecessary, because ATOL is enshrined in an Act of this Parliament, and only this Parliament can change that. Mindful of that; mindful of the assurances that I have given about consultation, further review and impact assessments, which I repeat; mindful of the fact that, as I have mentioned, there will be a review of all these matters; and given what I have said about ATIPAC, I hope that she might withdraw the new clause.
Karl Turner
New clause 1 seems eminently sensible. These consumer protection measures require an assessment, so we will support the new clause.
Question put, That the clause be read a Second time.
Mr John Hayes
I beg to move, That the Bill be now read the Third time.
What a pleasure it is to move the motion for the Third Reading of this important Bill, and to do so in the knowledge that it will be considered in the spirit that it deserves. We have had a properly reasoned, measured and sensible debate about its provisions, and I am grateful to Members on both sides of the House for contributing to that process. I did think it a little unnecessary for us to vote once or twice earlier, but let us put that to one side, because I fully appreciate that the Opposition must do their job, if only to maintain the declining morale of a parliamentary party that knows it is no nearer to power now than it was a week, a month or a year ago. [Interruption.] But let us put that to one side.
This is an important piece of legislation, which, as we have said repeatedly, brings up to date and up to speed the arrangements under the ATOL scheme which protect travellers. Those arrangements have been proved to be effective time and again. They are necessary and desirable, as has been acknowledged throughout our considerations. Benjamin Disraeli, of whom we have heard too little this afternoon, said:
“Like all great travellers, I have seen more than I remember, and remember more than I have seen.”
What I will remember of today’s considerations is that, as I have said, they have been conducted in the way in which Parliament should consider all such matters.
I am entirely confident that the Bill, as it proceeds, will continue to provide the necessary reassurance for travellers and the necessary measures for businesses, and that, in those terms, it will do the Government and the House proud. It is right for Governments to act in the interests of the common good, for that is enshrined in all that we are in my party, and I hope that other parties in the House will gradually, over time, learn from that. I entirely welcome the way in which we have dealt with these matters, and I look forward to further consideration of them once the Bill becomes law. As I said again today, I am committed to reviewing the position thoroughly, and when the regulations come before the House—I repeat this, because I think it important to emphasise and amplify it—we will review the implications in the way recommended by the House.
We can be proud of the Bill. I am sure that it is not just fit for purpose, but necessary, desirable and efficacious.
Karl Turner
The Labour party supports the Bill, and we will vote in support of it. There are, however, some concerns about the impact of some parts of it, which we expressed when the clauses were first debated as part of the Vehicle Technology and Aviation Bill and again throughout the passage of this Bill. We hope that the Minister has taken on board the points raised by Labour and echoed by the Scottish National party, who re-tabled Labour’s amendments to VTAB in Committee. As the House will know, the Prime Minister has asked the Opposition to help the Government by providing some policy suggestions. However, it seems that SNP Members are not even asking for help, but are simply taking Labour’s policy ideas as their own. We should probably take that as a compliment.
We support the Bill because it brings ATOL up to date and will ensure that it is harmonised with the latest European Union package travel directive, extending to a wider range of holidays and protecting more consumers, as well as allowing United Kingdom travel companies to sell more seamlessly across Europe. While we harbour some real concerns over whether UK consumers will be sufficiently protected by EU-based companies, as they will no longer be subject to ATOL but to member state equivalents, we welcome changes that will ultimately help to protect more holidaymakers.
The implications for ATOL after Brexit are also a cause for concern. Hidden in the Bill are proposals that the Secretary of State should require only an affirmative resolution to significantly reform ATOL and the air travel trust fund. Labour recognises the merits of some reforms, but we believe that an impact assessment, full consultation and full scrutiny should have been required before any fundamental changes are made to these consumer protections.
These issues bring to the forefront uncertainties over the future of UK aviation following the decision to leave the EU. The Labour party has been clear that, whichever framework is chosen by the Government, we should prioritise retaining an essentially unchanged operating environment. They should prioritise air service agreements as part of exit negotiations. As is customary, such agreements should be negotiated separately from, and prior to, the UK’s negotiations on trade with the EU. The Government must not waste the opportunity this Bill presents to clarify their intended future arrangements for our aviation industry.
The UK aviation sector is the largest in Europe and the third largest in the world, supporting 1 million jobs and bringing £9 billion into the Treasury in tax receipts. Over a quarter of a billion passengers were transported in 2015. But aviation also provides a network infrastructure that enables other industries to do well. Half a million jobs in the UK tourism industry are supported by aviation, and 40% of UK imports and exports by value go via UK airports. The EU is the UK’s single biggest destination, accounting for 49% of passengers and 54% of scheduled commercial flights. Airlines that operate from within the UK are able to rely on the EU single aviation market, which allows any airline owned and controlled by EU nationals to operate freely in the EU without restrictions on capacity, frequency or pricing.
Additionally, EU carriers are able to take advantage of the traffic rights contained in the many air services agreements that the EU has negotiated on behalf of all member states with non-EU countries. Significantly, this includes the EU-US open skies agreement which enables airlines from the EU and the US to fly between the EU and the US. If Britain leaves the EU without retaining any form of European common aviation area membership, airlines will need to negotiate new rights to operate freely within the EU and operate transatlantic routes. This means that there will be no legal framework that allows airlines to fly to those destinations from the UK. So UK airlines would also lose the right to operate within the remaining EU27, and EU airlines might lose the right to fly UK domestic routes as well.
Aviation is legally unique: it is separate from trade agreements and does not form part of the World Trade Organisation system. Instead, countries negotiate bilateral or multilateral air services agreements to provide airlines with the legal rights to fly to certain places. To ensure the continuity of connectivity, the UK will need to negotiate a new air services agreement with the EU and countries such as the US. If there is no such agreement by the time the UK leaves the EU, the UK’s connectivity will be undermined and its ability to trade will be more difficult. So it is imperative that the Government prioritise retaining an essentially unchanged operating environment. That is why they should prioritise air services agreements as part of Brexit negotiations.
While the measures in this Bill are important and will provide additional security to UK holidaymakers, it is strange that the Government thought it necessary to debate the Bill in a Committee of the whole House. The measures in the Bill were included in VTAB, which had passed through its Committee stages before the Prime Minister decided to call the unnecessary snap general election. I think I am right in saying that these provisions in that Bill were debated in no more than 45 minutes in Committee. The Government have not made changes to their proposals and the Opposition supported them as part of VTAB in the last Parliament, so we simply do not understand why the decision was taken for this small, agreeable and largely non-contentious niche Bill to take up time in the Chamber, other than to try to disguise the fact that this chaotic Government have a threadbare legislative programme for this Parliament.
Mr John Hayes
As a result of that scrutiny—which the hon. Gentleman should not disparage because he has played an important part in making it real—we have had a good debate on the issues of review, of impact assessments and of further consultation. He will have heard what I have said about all those things, which are matters close to his heart, so actually the debate has served a really useful purpose.
Karl Turner
The Minister makes a fair enough point, but with respect, it has been a terrible waste of time debating this matter in the Committee of the whole House when it was previously dealt with in 45 minutes in Committee upstairs. For the sake of appearances, VTAB has been broken up into its component parts and is now being given undue time for debate in this Chamber.
Lady Hermon (North Down) (Ind)
It is never a waste of time to discuss anything pertaining to the whole of the UK in this House or in a Committee of the whole House. This gives me the opportunity to remind the Minister that we have three airports in Northern Ireland. We are the only part of the United Kingdom that is physically connected to another EU member state—the Republic of Ireland—and it is really important, as has been stated in the debate, that we do not lose air traffic and business from Northern Ireland to airports such as Dublin.
Karl Turner
The hon. Lady makes her point on behalf of her constituents, and she makes it well, but I do not think that it requires a response from me.
Mr Mark Francois (Rayleigh and Wickford) (Con)
This is a bit of an occasion, really, because when legislation is debated in this place, the Opposition traditionally complain that it is not given enough time, that the Government have tried to rush it through or that there has been insufficient examination of the provisions. The shadow Minister seems to be setting a precedent here today, in that he seems to be complaining that the Bill has been given too much time. Why is that?
Karl Turner
If the right hon. Gentleman will allow me to continue, I will make the point in a moment that important issues were debated in VTAB that are not now going to be discussed or made into legislation.
As a result of breaking up VTAB, measures that were previously included have been dropped, and measures that could have been included to improve this legislation through new clauses and amendments can no longer be added because they are no longer within the scope of forthcoming Bills. The proposal to make the shining of lasers at vehicles or control towers an enforceable criminal offence, which was strongly supported by those on this side of the House and which we would still be happy to support, has been dropped altogether. That is clearly concerning. We do not want to see avoidable disasters brought about by the malicious use of laser pens, and neither does the Minister, so will he explain why he has dropped these crucial plans, and whether or indeed when he proposes to legislate to tackle this serious problem?
There is also nothing in the Bill on the inclusion of much-needed regulations on drones—a matter previously caught by VTAB. The Government will respond to the consultation on drones in the next few weeks, but they should have made much more progress already, including making decisions on whether the UK should follow other countries by establishing a compulsory registration scheme and getting systematic geo-fencing in place to physically prevent drones from getting near airports and other places where they have the potential to be so dangerous.
It makes no sense for the Government to have abandoned the Bill in which action on drones could have been included. These are decisions that will make aviation less safe than it should be. The latest figures show that 33 such incidents were confirmed in the first five months of this year, and 70 last year, whereas there were 29 in 2015 and just 10 in the preceding five years. We need legislation to regulate the use of drones in order to tackle the worrying trend of near misses with planes. The aviation industry has been clear that it needs the Government to act on these concerns now. The Opposition have been pressing the Government on this issue for many years. Without action, it is a question of when, rather than if, a passenger plane is involved in a drone-related incident, so will the Minister explain why the proposal has been dropped and what plans he has to put this right?
We are just one month into this new Parliament and the Government are already running out of steam, which is why we have been debating this Bill on the Floor of the House rather than upstairs in Committee. The Prime Minister is attempting to crowd source policy ideas from the Opposition, and we can assist in this instance. The Government need to bring forward legislation on the misuse of lasers and on the regulation of drones and to provide clarity and certainty for UK aviation post-Brexit. We would welcome the Government adopting those policies, and they will have our full support if they do so. Labour broadly supports the Bill, because it extends protections to many more holidaymakers, but we want clarity on how EU-based companies, which will no longer be subject to ATOL but rather their respective member state equivalents, will provide protection to UK consumers. We want the best possible framework to ensure that the sector flourishes, but that means adequately preparing ourselves for the many implications that Brexit will have for ATOL and our aviation sector as a whole.
Patricia Gibson
I end where I began by welcoming and supporting the Government’s measures to update the ATOL scheme to provide more protection for passengers when they go on holiday and to align it with the latest EU directives. I welcome the progress made in this evening’s debate, but I was disappointed to hear the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull East (Karl Turner) complain that today’s process has taken too long. If he sees that as a problem, I suggest that he perhaps contributed to it with his extensive remarks. I am sure that we all enjoyed them, but he seems to have contributed to the problem that he identified.
Karl Turner
I did not complain that the process was taking too long; I simply made the point that time in this House is incredibly important. An awful lot of things that were discussed during the proceedings on the Vehicle Technology and Aviation Bill could have made this legislation, but time has been wasted. These matters took 45 minutes in Committee. That was my point.
Patricia Gibson
I believe that the Minister has taken on board the legitimate concerns expressed tonight about how consumers are to be protected and have their current rights guaranteed as we head towards a post-Brexit world. There must be no diminution or stagnation of passenger rights as society and technology advance. It has been heartening to see how the Bill has proceeded through the House, and I have been delighted to be a part of these debates.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Mrs Eleanor Laing)
Order. I am sure that the Minister is going to beg the leave of the House to address the House again.
Mr Hayes
Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker.
I do not want to detain the House unduly except to affirm my thanks to all Members who have contributed to the debate. I hear what the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull East (Karl Turner) says about the previous Bill. He drew attention to those elements of the Bill that are not being considered today. This legislation is very much part of that earlier Bill, but we made it clear in the Queen’s Speech that we intend to introduce further transport legislation. I am happy to continue to have conversations about drones and lasers along the lines that he suggested. It has been a good debate, and it is a good Bill. I think we can leave it at that.
Question put and agreed to.
Bill accordingly read the Third time and passed.
Air Travel Organisers’ Licensing Bill
Wednesday 12th July 2017
(6 years, 9 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Air Travel Organisers' Licensing Act 2017 Read Hansard Text Amendment Paper: Committee of the whole House Amendments as at 11 July 2017 - (11 Jul 2017)
Air Travel Organisers’ Licensing Bill
Tuesday 5th September 2017
(6 years, 7 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Air Travel Organisers' Licensing Act 2017 Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: Committee of the whole House Amendments as at 11 July 2017 - (11 Jul 2017)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Transport (Lord Callanan) (Con)
My Lords, the UK has one of the most innovative and advanced holiday sectors in the world and one of the biggest markets in Europe. That is something that we should be immensely proud of. The UK has been a leader in this sector, going back some 175 years, when Thomas Cook first had the foresight to offer a one-day excursion on a steam train. I am pleased to say that the UK continues to lead the way. Overall, tourism now contributes close to £121 billion to our economy annually, with outbound tourism contributing around £30 billion. The sector supports millions of jobs and involves thousands of companies, from small businesses to large multinational brands, both online and on the high street.
Strong consumer protection is vital to underpin confidence in this important sector. As the Minister of State for Transport said in the other place, this is a Government who recognise the value of providing UK businesses with the best possible opportunities to grow. We also recognise the value in ensuring that consumer protections keep pace with the new ways in which people book their holidays. These points ring as true now as when they were made earlier this year. That is why I have introduced to the House the Air Travel Organisers’ Licensing Bill, which will ensure that consumer protection for holidaymakers is modernised to match developments in the travel market. I very much hope that the debate we have today will match the very positive discussion in the other place. I would go as far as to say that there was cross-party support for ensuring that consumer protection reflects the changes in the travel sector.
Consumer protection is an important pillar of the holiday sector, due to a number of characteristics of the market. Holidays are frequently booked and paid for many months in advance of travel, and the consumer may often be unaware of the financial stability of their holiday providers.
The impacts from a failure of a travel company can be twofold. Consumers may experience a financial loss from a cancelled holiday or significant difficulties from being stranded abroad.
The ATOL scheme was originally set up in the 1970s to provide protection in such situations. It does this in two ways. First, travel firms that sell flight packages in the UK must hold an ATOL licence, issued by the Civil Aviation Authority. This helps to regulate entry into the market and filter out any companies that are not financially sound. The scheme also acts as a fund to compensate consumers who might be caught up in a failure. ATOL-licensed companies must pay a small levy—currently £2.50—for each person protected by the ATOL scheme. This money is then held in the Air Travel Trust Fund and used by the CAA to ensure that consumers are returned home or refunded when a company fails.
The scheme plays an important role in the UK travel sector, providing peace of mind to more than 20 million people every year. Since the 1990s, it has also been a key way in which the UK has implemented the European package travel directive. Fortunately, failure of travel companies is relatively rare, but it does happen. In the last financial year alone, 19 ATOL holders collapsed. In each of these situations, the Civil Aviation Authority stepped in to deliver protection to consumers through the ATOL scheme.
I am sure that many noble Lords will also be aware of the failure of the Spanish online travel agent, Lowcost Holidays, last summer. When this company failed, it was reported that there were 27,000 customers on holiday and more than 100,000 customers who were yet to travel. Although many of these customers were from the UK, the company did not have ATOL protection as it was regulated under the Spanish regime.
The collapse of companies such as Lowcost Holidays is an important reminder of the need to ensure that consumer protection keeps pace with the way people book their holidays now. While many people still enjoy booking a holiday in their local high-street travel agent, the market has diversified considerably with the growth of the internet and smart technologies. Indeed, a recent ABTA survey estimated that about 75% of UK consumers now book their holidays over the internet.
The growth in online trade means that customers have a much wider choice of providers, including those based overseas. However, it is clear from the Lowcost Holidays situation that not every travel provider is currently covered by the same level of protection, and inconsistencies apply across borders.
That is why the Government and the CAA took initial steps in 2012 to update the ATOL scheme. This introduced the ATOL flight-plus category to bring ATOL protection to the many consumers who book mix-and-match holidays online, in addition to those who buy traditional package holidays on the high street.
We also introduced the ATOL certificate, so that consumers know when they have booked an ATOL-protected holiday and who to contact if their travel provider fails. These interventions have had a positive impact in extending consumer protection, levelling the playing field for businesses and improving clarity for all.
It is important that we continue to build upon these changes, and I am pleased that a similar view is now held across Europe. In particular, a new EU package travel directive was agreed in 2015 to bring similar improvements to consumer protection across the whole of the EU. This will need to be implemented into the UK’s package travel regulations by 1 January 2018.
Your Lordships may ask why the Government are implementing these changes, given that we will shortly be leaving the European Union. First, this Government have continually supported the rationale for updating the package travel directive. Secondly, and of equal importance, the UK is of course still a member state of the European Union and continues to honour all of its rights and obligations.
The Bill will benefit businesses and consumers alike. For consumers, it will update the protection of holidays, and for businesses it will ensure that there is a consistent approach across Europe, making it easier for British companies to trade across borders. Broadly speaking, it will mean that the protection offered across Europe will be closer to the protection that we have had here in the UK since 2012. It will also extend the scope of protection to a new concept of linked travel arrangements, which is designed to provide protection for consumers even when they make less formal holiday arrangements—for example, when one trader sells a flight, and they then direct the consumer to another trader to complete the booking of a hotel. These are not pre-arranged packages, but they often compete closely with traditional package deals.
Overall, the new directive has the potential to provide protection to a greater number of UK consumers, whether they purchase from a company established in the UK or overseas. This will also help to level the playing field for companies, whether they are based in the UK or overseas and whether they operate on the high street or online. The broadened scope will be underpinned by information requirements, so that consumers have better information about their holiday and how they are protected.
This Bill is the first step in updating the UK’s regulations to bring the new directive into force by July 2018. The four clauses will enable the ATOL scheme to be aligned with the updated package travel regulations and ensure that UK consumers and businesses can enjoy the benefits from these changes. Combined, the clauses will mean that UK-established companies are able to sell holidays more easily throughout Europe; they will be able to protect these holidays through the ATOL scheme, so they do not need to comply with different schemes in each country. The Bill will also extend the Civil Aviation Authority’s powers to request information from businesses, so that they are more able to regulate the scheme and this cross-border activity more effectively.
Finally, the Bill will allow the scheme to be able to adapt more effectively to changes in the travel market. At present, the ATOL scheme is based around a single fund, the Air Travel Trust. While this one-size-fits-all approach has worked well to date, it may not always be the best approach in future. The Bill will provide more flexibility to set up new trust arrangements to respond more effectively to an increasingly diverse pool of risks. But I can be clear that this power will not provide Ministers with a blank cheque. Any regulations brought forward would require extensive consultation and ultimately an affirmative resolution procedure, so that both Houses have an opportunity to scrutinise their content and effect.
Overall, the updates that we are making to the ATOL and package travel regulations will mean consumer protection can extend to a broader range of holidays. It will mean that protection can be provided for traditional and online package holidays, and also looser combinations of travel, which have previously been out of scope.
Of course, we also need to be mindful that the regulatory landscape will need to be able to adapt to future changes in our relationship with the European Union. This measure is entirely in keeping with that principle; it will enable the ATOL scheme to be aligned with the package travel directive in 2018, with minimal impact for UK consumers and businesses. But the ATOL legislation and protection will continue to exist and remain in place as we leave the EU. ATOL is enshrined in an Act of this Parliament, and only this Parliament can change that. As I mentioned previously, the travel sector contributes significantly to the British economy. Implementing the PTD will support British businesses to trade across borders and provide the best deal for our consumers. By extending the scope of ATOL, UK businesses will be able to provide ATOL-protected holidays across the whole of the EU. Consumer protections are a key priority for this Government, and this Bill will further this aim, an aim that transcends the Brexit negotiations. In short, we are legislating now to ensure that we continue to have strong consumer protections in place as we leave the EU.
The UK has always been a leader when it comes to providing protection for holidaymakers, and this Bill will ensure the UK continues to be a leader when we leave the EU. The Bill will provide UK businesses with the opportunity to expand and grow, and provide a framework to ensure that ATOL can remain flexible enough to cope with future trends. But most importantly, it will ensure that the UK’s consumer protection for holidays can keep pace with changes in the travel market. I beg to move.
Lord Flight (Con)
My Lords, I pay tribute to an extremely clear summary of the positive reasons for ATOL, which my noble friend Lord Callanan has just described. I am not quite sure why a colleague suggested that I should speak in this debate—whether it was because of my surname or because somebody knew that I was one of the first people to benefit from ATOL. Some 43 years ago, I was on a holiday organised by Horizon when it went bust. Luckily, ATOL had come in a couple of years before and dealt with everything extremely well.
My noble friend Lord Callanan made the important point that this is also very sensible commerce. ATOL has been one factor underpinning the UK being a leader in the holiday industry and the changes coming through will strengthen that. There is no need for lengthy debate: there is cross-party support for this practical legislation which is good commercial news. The Bill updates ATOL cover to include online booking and booking involving separate organisations. It extends its scope and meets the requirements of the EU package travel directive. It extends consumer protection beyond the traditional package holidays organised by tour operators to include combinations of flights and accommodation booked at the same time, which, as my noble friend pointed out, are now some 75% of the market.
It is particularly positive that the Bill, combined with the EU directive, should be extremely good news for UK holiday companies within the EU, as they will be offering a much better overall package than any other category of company. The improvements and extensions of ATOL will add to that. The protection provided is compensation for loss of holidays where the airline or air transporter goes bust, and the return of the cost of travel and accommodation if that has been lost. It is clear that ATOL applies only where there is flight transport. It is not entirely clear on the coverage of other items such as hotel accommodation or even taxi transport, but it is implicit that compensation will be made if these have been paid for and lost.
I shall focus on two other aspects of travel insurance where compensation is a difficult issue and needs review. Two recent cases—one personal and one relating to a friend—illustrate my point. I was scheduled to visit Burma, but a back operation had unfortunately not been successful and I had to have another at relatively short notice. The surgeon advised that it was not sensible for me to go. I had taken out travel insurance, but the insurers had a bit of illogical small print which questioned whether I was covered; I continue to fight the case. The provider of the Burma trip offered no compensation for my having to cancel. Its insurance arrangements did not cover anyone who had to withdraw because the plane was chartered, not a regular service. At present, the compensation arrangements are not operating satisfactorily when people have to cancel a flight or holiday for health reasons.
In the second case, the son of some friends broke a ligament in one leg during school sport. The whole family had to cancel their holiday but they were advised that there was no compensation for loss of the air tickets because they had originally been bought via a charter arrangement, not a regular package.
Therefore, there is a need across the industry for arrangements for protection against having to cancel a flight, whatever the cause, and standard insurance cover might best be automatically provided by the party organising the flight at the time of purchase. In the case of cancellation as a result of illness, again one might look at obliging airlines to refund up to 90% of the cost and potentially to build a specific charge for this extra protection into the cost. As my noble friend Lord Callanan pointed out, the Bill enables the Secretary of State to establish different protection trusts to cover different requirements.
It is interesting that the UK has made constructive use of public sector provision combined with private sector provision in this sort of area, where insurance companies complain that it is very difficult to provide the same cover unless a standard requirement is laid down by government. I can think of two other areas in different contexts where the state organises standard insurance cover. As my noble friend Lord Callanan pointed out, this is an interesting example of where the UK industry should do even better in the EU notwithstanding Brexit as the service we have to offer will be highly competitive vis-à-vis that provided by other countries.
To conclude, this is an important area in commercial and human terms. I trust that the Government will keep under review other aspects of travel insurance such as those I have described, which need better organisation than they currently have.
Baroness Randerson (LD)
My Lords, this Bill is uncontroversial in its principles and most of its details. I express my gratitude to the Minister for the briefing that he provided earlier today, which was very helpful.
This is the sort of Bill that in normal political times would pass through this place very swiftly indeed. However, we are not, of course, in normal political times and I fear that the Government are keen to distract us from the big issue with something on which we can all agree. I think that we will agree across party that this is a worthwhile, useful and important updating of current legislation. Any controversy associated with the Bill lies in what it does not contain as these measures started life as part of the Vehicle Technology and Aviation Bill. I regret that this Bill is now so narrow in scope that we cannot talk about other important aspects associated with transport and aviation such as the danger posed by drones and lasers, which we could have talked about under the other Bill. After all, we have few enough opportunities to discuss transport issues in this House.
We should, of course, also discuss the impact of Brexit on our aviation industry, but this Bill does not provide that opportunity in full either. It is rather ironic that the first piece of legislation discussed in the other place following the general election was this Bill, which is designed to improve our links with the rest of the EU and the single market. This Bill makes it easier for UK holiday companies to attract customers living in other EU countries by allowing companies to operate within UK law rather than have to adopt 28 different sets of regulations. The Government’s intention to leave the single market means therefore that a great chunk of this legislation will probably become irrelevant within two years and life will again become difficult for travel companies wanting to trade with the rest of Europe. Package holiday companies face a period of intense uncertainty. What regulations will they have to follow after 2018 when operating abroad? We must remember that this is an industry which, by its nature, plans and books seats and accommodation years in advance. Indeed, many customers book their holidays at least one year in advance, and sometimes two, so the operators have to plan even further in advance. They need to know now what will happen in 2019; yet here we are, well over a year on from the referendum, and the Government are still arguing about the rules of the game, having wasted months on an unnecessary general election and now on internal squabbles.
In fact, this modest little Bill is a parable for the Government’s, and our country’s, problems with Brexit. The Bill updates the rules on compensation for consumers originally set down, as the Minister said, in the Civil Aviation Act 1982. It is needed because the world has changed since 1982. Vastly more of us travel abroad— 20 million holidaymakers per year are protected by ATOL. Most people no longer go into a travel agent, with more than 80% of us buying online. We travel across borders from one country to another almost without noticing—indeed, if you are travelling between the Schengen zone countries there is effectively no border to notice. We buy packages of travel much more flexibly, mixing and matching to suit ourselves. All of this reflects modern life, and any attempt to put the clock back will cause serious dislocation to the travel industry and serious inconvenience to the travelling public. But that is, in fact, what the Government intend to try to do. A decision to leave the single market and to go for hard Brexit means that we are trying to recreate the Britain of yesteryear, trying to reimpose those hard borders and the much more difficult decisions that we had to make in those days.
On the detail of the Bill, the Government rightly wish to ensure that we remain compliant with the updated EU package travel directive. We welcome the mutual recognition incorporated in Clause 1 which extends the scope of ATOL to provide protection to customers in the EEA who have bought package holidays from UK companies. This simplifies regulations for UK businesses and will make it easier for them to gain customers abroad, a fundamental principle of the single market.
Clause 2 allows the Government to create different protection schemes for different types of package holidays, to either extend ATOL or create a new scheme for customers purchasing linked travel arrangements. LTAs simply did not exist in 1982; they are essentially a creation of the internet. We welcome the principle that LTAs will be covered, but we question whether a separate scheme is needed; we fear that it could provide inferior rights and compensation than those provided to purchasers of full packages. We will be exploring this point in Committee.
The travel industry does not seem convinced that a separate scheme is needed, and the Government are hazy about what it should encompass or, indeed, whether it is needed. The Bill simply gives the Government the power to create the scheme, and I want a bit more certainty about this. I am reluctant to give the Government any more powers to do anything of this nature because of the mess they have made of so many of the powers they already have. I fear that a second protection scheme will simply encourage companies to restructure their offer to take the most advantageous position for them. I would welcome assurances from the Minister that the Government have given serious consideration to that point so that companies will not be enabled to play the market in that way to the disadvantage of consumers. After all, consumers do not necessarily know whether they are buying a full package or a linked travel arrangement. People do not speak in those terms when they discuss their summer holidays.
The power of a trust fund lies in the accumulated total which comes from many small individual receipts—in this case, £2.50 per traveller. I fear that it could be undermined if the concept is splintered, as the Government think they might decide to do. I am sure that the Minister will confirm that there have been times in the past when the existing ATOL scheme has been under financial pressure. I fear that splintering it into two different funds could intensify pressure.
By modernising the system and harmonising our rules with the rest of the EU, the Bill will help our aviation sector to flourish. We have the third largest aviation sector in the world and the largest in Europe. After all, 49% of passengers from the UK head to the EU, as do 54% of scheduled flights. Our tourism industry supports half a million jobs, and aviation is in a unique position legally. EU rules mean that any EU airline can operate freely within and between EU countries—a point I have previously raised here on several occasions. The EU has also negotiated other agreements across the world, of which we are part by virtue of our EU membership. The Government need to develop a sense of urgency about all this. The current aviation agreements need replacing before we leave the EU, otherwise, as Michael O’Leary said recently, our aviation industry will simply be grounded. If that happens, of course not only our holidays will be messed up. Hundreds of thousands of tourism and aviation jobs will be at risk, and it will fundamentally undermine our whole trade sector, because 40% of our trade goes by air.
Therefore, the Bill is an important step forward for consumers, as well as for the holiday industry—although people also get linked travel arrangements for business purposes. However, it is only one part of the massive jigsaw the Government face to keep our aviation sector flying and flourishing in the future.
Lord Rosser (Lab)
My Lords, I thank the Minister for his explanation of the purpose and content of the Bill, which we support, although that does not mean that we will have no issues to pursue during the further stages of the Bill. I am not quite sure whether the numerical shortage of Back-Bench speakers is despite or because of who the Front-Bench speakers are.
In a situation where those booking holidays do so many weeks or even months in advance, and often do so by paying up front in a situation where services are frequently provided by third parties, to ensure up-to-date and effective appropriate protection for airline passengers in the event of the bankruptcy of their travel company is an objective with which I am sure all agree.
Indeed, in the light of the problems there have been at times this year at some of our airports as a result of difficulties over, for example, IT systems and the enormous adverse impact that that can have on passengers, one is tempted to feel that maybe the protection offered by statute is not as all-embracing as it might be. The consumer, we are led to believe, is king. I am not sure that air travellers always feel that that is the case.
In his letter to Members of this House in July, the Minister states that this Bill is intended to modernise the Air Travel Organisers’ Licensing consumer protection scheme for package holidays that include a flight. The ATOL scheme was introduced in the 1970s for UK holidaymakers flying overseas and, as the Minister said, was most recently updated in 2012. The ATOL scheme is also a crucial means by which UK businesses can meet their obligations to have insolvency protection under EU directives.
As the noble Baroness, Lady Randerson, said, the content of this Bill originally formed part of the Vehicle Technology and Aviation Bill, which met a sticky end as a result of the Prime Minister’s sudden desire to hold a snap election. Perhaps the Minister can tell us whether, and when, all the other parts of the Vehicle Technology and Aviation Bill are likely to reappear and whether the impact of drones and laser beams on the safety of aircraft will also then be addressed.
ATOL is a statutory financial protection scheme managed by the Civil Aviation Authority on behalf of the Government and at present applies only to flights with accommodation sold in the United Kingdom. Businesses selling air holiday packages, or flight-only sales by third parties, in the UK are required by law to hold an ATOL licence. Should an ATOL-licensed firm become insolvent, the Civil Aviation Authority can refund protected customers or, if they are already on holiday, ensure that they can get back home. As has already been said, the scheme is funded by contributions made by travel companies into the Air Travel Trust Fund at the rate of £2.50 for each person they book on a holiday. It has been estimated that the ATOL scheme protects over 20 million holidaymakers each year.
As we know, in November 2015 the European Union adopted a revised directive on package travel and linked travel arrangements, and member states—which, contrary to the belief of some, still include us—have until 1 January 2018 to implement the directive, which will apply from 1 July 2018. The Government supported the updating of the EU package travel directive as it was consistent with our own ATOL protections and should provide a consistent approach to protection, including in respect of holidays booked online.
The revised directive takes account of the major changes that have occurred over the last 20 years or so in the way that holidays are bought and sold with the growth of the internet and mobile phone technology. In particular, the internet has enabled people to mix and match the components of their holiday in a way that often falls outside the scope of ATOL and the current EU directive. One survey has estimated that about 75% of UK customers now book their holidays over the internet. This has led to a fall in ATOL sales as a share of all leisure flights from over 90% in 1998 to, I believe, around 50% more recently.
One aim of the 2015 EU directive is to bring greater clarity on what constitutes a package holiday, with a further objective being to harmonise protection within the EU. The first clause of the Bill updates ATOL to ensure that it is harmonised with the recent EU directive. Many of the changes will be covered in regulations, but a wider range of operators, including more dynamic package providers which offer a greater choice of destinations, activities and providers and enable people to tailor bespoke packages for themselves, will probably be covered under the changes, bringing protection to many more UK holidaymakers not covered under the existing ATOL provisions.
In addition, the requirement for travel companies to be in line with standards at “place of establishment” instead of at “place of sale” will mean that UK companies can sell more easily across Europe by simply adhering to the widely respected ATOL arrangements and requirements. Existing ATOL legislation applies only when the first leg of a relevant flight booking departs from a UK airport. However, will the Minister say whether this change will also mean that EU-based companies selling in the UK will have to adhere only to an ATOL-equivalent protection laid down in the member state where the business is based, which could have processes and timescales for recompense distinctly different from what many UK consumers would expect under our ATOL arrangements? Some 500,000 passengers could be affected.
The second clause relates to the Air Travel Trust, the legal vehicle used to hold the money to refund consumers under ATOL, giving the Secretary of State power to define separate trust arrangements to reflect different market models. This change is not directly relevant to the EU regulation addressed in the first clause, but is a dormant power that would enable the Government to make wholesale change to the structure and applicability of the ATOL brand, subject only to the affirmative resolution. Will the Minister say what consultation—and with whom—will take place prior to the regulations under this clause being laid by the Secretary of State, and will a full impact assessment be undertaken? What separate trust arrangements to reflect different market models are the Government contemplating under Clause 2, and why, and will they provide more, less or the same protection as is provided to consumers under the present trust arrangements?
The third clause extends the scope of the powers under which the Civil Aviation Authority is currently able to request information. Specifically, the clause would ensure that the information power would apply to any airlines established in the UK selling relevant holidays in the EEA that are not covered by the Civil Aviation Act 1982.
The last clause, Clause 4, provides for commencement of the provisions of the Bill, with Clause 3 coming into force on whatever day or days the Secretary of State decides by regulations, and the other provisions coming into force on the day on which the Bill receives Royal Assent. The comment has already been made that the travel industry is one that has to plan, and to sell holidays, up to 18 months or more ahead. Much of the detail implementing the Bill will be done through secondary legislation, the content of which at the moment is unclear. What discussions—and with whom—have taken place and are taking place on the detail of the secondary legislation and when is it expected that secondary legislation will appear, assuming that this Bill becomes an Act?
Further, what guarantees can the Government provide that departure from the EU will not result in any of the existing rights and protections for passengers provided for in EU law, including those provided for in this Bill, being weakened or diminished? Finally, what guarantees can the Government offer the airline industry on the operating environment situation following our withdrawal from the EU, bearing in mind that aviation does not even have World Trade Organization rules to fall back on?
We support the aims and objectives of the Bill, but there are a number of points on which more detail is needed from the Government. The purpose of the Bill will be somewhat diminished if our aviation industry is in trouble following withdrawal from the European Union.
Lord Callanan
I thank the small number of noble Lords who contributed to the debate this afternoon. I hope, like the noble Lord, Lord Rosser, that it is because of the quality of the Front-Bench contributions that other noble Lords decided not to contribute, but I suspect it probably has more to do with being the first day back after the Recess. Nevertheless, it is about the quality rather than the quantity of the contributions. It has been a good, brief debate.
The travel market has moved on significantly in the past decade, with changes to the way holidays are offered and sold. The market has diversified with the growth of the internet and smart technologies, as many Members have pointed out. Consumers now have a great many options at their fingertips to buy holidays and to put together their own packages. As the methods for selling holidays modernise, we must also update and modernise the schemes and laws that protect them. As I said in my opening remarks, this Bill is a vehicle by which the UK will implement the EU package travel directive. It will ensure that informally booked holidays will have protection similar to that for traditional package holidays, regardless of whether they are booked on the high street or online. This Bill complements the steps we took to update the ATOL scheme in 2012 and is required to ensure that consumer protection can keep pace with the changing travel market.
While it is fair to say that the Bill may not be the largest in terms of clauses, not many Bills can bring peace of mind to so many people. The scheme protects more than 20 million people each year by regulating entry into the market and acting as a fund to compensate consumers who might be caught up in a failure. It has provided robust consumer protection for more than 40 years and is held in high esteem by the travel industry and consumers alike. It has been able to do so by evolving over time and adapting to changes in the travel market. The Bill will help to align our regulatory framework with the changes coming in across the EU in 2018. The combined effect of the clauses will help to cut red tape, allowing UK-established companies to sell holidays more easily throughout Europe. They will be able to protect more holidays through the ATOL scheme, removing the need to comply with different schemes in each member state.
I shall move on to some of the question that have been asked. The noble Lord, Lord Rosser, raised the point about the future of consumer protection once the UK leaves the EU. The UK has always led the way in protecting holidaymakers. We remain committed to consumer protection and will continue to do so after Brexit. For example, we established the ATOL scheme two decades before the original package travel directive was agreed across Europe. ATOL is of course enshrined in UK legislation and will remain on the statute book until such time as these Houses decide otherwise, regardless of what happens with Brexit. We also made improvements to the scheme in 2012 which are now being echoed in the new package travel directive that was passed by the EU in 2015. So I think that I can claim some authority here when I say that we have a track record over many years of being at the forefront of consumer protection in this field and that we hope to remain so.
The Bill will extend the Civil Aviation Authority’s information powers so that it is more able to regulate the scheme and cross-border activity. It will update the ATOL powers so that they align with the scope of the directive and will provide more flexibility to set up new trust arrangements and so on to respond more effectively to an increasingly diverse pool of risks. The scheme now needs to manage a greater variety of risks and business models, and the update the Bill will make to ATOL will mean that consumer protection can extend to a broader range of holidays. This will mean that protection is provided for traditional and online package holidays as well as for the looser combinations of travel which had previously been out of scope. Of course, we must be mindful that the regulatory landscape will need to be able to adapt to future changes in our relationship with the EU, but we will also retain flexibility in the ATOL regulations to adapt to future changes in our relationship, thus ensuring that we continue to have strong consumer protections in place as we leave the European Union. These measures will ensure that the scheme remains fit for today’s world, a world in which digital technologies are offering increasing opportunities for consumers to select the way they purchase a holiday.
Moving on to some of the other questions that were asked, my noble friend Lord Flight reflected on his Burma experience. I hope that he has now recovered from his back operation and his problems with insurance. It is important to say that the ATOL scheme is not designed to replace holiday insurance and we do not want to give consumers the impression that it should or might do so. People should still take out holiday insurance, ideally before they book their holiday, which for its relatively modest cost provides the considerable protections they will need above and beyond the ATOL scheme. Arrangements for flight-only and for airlines are regulated separately, and I am sorry that my noble friend was not able to take advantage of them with his Burma experiences. I am not sure that there are any package holidays to Burma that would be covered by the ATOL regulations.
In response to the point made by the noble Baroness, Lady Randerson, no distraction is intended from any other worthy causes. She got her points in about Brexit anyway, so maybe she could cut and paste them and repeat them in the Brexit debate later this afternoon and save everyone the trouble of listening to them again, worthy though they were. She also asked about drones and lasers, a point also raised by the noble Lord, Lord Rosser. I announced just before the start of the summer vacation the measures we intend to take on drones. We are currently working on further measures to deal with the scourge of laser pens. I cannot be more specific on a timescale at the moment, but I assure the noble Lord that as soon as we can we can provide precise timings I will do so, but we recognise the threat and have published measures on what we intend to do on drones. We will act as soon as is possible.
The noble Baroness, Lady Randerson, also said she thought there was a degree of irrelevancy about the Bill. I am afraid I do not agree. We need to have protection measures in place. As I said, it will exist long after we leave the EU. We were 20 years in advance of the EU package travel directive and our protections will remain in place afterwards.
The noble Baroness raised so-called regulatory shopping. This is a concern, but we have seen no evidence of it so far. Indeed, the package travel directive in many respects implements what we already have in the UK, so it will make it less likely that companies can move to a lower-regulation environment in the rest of the EU. It will raise guarantee standards in countries such as Spain effectively to what we already have in the United Kingdom, so it will prevent the problems associated with Lowcost Holidays that I mentioned earlier.
The noble Lord, Lord Rosser, and the noble Baroness, Lady Randerson, mentioned the new trust arrangements. They are right to do so. I hope I will be able to reassure them. We have no plans to establish any other trust schemes beyond what we already have. Indeed, in response to the noble Baroness’s question, we have £175 million in the ATOL scheme, but there have been periods when it has been in deficit. I think I am right in saying that up until 2011 the scheme was in deficit and the Government needed to provide a guarantee for a loan to be taken out to refund failures at that time. Since then, we have had proportionately fewer failures and proportionately more people paying in, so the fund is now in considerable surplus.
We have no plans to change the contribution, but we propose to give ourselves the power to respond innovatively to changes in the market. As I said, we have no plans to do so but it is possible and we would not want to exclude the ability to establish new trust fund arrangements if new and innovative models were to be produced. If we did, we would consult extensively with the scheme providers in the CAA, and with package tour operators, various internet firms, et cetera. Of course, such arrangements would be subject to affirmative resolutions in both Houses.
Lord Rosser
To pursue the point on the purpose of Clause 2, the Minister has said the Government have no plans at present, but then goes on to refer to possible changes in the future. Will he give some examples of the changes that might take place that would necessitate using the powers under Clause 2?
Lord Callanan
I suppose the short answer to that question is no. If I knew what innovative solutions and changes might come up, we would allow for them now. For example, if a particularly new and what we would consider riskier form of package could be developed, we would maybe want to set up a larger contribution protection than the £2.50 that applies to other schemes. As I said, we will consult extensively with all providers and with the CAA, and the arrangements will be subject to the affirmative resolutions of this House. As I said, these models have not been developed yet, so we do not know what they might be, but we think it prudent to allow for the possibility that they may be developed in the future, even though we have no plans to do so at the moment.
I believe I have responded to all the questions I was asked—somebody will no doubt shout if I have not.
Lord Rosser
The Minister may feel he has answered this already, in which case he will obviously say so, but I asked about the secondary legislation, what consultations have already taken place and with whom, and what consultations are currently taking place. I also asked about the production of an impact assessment, because the concern is that there may not be proper consultation or an impact assessment, and we shall have just an affirmative resolution for what are, or could be, quite extensive powers and changes.
Lord Callanan
As I said, we can give an undertaking to consult extensively if we propose to do this in the future. I will write to the noble Lord with details of any consultations that have already been carried out; I hope he will consider that an adequate response. I think I have responded to the points that others put to me and I ask the House to give the Bill a Second Reading.
Air Travel Organisers’ Licensing Bill
Wednesday 11th October 2017
(6 years, 6 months ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Full debate Air Travel Organisers' Licensing Act 2017 Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: HL Bill 58-I Marshalled list for Grand Committee (PDF, 65KB) - (9 Oct 2017)
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Baroness McIntosh of Hudnall) (Lab)
Before we begin, my Lords, I should explain that the noble Lord, Lord Rosser, who is moving the first amendment, has been detained in the Chamber by the PNQ. With the Committee’s permission, we will wait a few minutes for him; I suppose he might send somebody in his place, but I do not think that he will.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees
Good afternoon, my Lords. I remind the Committee that, in the event of a Division in the Chamber, the Committee will adjourn for 10 minutes from the sound of the Division bells.
Clause 1: Air travel organisers’ licences
Amendment 1
Lord Rosser
Lord Rosser (Lab)
I apologise for my late arrival; I had to be on the Front Bench for the Home Office Private Notice Question in the Chamber. I do apologise for the delay I have caused.
I will be brief in speaking to the amendments. Their purpose is to raise the issue of linked travel and flight-only arrangements in relation to ATOL protection. In respect of linked travel arrangements, the Minister said that the Bill would extend protection to consumers making these less formal holiday arrangements. Can he say which clause or subsection says this specifically, or is this a matter that the Government intend to address in regulations? If it is the latter and the Government intend to address it in regulations, why not include the extension of the protection to linked travel arrangements on the face of the Bill, as provided for in my Amendment 2? I take it that linked travel arrangements will be quite significant. Will the Minister let me know, either now or later, what proportion of what I would describe as ATOL sales the Government think linked travel arrangements will make up? Are they contemplating a new separate air travel trust for linked travel arrangements, in view of later clauses?
Turning to flight-only arrangements, one issue that surfaced during the debate on the Monarch Airlines Statement on Monday was the very low percentage of Monarch passengers covered by the existing ATOL provisions. I think the Minister said it was likely to be some 10% to 15%, and that this percentage was unlikely to have been much higher even under the provisions of the revised EU directive and the Bill. As I understand it, that is because nearly all Monarch Airlines passengers were flight-only. The Government decided, particularly because of the numbers involved, to provide flights back home for those Monarch passengers stranded abroad. This is a power the Government have but as I understand it, it is entirely up to them when and if they use it. Surely that can only create a degree of uncertainty, which is not a desirable state of affairs, certainly not for stranded airline passengers.
I put it to the Minister that the Government should consider setting out clear criteria against which they will determine whether to provide flights back home for stranded flight-only passengers whose airline has become insolvent or, alternatively, consider extending the ATOL protection scheme to flight-only passengers, who made up the vast majority left stranded by the demise of Monarch Airlines. Perhaps in that regard, the Minister could give an estimate of the cost to travel organisations of extending the ATOL protection scheme in this way.
Can the Minister expand on the paragraph in the Government’s Statement on Monarch Airlines on Monday? It reads:
“But then our efforts will turn to working through any reforms necessary to ensure that passengers do not find themselves in this position again. We need to look at all the options, not just ATOL, but also whether it is possible for airlines to be able to wind down in an orderly manner and look after their customers themselves without the need for the Government to step in. We will be putting a lot of effort into this in the weeks and months ahead”.—[Official Report, 9/10/17; col. 46.]
What do the Government include in “look at all the options”? Can I take it that this will include flight-only passengers not ending up being stranded abroad with no automatic provision available to fly them back home at no additional cost? I beg to move.
Baroness Randerson (LD)
I thank the noble Lord for his remarks, which have provided a useful introduction to his thinking. Clause 1(3) inserts new subsection (1E) into Section 71 the 1982 Act to clarify that the Secretary of State can make regulations to exempt any form of flight-only arrangement from ATOL. As the noble Lord, Lord Rosser, said, most of the passengers in the Monarch situation were not covered by ATOL arrangements, but it inevitably leads one to reconsider the situation and what needs to be done—we will refer to this later on. The key question is whether it is desirable for flights-only to be covered by some kind of scheme of the ATOL type. That would inevitably mean an addition to the cost of flights. In the case of low-cost airlines, it would be a significant addition to the cost of a short-haul flight. In a situation of what I think the Minister will agree is brutal price competition, I suspect, although I do not know, that the airlines would not welcome any additional costs of this nature.
On Monday, the Minister emphasised the massive scale of the repatriation that the Government, via the CAA, have undertaken, and it has been a very effective way of dealing with the problem. However, Monarch was a small airline. It might have been, as the headlines said, the biggest repatriation since D-Day, but it was a small airline that went bust. When one combines the size and complexity of that situation with the issue of linked travel arrangements and the possible development of such a concept, we have to consider what sort of compensation should be available to people throughout the market. We are in a rapidly changing market and just because airlines seem to be in robust health at the moment, it does not mean, in the uncertain future we face, that this will necessarily continue in the decades ahead. I would welcome the Minister’s comments on what forms of compensation the Government are considering for those in situations where airlines go into liquidation, and by contrast what compensation should be considered for those who still stick to the old-style package holiday arrangements—if I can call them that.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Transport (Lord Callanan) (Con)
First, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Rosser, and the noble Baroness, Lady Randerson, for their co-operation on this matter. I will address the amendments first and then come on to their specific questions about Monarch and other issues.
I recognise the purpose of Amendments 1 and 2 and we have looked very closely at the legal implications of both of them. I understand and recognise the intention to ensure that ATOL protection covers flight-only bookings and linked travel arrangements. Amendment 1 would remove subsection (3) from Clause 1. I will explain why this has been included in the Bill. It is quite complicated so I will go through it. It clarifies the extent of the Secretary of State’s powers to exempt businesses from holding an ATOL when they are selling flight-only tickets. It is not changing the status quo; it is merely adding clarity about exemption from the ATOL scheme.
I think there is a small amount of confusion here. Airlines selling airline tickets are already exempted from ATOL in primary legislation—the Civil Aviation Act. What we are referring to here is ATOL holders—for instance, travel agents—selling an airline ticket. The ATOL protection applies from the moment the travel agent takes your money off you—you might choose to pay for it in instalments—until the airline actually issues the ticket, when you become a customer of the airline and part of the EU 261 compensation arrangements. Your money is protected while it is with the ATOL holder—the travel agent—until it is converted into an airline ticket, when you become the responsibility of separate regulations. Under the Civil Aviation Act, airlines are exempt from ATOL provisions.
Noble Lords may be aware that Section 71(1B) of the Civil Aviation Act already provides a specific exemption for airlines selling flight-only tickets on their own aircraft. This exemption recognises that airline operators are already subject to separate licensing requirements, set out in EU law. Member states do not have discretion to impose additional requirements.
Separately, the Civil Aviation Act also includes a wide power under Section 71(1A)(b) to make further exemptions in the ATOL regulations. This power is not expressly limited in any way in the Civil Aviation Act. However, arguably the presence in the primary legislation of the specific exemption for airlines selling flight-only tickets could be misinterpreted as narrowing this wider power. That is why we have introduced Clause 1(3) to clarify the relationship between these existing exemption powers, and remove any scope for misinterpretation. We believe there is a benefit in having this clarity in law and, as I say, the presence of the airline exemption already exists in primary legislation. If the noble Lord’s concern is that the Government intend to remove flight-only sales from the ATOL scheme, I can provide an assurance that the Government have no such plans. If the noble Lord’s aim was to bring airlines within the ATOL scheme, this amendment would unfortunately not achieve that. We would need to amend the Civil Aviation Act in order to do that.
The noble Lord’s second amendment would add linked travel arrangements and flight-only to regulation 17(1) of the ATOL regulations, which sets out the types of travel arrangements that require an ATOL certificate. I should make it clear that flight-only arrangements are already covered in regulation 17(1)(a), and we do not have any plans to change that. To accept this amendment would therefore duplicate what is already in place.
With regard to the proposal to add linked travel arrangements to regulation 17(1), once this legislation is in place we will introduce regulations to make provision for insolvency protection and the provision of information for linked travel arrangements, as required by the package travel directive. Indeed, work is already under way to draft the package travel regulations and the ATOL regulations to effect this change. The ATOL regulations will be published in draft for consultation. I am sure noble Lords would agree that it would not be appropriate to pre-empt that process by making a change now to the regulations without such consultation, as proposed by this amendment. In summary, if the noble Lord’s concern is that the Government intend to remove flight-only sales from the ATOL scheme, I am happy to provide an assurance that the Government have no such plans. If the noble Lord’s aim was to bring airlines within the ATOL scheme, this amendment would not achieve that aim. I hope therefore that he will withdraw Amendment 1.
I turn to the questions that the noble Lord, Lord Rosser, posed. He asked what percentage of the ATOL scheme would be taken up by linked travel arrangements. It is hard to say definitively but our estimate at the moment is a very small percentage. Part of the reason why we want to consult with industry before we introduce the regulations is that it is not entirely clear what a linked travel arrangement actually is. The directive expands the scope of the package travel arrangements, and the extension of the ATOL scheme will of course take effect for that regulation.
The noble Lord asked why linked travel arrangements are not included in the Bill and which clause deals with them. The Bill extends the ATOL powers but they are used to apply these arrangements throughout the European Economic Area. As such, all clauses apply to linked travel arrangements, and we will implement them in secondary legislation later on in the year when we have consulted with industry.
The noble Lord asked if we will be establishing a new trust for linked travel arrangements. The Government, together with the CAA, are still assessing the best way to implement linked travel arrangements that include a flight. We will consult on more detailed proposals later in the year. BEIS recently completed a consultation on the implementation of the package travel directive, and the responses to the consultation are currently being analysed. The consultation closed on 25 September.
The noble Lord asked about extending ATOL to flight-only. The ATOL scheme does not apply to airlines, as I said earlier, when they are acting as a flight-only provider, which are specifically exempted from it under primary legislation. Such airlines are subject to separate EU regulation and licensing arrangements, which include financial fitness requirements. We are not proposing to make any changes to the arrangements at this stage.
The noble Lord, Lord Rosser, and the noble Baroness, Lady Randerson, asked about Monarch. As I said in repeating the Statement yesterday, we believe the circumstances are unique. Monarch was quite a large airline—the UK’s fifth largest—and the circumstances were unique in that, even if we had not agreed to the repatriation package for non-ATOL holders, there was insufficient capacity available in the market so that people who had insurance cover, credit card insurance et cetera would not have been able to purchase alternative flights to bring them home. Because of the scale of the collapse and the time of the year when this occurred, there was insufficient capacity available and therefore there was a very real danger of British citizens being stranded. In those circumstances we thought it was right to step in and fund the repatriation effort, although we are currently in negotiations with ABTA and the credit and debit card companies to try to recoup some of the costs. We hope that the particular set of circumstances that applied in the Monarch situation will never be repeated.
With the answers that I gave to the noble Lord, Lord Rosser, I would be grateful if he will agree to withdraw Amendment 1 and, on the basis that Amendment 2 duplicates what is already in place in respect of flight-only and pre-empts what we will shortly consult on with respect to the relevant regulations, I hope he will agree not to press it.
Lord Rosser
I am sure it will come as no surprise to the Minister to know that since we are in Grand Committee I will withdraw the amendment, but I would like to raise one or two questions in the light of the response.
I gather from what he said that nobody quite knows what linked travel arrangements are. I only mentioned them in the amendment because the Minister used the phrase at Second Reading when he said the Bill:
“will also extend the scope of protection to a new concept of linked travel arrangements”.—[Official Report, 5/9/17; col. 1840.]
I had assumed that as the Minister referred to linked travel arrangements the Government would know what they were talking about. I now understand that people are still trying to find out what linked travel arrangements are. If I understood him correctly—and I have not heard any other argument why there should not be a reference to them in the Bill—the Government’s reluctance to put them in the Bill is because they would not know exactly what they were putting in because they do not know what linked travel arrangements are and therefore what they might be committing themselves to. Perhaps the Minister could say whether that is a fair analysis or synopsis of the reply he gave on that point.
Since the Government have expressed a lack of enthusiasm for it, I also asked what would be the cost of extending compensation arrangements or ATOL protection arrangements to flight-only passengers. I did not get a response. It may be that the Government do not have a figure. Clearly, it might impose additional costs. My only comment is that when additional costs are imposed on public sector services, the argument is usually that they will have to be found from within the budget and from efficiency savings. Presumably the same argument might be used elsewhere if the Government chose to do so. I would like the Minister to clarify his response. I got a bit confused, I readily admit, not because the Minister expressed it badly but probably because my powers of taking things on board are not as great as they might be. As I understood him, he did not say that the Government could not introduce compensation arrangements in relation to flight-only passengers, whether ATOL protection or something else, because of EU regulations but that the Government do not wish to do so. Perhaps the Minister can confirm that if the Government wanted to do it, they could, but if they do not want do it as opposed to being unable to do it because of EU regulations, that makes their estimate of the cost even more significant.
The Minister has indicated a lack of enthusiasm on behalf of the Government for going down the road of protection for flight-only passengers. Where does that sit with what was said in the Monarch Airlines Statement? We were told that,
“our effort will turn to working through any reforms necessary to ensure that passengers do not find themselves in this position again. We need to look at all the options—not just ATOL”.—[Official Report, 9/10/17; col. 46.]
Surely one of the options must be a similar kind of protection package for flight-only passengers, bearing in mind that the great bulk of Monarch passengers were in that category. Is the Minister saying, only two days after Monday’s Statement, that one of the options has already been shut down?
Lord Callanan
Let me try to clarify the issues. The fundamental reason we are extending the ATOL scheme to cover linked travel arrangements is that the concept of linked travel arrangements is introduced by the EU directive. We had slight difficulty in defining exactly what that is in our discussions yesterday with the noble Baroness, Lady Randerson.
Let us assume that the Rosser family are going on their annual holiday and so book airlines tickets. Within the website used to book the airline tickets, they may be offered a hotel or car hire at the same time. They might be offered those at the behest and specific recommendation of the low-cost airline or through a Google advert placed on the website but with no direct connection to the airline. In the first instance, if you follow up purchasing an airline ticket with booking a car and a hotel, and you do it within 48 hours, it might be a linked travel arrangement. In the second instance, if you respond to an advert placed on the same webpage, it may not be a linked travel arrangement.
The answer to the noble Lord’s question is: we are attempting to define what a linked travel arrangement is through consultation with the industry. The concept itself was introduced in the EU directive. As someone who has taken part in many late-night trialogue sessions at the end of the process of EU legislation, I can see why sometimes the drafting of EU directives is not as good or forthright as it should be.
The package travel regulations extend the definition and scope of what a “package” comprises. From informal discussions that we have had so far with the package holiday companies, we think that the vast majority of products they sell would be covered under either the old or new definition of a package holiday. On their current business models, a very small percentage would potentially be linked travel arrangements. As part of the directive, the information provisions would have to make clear to a customer that if they were signing up to a linked travel arrangement, there may be a lesser standard of protection than that provided by the package holiday directive for those who have purchased a package holiday, which would be guaranteed under the ATOL scheme. I hope I am explaining it well—it is rather complicated, and the noble Lord can come back to me if he wants further clarification.
The noble Lord asked whether we are prevented by EU regulations from extending the ATOL scheme to airlines. My understanding is that we could extend it to airlines—no doubt I can write to him if I have the wrong impression—but to do that we would have to change primary legislation, because the Civil Aviation Act states that airlines are exempt.
Turning to ATOL-protected flight-only booking providers, which we are talking about in this Bill, they are concerns such as high street travel agents. As well as being able to sell package holidays, they can also sell flight-only products. Obviously, before the airline actually issues the ticket, the customer would have ATOL protection in case the travel agent or the high street provider goes bankrupt in the meantime. Once the ticket has been issued, the customer becomes subject to the separate provisions of the EU 261 compensation regulations.
With regard to the Monarch situation, we still have a few days left in which to finish the rescue operation, and I am pleased to say that so far it is going well. On the face of it there are no easy answers to this situation. Of course we could extend ATOL protection to every airline ticket that is sold in the UK, but no doubt the noble Lord will have received the same representations as I have from airlines and others complaining about the impact of air passenger duty and how it makes the UK travel and airline market uncompetitive in many respects, although there are other issues around what might happen in Scotland or Northern Ireland. If we were to extend the insurance scheme to every airline, in effect that would just increase air passenger duty because we would be adding an amount to every airline ticket. That would apply to every airline operating from the UK or anyone transiting through this country, including Emirates, American Airlines and every other operator that travels through the UK. Many are in very robust financial health and people would already have an element of protection through the EU 261 directive.
There are no easy answers to the Monarch situation. The other area that we could look at, but which is outside the scope of the ATOL Bill before us today, would be the insolvency regulations. We can ask whether it is possible to arrange the orderly wind-down of an airline so that it can continue to operate. Again, however, that has some potential problems, not the least of which is creditor action. As soon as an aircraft is abroad in a foreign airport, if creditors know that an airline is in financial difficulties and they want payment for services upfront, they typically impound airplanes and refuse to allow them to return to their home country. It is a potential avenue that we could look at and we are not ruling anything out. We will examine all the possible ways of protecting the taxpayer in the future, but there are no obvious solutions to prevent this happening. However, I should say that we are not aware of any other airlines that might cause us anxiety at the moment.
Lord Rosser
I am not surprised that the Minister has not been able to give us an estimate of what the cost would be of extending the ATOL provision to all flights, obviously including the Monarch situation. I assume from that that the Government do not have a figure. I take it from what the Minister has said that the reference in the Statement to all options being looked at still stands, including the options in one form or another that we have been discussing in this debate. On the basis that I have not misunderstood the Minister and that all options are genuinely being looked at, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Callanan
Perhaps I may provide some clarification. EU law actually prevents us from adding additional licensing provisions that go beyond EU law in the case of the licensing provisions of airlines.
Baroness Randerson
“Potential impact of leaving the European Union on consumer protection under the ATOL scheme
(1) The Secretary of State must carry out an assessment of the potential impact that leaving the European Union will have on consumer protection in the United Kingdom under the Air Travel Organisers’ Licence scheme.(2) The Secretary of State must lay a report of the assessment before Parliament within the period of 12 months beginning with the day on which this Act is passed.”
Baroness Randerson
My Lords, Amendment 3 would insert a new clause to deal with the potential impact of leaving the EU on consumer protection under the ATOL scheme. It asks the Secretary of State to carry out an assessment and to lay a report before Parliament within 12 months of this Act passing. The key question is whether consumer rights and protection in this respect will be reduced on leaving the EU. The Minister made much of the fact that the UK was ahead of the game many years ago when it set up the ATOL scheme. He said that in some respects the rest of the EU was catching up with us with the 2015 EU package travel directive.
The Bill is designed to bring us in line with the rest of the EU—an organisation we are about to leave. It is obviously of considerable importance that we understand the potential impact of the various stages of the Brexit process. As I understand it, the Government are no longer suggesting that we can get everything sorted by March 2019, so I assume there will be a transition period. But we will not be members of the EU at that stage, according to statements made by several Ministers. Instead, we will be mirroring EU membership to a greater or lesser extent. Since so much of the legislative structure surrounding aviation and the relevant international agreements are not specifically part of EU membership—but we are nevertheless signed up as members of the EU—there seems to be a particular danger that the aviation sector will be at the sharp edge of decision-making. Certainly, the sector feels that it is important that it is at the leading edge of decision-making. There is uncertainty associated with that, of course.
If the worst happens—not the scenario I have just outlined but the worst—and we crash out of the EU without a deal, what will happen to the additional rights and safeguards conferred by the Bill? I expect that the Minister will say that they will remain as they will be enshrined in UK law. However, if we crash out without a deal, all bets are off. We will no longer be obliged to mirror EU consumer protections. Some Ministers have spoken in terms which suggest that the more bargain-basement approach to international trade might be the preferred option.
As marketing methods and IT develop, this is an increasingly complex area. Today’s discussion has already reflected that. The Monarch case illustrates that complexity, with only about 14% of people covered by ATOL. People can sit next to each other on the same plane and stay at the same hotel but be entitled to different compensation or no compensation, according to their method of payment. Did they pay for it as a package holiday—a single entity? Did they pay for it as separate parts? Did they pay by credit card or PayPal, in which case they would get protection? In some ways, I gather, this can be enhanced protection. If they paid by debit card, they would not get that protection—they would not get compensation. It is worth noting that there is often a superficial financial incentive to pay by debit card because many websites now charge for paying by credit card.
Lord Rosser
I will be brief. It seems that the terms of this amendment are entirely reasonable, since people will surely want to know whether changes are going to be made to the protection arrangements, if and when we leave the European Union. There is a need for people to be clear what the impact is. It may be that there is no impact and so that needs to be clear, but people certainly need to know what the impact is, whether it is negative or not adverse at all. That is what this amendment is seeking. I do not know whether the Minister is going to accept it or not. If he is not, I shall listen with interest to his reasons for saying he cannot.
Lord Rogan (UUP)
My Lords, this sensible amendment should be added and I fully support it.
Lord Callanan
I start by saying that I fully endorse the purpose of the proposed new clause. In the coming years we will be embarking on major changes in our relationship with Europe, and it is very difficult to predict where the negotiations will end up. Therefore, it is important to begin by offering assurances that the Government would want UK consumers to continue to enjoy strong protections and an effective consumer regime, whether inside or outside the EU. I am sure that is something that all parts of the Committee can agree on. The UK has always been a leader when it comes to providing protection for holidaymakers. After all, as the noble Baroness said, we set up the ATOL scheme in UK legislation several years before the original package travel directive was agreed in Europe. That is a significant point. It means that the ATOL legislation is not dependent on the package travel directive. This Bill will harmonise ATOL with the package travel directive in the immediate term. However, the ATOL legislation and the protection will still exist and remain in place as we leave the EU.
Notwithstanding this, I fully understand why this amendment has been proposed in order that we consider the ongoing impact on consumer protection as we leave the European Union. However, this is catered for in the legal and policy framework already in place. There is already a legal duty on the Government to review under the Small Business, Enterprise and Employment Act 2015. This places an obligation on us to undertake a post-implementation review within five years of passing legislation.
Furthermore, we already have an independent review body in place to provide an ongoing review of the financial protection available for air travellers. The Air Travel Insolvency Protection Advisory Committee— or ATIPAC, the snappy acronym by which it is more commonly known—was set up by the Labour Government in 2000. Its purpose is to provide advice to the Civil Aviation Authority, the Air Travel Trust and the Secretary of State for Transport on policies that should be pursued to protect consumers. The committee consists of representatives of industry, consumers, the CAA and Trading Standards. This means that it is very well placed to provide an informed and independent view on policies. The committee already submits a substantial report to the Secretary of State every year, which is also published on the CAA and ATIPAC websites. This report should draw to the Secretary of State’s attention any concerns on which, in ATIPAC’s view, further action is necessary to maintain strong consumer protection. This includes advice on changes in the market and, where appropriate, their potential impact on consumers and the financial protection arrangements.
I am sure that the committee is already minded to keep a close eye on consumer protection, both before and after we leave the EU. In fact, my colleague the Minister of State for Transport in the other place, the right honourable John Hayes MP, has already asked the committee’s chair, John Cox, to consider this precise point in the ATIPAC 2017-18 annual report. These reports will be submitted to the Secretary of State within four months of the end of each financial year and will, as I said, be published on the CAA and ATIPAC websites at the same time.
I turn now to the specific questions posed by the noble Baroness, Lady Randerson. How do consumers know what is or is not a linked travel arrangement? The package travel directive specifies that businesses must inform the consumer whether or not they are purchasing an LTA before they make the purchase. Given the complications that I referred to in my previous answer, the way this will be done in practice will be considered in the consultation that we will publish later this year.
The noble Baroness also asked what will happen to this Bill if we leave the EU with no deal. ATOL will continue, as the amendment states, and this House will decide on any changes that are to be made, deal or no deal. The Government remain committed to strong consumer protection and will continue to be so after Brexit.
In the light of those answers, I hope the noble Baroness will withdraw her amendment.
Baroness Randerson
I thank the Minister for that answer. The Air Travel Insolvency Protection Advisory Committee—a name which does not trip off the tongue of everyone in the pub at the weekend—reports to the Secretary of State. Is that report published? Has that report ever been debated in Parliament? If it has, what is the process to enable a debate about the annual report from ATIPAC?
I am very pleased to hear that there will be consultation. Can the Minister assure us that when the regulations are eventually produced they will reflect the need not just to follow the letter of the law but to give clear and prominent information to consumers about what they are purchasing and that there will be a way of ensuring that people are made much more aware of the difference between using PayPal and credit cards on one side and debit cards on the other?
I fear that we all get used to clicking on terms and conditions. We gave up reading the small print many years ago because it is carefully designed to deter all but the most obsessive and leisurely person. We need some kind of widely recognised industry standard that is easily understandable to people who do not devote their lives to consumer protection issues so that they know the difference between one sort of package of measures they are buying and another. I wonder whether the Minister is able to give some reassurance on that.
Lord Callanan
I think I am able to provide the reassurance that the noble Baroness is looking for. ATIPAC reports are published on the CAA and ATIPAC websites, but if the noble Baroness would find it helpful I would be happy to place a copy in the Library of the House to make them more widely available. I am not sure that many people would want to read them, but I am happy to do that if the noble Baroness would find it useful. I am not aware that the report has ever been debated in this House or the other place, but time is made available for general debates and Opposition day debates and I am sure that through discussions among the usual channels time could probably be made available for a debate on the topic. I cannot give a commitment on behalf of the House authorities, but if the noble Baroness wishes for such a debate, I am sure her party leadership could pursue those discussions.
The noble Baroness made a very good point about information provision. Consumers need to be kept fully informed about the differences—whether it is a linked travel arrangement or a package that they are purchasing—and the relevant levels of protection that will apply. That is something that we want to explore in the consultation. As I said, the linked travel arrangement is a new concept, introduced by the directive. It is not entirely clear exactly what one would comprise at the moment. In the consultation that we will be issuing on the draft regulations, we will want to explore how consumers could be made aware of and kept informed about the difference in levels of protection. We are adding an additional level of complication into what is currently a relatively simple, well-understood scheme. The information provisions exist in the directive and we will be looking to implement those through secondary legislation in the public consultation that we will hold. I hope that answers the noble Baroness’s question.
Baroness Randerson
I thank the Minister for his answer. I am happy to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Rosser
“Potential impact on consumer protection of UK consumers using EU-based companies
(1) The Secretary of State may, within two years of this Act coming into force, require that the Air Travel Insolvency Protection Advisory Committee review the impact on UK consumers of booking a holiday through an EU-based company rather than a UK-based company.(2) The Secretary of State must lay a report of any assessment carried out under subsection (1) before both Houses of Parliament.”
Lord Rosser
This amendment would enable the Secretary of State to require the—now well-known from our previous debate—Air Travel Insolvency Protection Advisory Committee, within two years of the Act coming into force, to,
“review the impact on UK consumers of booking a holiday through an EU-based company rather than a UK-based company”,
and require the Secretary of State to lay such a report before both Houses of Parliament.
As we know, the Bill updates the Air Travel Organiser’s Licence so that it is harmonised with the 2015 EU package travel directive. In so doing, the Bill extends ATOL to cover a wider range of holidays and protect more consumers. The expectation is that UK travel companies will be able to sell more easily across Europe, since in future they will need to comply with protections based not in the country of sale but in the country in which they are established. The purpose of the amendment is to provide a degree of certainty that there will be a review, in this case via the Air Travel Insolvency Protection Advisory Committee, of the impact of the ATOL revisions to help ensure that there are no adverse impacts on UK consumers using EU-based companies, since the intention and objective of the Bill is to improve the range and extent of the protections available.
There is a possibility that with the change to EU-based companies having to comply with ATOL-equivalent insolvency protections applicable in the member state where a business is based, rather than in the country of sale, such companies selling holidays to UK consumers may not offer the same ease and lack of expense of processing a claim which are afforded by the ATOL provisions that would apply to a UK company. It appears that some half a million passengers could be affected.
The review referred to in the amendment would enable hard facts to be obtained on the impact of this legislation on UK consumers booking holidays through EU-based companies, and the extent to which the protections offered, the processes and timescales for securing recompense and the costs involved differ from our ATOL arrangements. With that information available, the Government would be in a position to make informed decisions on what further action, if any, could be taken or pursued to help ensure that UK consumers using EU-based companies were either not disadvantaged or at least made aware beforehand that they were liable to find themselves in a less favourable position.
A broadly similar amendment was pursued on Report in the Commons. The Minister there appears to have taken some 40 minutes over his reply, taking interventions like there was no tomorrow, some 15 of which were from his own Back-Benchers. One, as the debate reached its pinnacle, was as follows:
“May I say to my right hon. Friend, with the seriousness and candour that the moment demands, that he is a bright flame on a dull and grey afternoon to which the moths of Parliament are being drawn?”.—[Official Report, Commons, 11/7/17; col. 234.]
The Minister’s response was to wonder whether anyone else wanted to intervene in a similar vein. One could take the view that in the Commons the Government were regarding the whole debate on the amendment as a joke. Alternatively, one could take the view that, since a vote was coming at the end of the debate, the Government were playing for time because they were not sure whether sufficient of their troops had yet returned to be confident of their winning the vote. Since there will not be a vote on this amendment as we are in Grand Committee, I hope to have a more adult debate than the Government promoted in the Commons.
When the Government Minister commented in the Commons on a broadly similar amendment to the one we are discussing now, he said:
“It will be for protection schemes in other member states to provide the protections for UK consumers to which the amendment refers. Because that is not our responsibility—we do not have the power that the amendment suggests that we should have—I am not sure that the amendment works on a technical level”.—[Official Report, Commons, 11/7/17; col. 226.]
I am not sure what power suggested in that amendment the Commons Minister was referring to, but his comment was not exactly encouraging. However, despite having said that the issue referred to in the amendment in the Commons was not our responsibility, the Government Minister in the Commons went on to say that the Air Travel Insolvency Protection Advisory Committee, which provides advice to the Civil Aviation Authority, the Air Travel Trust and the Secretary of State on the protection of consumers, would receive a letter from him asking it to review the implementation of the changes provided for in the Bill. They presumably include the impact on UK consumers of booking a holiday through an EU-based rather than UK-based company.
However, the promise of a letter to the ATIPAC from a Minister who had already declared that the matter is not our responsibility is frankly not sufficient. This is a serious issue with potentially serious consequences for passengers, as recent events relating to Monarch Airlines have shown. We need something on the face of the Bill which, while not compelling the Government to require the review from the ATIPAC, makes it much more difficult for the Government not to proceed down this road, and certainly would in a situation where complaints were coming in from passengers booking a holiday through an EU-based rather than UK-based company, over arrangements and procedures on insolvency protection. I beg to move.
Lord Callanan
My Lords, please forgive me if I repeat a number of the points that I made on the previous answer, as this covers the same ground. We are proud that we have always been a leader when it comes to providing protection for holidaymakers. We set up the ATOL scheme in UK legislation several years before the original package travel directive was agreed in Europe. That is the significant point. It means that the ATOL legislation is not dependent on European legislation. The Bill will harmonise ATOL with the package travel directive in the immediate term. However, the ATOL legislation and protection will still exist and remain in place as we leave the EU.
I fully understand why this amendment has been proposed, in order that we consider the ongoing impacts on consumer protection as we leave the EU. As I said earlier, this is already catered for in the legal and policy framework in place. As referred to by the noble Lord, Lord Rosser, during the Commons passage of the Bill, my colleague the Minister of State for Transport, the right honourable John Hayes, wrote to the Chair, John Cox, to consider this precise point in ATIPAC’s 2017-18 annual report. I am sure that they are already minded to keep a close eye on consumer protection both before and after we leave the EU. In fact, these reports will be submitted to the Secretary of State within four months of the end of each financial year and will be published on the ATIPAC website.
The noble Lord, Lord Rosser, also asked about HMG’s problem of our UK passengers purchasing from EU businesses. If a travel business is established in Europe, it will be able to sell holidays to consumers in the UK without ATOL protection. However, it would still be obliged to have in place insolvency protection that meets the strict requirements of the new directive. This protection will be broadly similar to ATOL and will need to cover both online and traditional package holidays.
In light of the explanation that I have given and the scrutiny and the annual review already in place, I hope that the noble Lord will feel able to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Rosser
I am disappointed but not surprised by the answer that I have received. One issue will relate to EU-based companies that are selling holidays here but which are required to conform to requirements in their own nation. What will the process be for obtaining that compensation and protection? What expenditure may have to be incurred by a UK resident who has purchased a holiday through an EU-based company? Those processes and procedures, and the cost of going through them, may well be rather more extensive than might apply in relation to a UK company under our own ATOL arrangements. That aspect of it has been rather ignored in the answer given. We come back to a situation where the Government seem willing to write letters to people and to stand up and say in one of the Houses of Parliament, “Yes, we intend to do this”, but when it comes to being asked to put their words on the face of the Bill so that everybody can see their commitment, making Ministers much more accountable, and being required in this case to place the report before both Houses of Parliament, the Government resile from such a suggestion without giving a proper justification as to why it would be inappropriate or unworkable. I am disappointed with the reply, since I think that the Government could have gone further, but I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Baroness Randerson
“(6A) Any amendments to the definition of “Air Travel Trust” in subsection (5) may not be laid before Parliament until the Secretary of State has published a full impact assessment and undertaken a consultation on the proposed amendments.”
Baroness Randerson
Amendment 5—it seems that Amendment 6 is very similar—addresses Clause 2, in which the Government are asking us to give them a power to set up a separate trust for linked travel arrangements. It is a very open-ended power which runs counter to the Government’s actions of the week before last. When Monarch failed, the Government decided, very sensibly, to organise repatriation for all customers of Monarch regardless of whether they had bought package holidays or simply a flight. In essence, the Government were setting aside the special status of package holiday customers, for which they had each paid £2.50. The Government’s action might have been sensible, but it rather undermines the Minister’s argument at Second Reading that it might not be appropriate for one group of more cautious customers to have to subsidise, perhaps indirectly, compensation for other customers who chose a more risky option.
The Monarch case has also illustrated the sheer size and impact of such a failure. The current ATOL trust struggled for some years with more calls on its funds than it could cope with, and it had to be subsidised by the Government. It has been in good health recently, but that history is there. Any fund like this succeeds because it agglomerates many small sums of money into one large total. If you start setting up several funds, you are disaggregating the total money available, and that undermines the principle.
The Minister has been absolutely clear by indicating that currently the Government have no intention of setting up a new trust fund but just want the power to do so if they choose to in the future. This is a dangerous principle which is increasingly creeping into government legislation whereby the Government are gathering up “just in case” powers, giving no clear indication of how they intend to use them. I would argue that they have to do better than that in order to justify including this power in the legislation. We need a more detailed justification, a consultation and an impact assessment before this additional wide power can be considered acceptable. We oppose the power in principle as well as being concerned about the practical impact if it is used. I beg to move.
Lord Rosser
I have Amendment 6 in this group to which I would like to speak. As the noble Baroness, Lady Randerson, has said, it is similar to, although not exactly the same as, the amendment that she has just moved. My amendment states:
“The Secretary of State may not amend the definition of ‘Air Travel Trust’ under subsection (6) until a report outlining the criteria under which those amendments have been proposed has been laid before both Houses of Parliament”.
Clause 2 relates to the Air Travel Trust, which holds the money that is used to refund consumers under ATOL protection. It gives the Secretary of State the power to define separate trust arrangements to reflect different market models. Presumably it has been included in the light of changes in the package holiday market, but no doubt also in the light of Brexit because changes to ATOL and the Air Travel Trust could conceivably be considered necessary by the Government in the event of our leaving the European Union, depending on the basis and terms on which we left. Indeed, in the light of the discussion we had earlier on Monarch Airlines, the Government’s Statement on Monday and now looking at all the options, it could well be that, as a result of looking at those options, the Government have come to the conclusion that changes might be needed as far as the Air Travel Trust and ATOL arrangements are concerned.
During the Commons Committee evidence sessions in relation to the measures contained in this Bill, a trustee of the Air Travel Trust said that he recognised the possible merits of separating the trust to reflect variations in the products in the market, but that we are not there yet and that it would not be appropriate for the Government to use the Bill as a means of making wholesale changes without due consultation. Moreover, the impact assessment does not consider proposals for ATOL reform beyond what is currently required. In the Commons, the Government declined to accept an amendment requiring them to undertake a full impact assessment and consultation before bringing forward regulations to create any new air travel trusts through an affirmative resolution—a very similar amendment to that moved by the noble Baroness, Lady Randerson. In response, the Government said that there would be full consultation and a comprehensive impact assessment in respect of any regulations to be made under these measures. Can the Minister say whether that applies to any measures covered in the whole of the Bill or did the Government’s response refer only to regulations made under new subsection (6) inserted by Clause 2(2) relating to air travel trusts? The Government’s lack of enthusiasm to date for putting these declarations of intent into the Bill, bearing in mind the considerable powers which subsection (6) gives the Secretary of State, is worrying.
We have therefore tabled Amendment 6. It would mean that prior to amending the definition of “Air Travel Trust” the Secretary of State would have to lay before Parliament a report setting out the criteria under which the amendment was being proposed. This would at least enable a view to be formed on the need, or otherwise, for such amendments, ensure a degree of consistency over the reasons for bringing forward such amendments and enable a view to be taken on whether the amendments address the reasons or criteria that had been advanced for bringing them forward. That does not seem unreasonable in the light of the extent to which the powers given to the Secretary of State under subsection (6) to make potentially significant changes by regulations could be used, bearing in the mind the impact they could have, to which reference has already been made, on the viability and sustainability of the current Air Travel Trust or a future, more fragmented trust and thus the whole ATOL protection scheme.
Lord Callanan
I again endorse the purpose of the amendments because carefully crafting policies and the regulatory framework is the key to good governance. The Government have no plans to change the current Air Travel Trust deed. The rationale behind this clause responds to the travel sector’s view. In the light of responses to our consultation last year, the Government are proposing to take the power to establish additional trusts to give them the flexibility to make separate provision—
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Geddes) (Con)
I hate to interrupt the Minister, but a Division has been called in the Chamber. The Committee stands adjourned until 5.15 pm.
Lord Callanan
My apologies for the delay: when you walk through the Lobby, you get trapped by Members wanting to talk to you about various issues. I return to the two amendments. In light of the responses to our consultation last year, the Government are proposing to take the power to establish additional trusts to give them the flexibility to make separate provision for different types of risk, or different business models. The impact of failure can be significant, as we have just witnessed in the failure of Monarch Group, to which Members have referred. This makes the need for regulatory flexibility vital for market efficiency and consumer certainty.
This change has the potential to make the scheme’s operation easier for industry to apply and more robust for the consumer. The new looser types of package arrangement called linked travel arrangements are the most obvious example. Currently, we do not know how the industry will react to this innovation and whether riskier products will appear that might require us to separate the trust arrangements. Richard Moriarty from the CAA said in the evidence session when this clause was part of the Vehicle Technology and Aviation Bill that,
“it would be prudent and sensible for Government to have the flexibility to respond to that”.—[Official Report, Commons, Vehicle Technology and Aviation Public Bill Committee, 14/3/17; col. 65.]
There is already a legal duty in Section 71B of the Civil Aviation Act which places a requirement on the Government and the Civil Aviation Authority to consult if we introduce regulations under Section 71A. Like my right honourable friend John Hayes, Minister of State for Transport in the other place, I am happy to give the noble Baroness a commitment today that there will be a thorough impact assessment and consultation before we use these powers.
Throughout the ATOL review process we have consulted on the basis of impact assessment. In 2012 we changed the Civil Aviation Act to better reflect current market practice. In 2013 we launched a call for evidence on our long-term review of the ATOL scheme. Last year we consulted on the very changes to the Civil Aviation Act that we are discussing today, and shortly we will launch a series of consultations on the detailed regulations that will follow the Bill. As noble Lords can see, each stage of this work has been the subject of extensive impact assessments and consultations every step of the way. Indeed, both the Civil Aviation Authority and the industry’s leading trade body—ABTA—have commended the Government’s approach to reform. We will be working closely with them and consulting with industry as and when we develop plans to implement this clause. Given that the Government are already obliged by Section 71B to consult on the use of these powers, it is not necessary to introduce a further requirement in the manner described, particularly when we are midway through an extensive process of consultation and engagement, which has been commended by those involved.
The noble Lord, Lord Rosser, asked whether the requirement to consult is for all ATOL powers. The regulations under Section 71A of the Civil Aviation Act include a requirement to consult for all the powers. The noble Baroness, Lady Randerson, asked whether the Government’s action to repatriate passengers under the Monarch scheme undermined the ATOL scheme. I think she has an arguable case. I hope she is not suggesting that we could segregate people in overseas airports and say, “You are protected by ATOL and you are not”. As I have explained, the Monarch situation was an exceptional collapse. There was insufficient capacity on alternative airlines. Had it happened at a less busy time of the year, it may not have been necessary for the Government to step in and get people home. We looked at the particular circumstances of that airline, the sheer number of passengers involved and the lack of available capacity on alternative airlines to get people home.
However, it is important to say that the ATOL scheme is an important part of the rescue operation. It will help refund the repatriation costs for the ATOL-protected passengers and they will also be covered for additional accommodation and subsistence costs if they are delayed beyond their original date. ATOL protection will also ensure that any protected passengers who are yet to travel with Monarch will receive a full refund. As I mentioned earlier, the Government will be seeking the recovery of costs from card providers—both credit cards and debit cards—and the travel industry has also been asked to contribute towards the costs of the operation. I understand the concentration on the Monarch collapse but those were exceptional circumstances and, as I said in my Statement yesterday as well as earlier today, we would not want to be hamstrung by that in future.
Lord Rosser
I will not say that the Minister has dismissed this—that was not the way he did it—but he referred to the Monarch Airlines scheme as being exceptional, somehow in the hope that it will not happen again, and I am sure that hope would be endorsed, but the Monarch Statement given on Monday said that the Government’s,
“efforts will turn to working through any reforms necessary to ensure that passengers do not find themselves in this position again ”.—[Official Report, 9/10/17; col. 46.]
So the Government have to produce measures and proposals that will ensure that if there is another circumstance like Monarch Airlines, passengers do not find themselves potentially stranded without any protection and the Government do not have to pay the cost of getting them home. That is the commitment the Government have given, is it not? The Government can say that Monarch is exceptional, but they have committed themselves to making sure that there are measures that prevent passengers being stranded not knowing whether the cost of bringing them home will be paid for. The Government are committing themselves to measures to ensure that that cannot happen and that there will be certainty for passengers that the cost of getting them home will be met.
Lord Callanan
As we said in the Statement, we will be looking at the feasibility of extending the ATOL scheme. I referred earlier to some of the difficulties involved in that. We have also said that we will look at the insolvency regime, but that does not necessarily provide an easy answer. We are looking at the circumstances. We are still in the middle of the repatriation operation, but we will look at the circumstances and see whether there is anything we can do that would obviate the need for government to step in in future.
I have given reasons why these amendments are unnecessary, along with assurances, particularly with regard to full consultation and providing impact assessments. The Government have a good record in this area, which I have already outlined. We have consulted on these and all previous changes and have produced impact assessments, so I hope that the noble Baroness will withdraw her amendment and the noble Lord, Lord Rosser, will not move his amendment.
Baroness Randerson
I thank the Minister for his detailed answer. I entirely understand that the Monarch situation was unusual, but every situation is in its way unique. I appreciate the dilemma the Government found themselves in. I was simply exploring the basic principles on which the compensation system is based. I will read the record carefully, but I am still to be fully convinced by the Minister’s response in relation to the need for additional trust funds. If he is able to give us any further information about the Government’s plans in relation to that, not this afternoon, but in writing, it would be helpful.
I am grateful for the Minister’s confirmation that there will be an impact assessment, but I wonder whether he can confirm now in one or two words what he means when he says that the Government will shortly launch a consultation on detailed regulations associated with this Bill. What does “shortly” mean?
Lord Callanan
I cannot say it in two words, but would “before the end of the year” help clarify what I mean?
Baroness Randerson
That is very helpful. As ever, the House of Lords has been able to deal with this important issue with more brevity than the House of Commons, and I am happy to beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Air Travel Organisers' Licensing Bill
Wednesday 25th October 2017
(6 years, 6 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Air Travel Organisers' Licensing Act 2017 Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: HL Bill 58-R-I Marshalled list for Report (PDF, 62KB) - (23 Oct 2017)
Lord Rosser
“( ) In subsection (1)—(a) in paragraph (a) omit “or (1B)”;(b) in paragraph (b) omit “or (1B)”.( ) Leave out subsections (1B) and (1C).”
Lord Rosser (Lab)
My Lords, in the Government’s Oral Statement on Monarch Airlines of 9 October, the Secretary of State said that,
“right now our efforts are rightly focused on getting employees into new jobs and getting passengers home. After that, our effort will turn to working through any reforms necessary to ensure that passengers do not find themselves in this position again. We need to look at all the options—not just ATOL, but whether it is possible to enable airlines to wind down in an orderly manner and look after their customers themselves, without the need for the Government to step in. We will be putting a lot of effort into that in the months ahead”.—[Official Report, 9/10/17; Commons, cols. 27-28.]
The demise of Monarch Airlines, along with the Secretary of State’s Statement, has raised questions about the current UK financial protection regime generally for air travellers. The ATOL scheme is intended to ensure that those who purchase ATOL-protected flights and holidays are flown home at no extra cost if an ATOL company fails. However, the scheme does not offer that protection to customers who buy airline seats from airlines which are not within the ATOL scheme.
The Government have estimated that the proportion of Monarch Airlines passengers affected who were covered by the ATOL scheme and ATOL protection amounted to some 10% to 15%. As we know, the Government decided to step in and repatriate Monarch’s passengers regardless of whether they were among the small minority who were protected by the ATOL scheme, a decision which would appear at least to raise questions about the current scheme and arrangements.
While this Bill will update existing powers to enable different and separate arrangements to be established to align with new practices, such as linked travel arrangements, there remains a gap in consumer protection for flight-only seats sold by airlines, despite—I understand, perhaps incorrectly—the industry and the CAA’s previous calls for such a protection regime. The Bill does nothing to address that gap.
The amendment, whose intention has the support of ABTA, would through its proposed deletions to the 1982 Act provide an opportunity for the Government to say how they intend to review and update the existing arrangements and regulations, particularly in respect of flight-only travel under the Civil Aviation Act 1982, to ensure the protection of passengers in the event of a future airline failure—which as I understand it from the Secretary of State’s Statement of 9 October is, at least in part, what the Government intend and want to do.
It is really a matter for the Government, in consultation with the industry and consumers, to determine the precise framework and model for delivering any new protection regime. The Government appear to be looking for a new arrangement which would ensure that passengers in any subsequent Monarch situation are flown home at no extra cost but at the lowest possible cost to the taxpayer and, presumably, to the airlines in particular and the travel industry in general.
A substantial proportion of the failure costs incurred in the ATOL scheme over the years has related to airline failures: Clarksons with Court Line; Laker and Arrowsmith Holidays with Laker Airways; ILG with Air Europe; XL Leisure Group with XL Airways; and now Monarch Travel Group with Monarch Airlines. These failures have also led to significant costs being incurred either by customers not protected under the ATOL scheme or by the taxpayer. Travel companies are also affected by the failure of an airline as they are liable for all aspects of a package holiday under the package travel regulations. While the exclusion of airlines from a scheme of protection means that their customers are not protected against financial loss, in practice those passengers—both British and those in other European countries such as Italy and Germany—have been repatriated at a cost to taxpayers and other industry participants. This surely adds to confusion when failure occurs, particularly around what is and what is not protected under the ATOL scheme. There is also a lack of clarity around the meaning of the ATOL-protected branding and ABTA has consistently called for it to be made much clearer that ATOL protection applies only to a particular set of holiday arrangements rather than the company as a whole.
The amendment is designed to provide the Government with the opportunity to say how they will end the area of exposure to the Government, passengers and taxpayers caused by unprotected airline seat-only sales, and to consider what a new regulatory framework might look like in the event of insolvency. In so doing, it would also enable the Government to fulfil the Secretary of State’s commitment of 9 October to,
“look at all the options”,
and,
“ensure passengers do not find themselves in this position again”.
The Government have said they are going to consult and look at all the options as part of the process of,
“working through the reforms necessary to ensure passengers do not find themselves in this position again”.
Indeed, the Government said in their 9 October Statement that they would be putting a lot of effort into this,
“in the weeks and months ahead”.
More than two weeks since that Statement, have the Government made official approaches to the industry and consumers with a view to commencing consultation about the sorts of mechanisms beyond ATOL which could be implemented to address the issue and consequences to passengers of future airline insolvency? What will be the timespan of such consultation? Which organisations, companies and bodies do the Government intend to consult, and who from beyond and outside the industry do they also intend to approach? Finally, by when do the Government expect to reach conclusions about the actions and changes they intend to make to deliver on the Secretary of State’s promise following the demise of Monarch airlines that,
“passengers do not find themselves in this position again”?
Presumably that commitment was not made without at least some idea of the possible ways of achieving that particular goal.
We certainly cannot continue with a situation where nobody is sure whether the Government will or will not fly people back home in future at no extra cost in the event of another airline failure, and where there is also an apparent lack of clarity for many passengers and potential passengers under the existing arrangements and ATOL scheme about their rights or lack of rights and their protections or lack of protections. In moving my amendment, I express the hope that the Minister will be able to give some answers to the points and questions I have made and asked in the light of the specific commitments given by the Secretary of State on future objectives and intentions in his Statement of 9 October. I beg to move.
Baroness Randerson (LD)
My Lords, I have added my name to this amendment because I felt that it raised some important issues for the Government to look at. I also felt it would be genuinely useful if the views of the Government on the progress made so far were put on record.
At the time of the failure of Monarch Airlines the Minister, in his Statement to the House, emphasised that it was the largest repatriation since D-day. But I put in contrast what the airline industry said in my discussions with it: that Monarch was a small airline and that the problems would arise if a big airline were to fail. Of course, those I spoke to believe that their whole industry is in robust health and that Monarch is definitely not an example of its state generally. The point is that, as the noble Lord, Lord Rosser, has just said, airlines have failed before and undoubtedly, at some point in future, something like this will happen again.
We are looking here at whether the Government have set some kind of precedent by bringing everyone back, for understandable and excellent reasons. I think everyone supports the way that was done and the reasons for doing it. But the point is that if and when it happens again people will expect a similar response and, for that to be possible, there needs to be a scheme. The consumer understands that there is a need for a scheme and understands the ATOL scheme. What the Monarch passengers probably did not understand was why some of them were covered by something and others were not. In the end, the Government need to look at the new ways of working—the new ways in which travel is offered—and present a new scheme which covers them. In the days when the ATOL scheme was devised, package holidays covered a huge percentage of the market. That is very much less the case now.
It is also important to look not just at the passengers who are affected by this. One airline’s failure can often adversely affect a number of package holiday operators. If one airline fails, several package holiday operators will find their business seriously affected. There is a serious knock-on effect within the industry from this and it needs to be addressed. I shall listen to the Minister’s answer with interest.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Transport (Lord Callanan) (Con)
I thank the noble Lord, Lord Rosser, and the noble Baroness, Lady Randerson, for their contributions and for the constructive way that they have approached the Bill. I am extremely grateful to them and I recognise the purpose of Amendment 1 —to ensure that ATOL protection covers flight-only bookings made through airlines—but the simple fact is that the proposed amendment would not achieve that aim.
Lord Rosser
My Lords, I thank the Minister for his response and the noble Baroness, Lady Randerson, for her helpful contribution to the debate.
I think I made it fairly clear—and the Minister accepted it—that in moving the amendment the principal objective was to try to get some more information from the Government about how they intend to progress the consultation. I do not intend to ask the Minister further questions as we are on Report, but those in the industry and, one assumes, consumer organisations will take considerable interest in what he said and, perhaps, in what he did not say in his response. There was a very clear, specific commitment by the Secretary of State—which I do not doubt the Government will seek to adhere to—that they would work through any reforms necessary to ensure that airline passengers do not find themselves in this position again of being stranded.
It is presumably incumbent on a Government making that kind of specific commitment to get the consultation under way as quickly as possible, to make it wide-ranging and to come to conclusions reasonably quickly. After all, if we get another incident like Monarch, and changes have not been made to the procedures and arrangements which ensure that passengers do not find themselves in that position, a number of organisations within the industry and consumer organisations, as well as us, will be asking the Government why they did not act earlier and more quickly.
I mean it when I say I am sure it is the Government’s intention to seek to resolve this issue, and I do not doubt that it is their intention to seek to consult widely or to seek to deliver on the very specific commitments given by the Secretary of State in the Statement of 9 October. However, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Baroness Randerson
“Ensuring transparency of consumer protections
(1) Section 71 of the Civil Aviation Act 1982 (regulation of provision of accommodation in aircraft) is amended as follows. (2) After subsection (1D) insert—“(1E) The Secretary of State must, within the period of 12 months beginning with the day on which the Air Travel Organisers’ Licensing Act 2017 is passed, make regulations to ensure that consumers are informed of their protections when purchasing flights, package holidays and linked travel arrangements.(1F) Such regulations must provide that before the sale of any flight, package holiday or linked travel arrangement is completed, the retailer must make the consumer aware of what protections, if any, apply to their purchase in the event that the retailer, or the provider of the flights or accommodation, ceases trading.(1G) In this section—(a) “retailer” means a provider of flights or overnight accommodation, either directly or as a third party;(b) “protection” means any scheme available to the consumer in the case that the retailer ceases trading;(c) schemes referred to in paragraph (b) may result from the retailer or providers holding a licence under this section, the consumer completing the purchase with a credit card, or any other means that the retailer is aware of.””
Baroness Randerson
My Lords, I have taken the opportunity in this amendment to press the Minister further on the information to be supplied to consumers. The key question is how “linked travel arrangements” would work in practice. I believe the EU directive refers to facilitating a purchase and am interested in the definition of how one website might facilitate a purchase of something from another website. For example, is advertising facilitation or does there have to be a closer link? If there does, how does that get translated into information on the screen that is clear to consumers? My interest is in consumers being able to know the difference.
In the last few days I have done a significant amount of research of a very practical nature. I have been on a lot of websites and booked notional holidays aplenty. My inbox is now of course alive with the reaction of the internet to my searches, and I shall definitely regret this research in due time. I have been trying to tie down those offers I receive online to what would be called a linked travel arrangement: flights here being offered possibly with a hotel there, and the two being financially dependent on each other in one way or another, rather than just a chance advert. There are adverts that come into your inbox because Google knows what you are doing. I have gone on to an airline website, and Google knows I have done that, so it sends an advert telling me that there are wonderful offers for hotels or car hire, the usual two options—it might send you an email or it might be an advert that comes at some point on the screen. Rather disconcertingly, you can be looking for a book on a website and suddenly find you are being offered a hotel there that relates to your previous search. It happens to us all the time now. Yesterday I saw, in the middle of flight information on the screen, an advert for a hotel. Clearly, the advert for the flight had been designed to accommodate the hotel. Is that a linked travel arrangement? The point I am making is that if I cannot work it out, I dare say a lot of consumers will not be able to either.
It is essential that consumers are given clear information—in large print, not small. ATOL-protected holidays are admirably and clearly stated to be so. I am seeking from the Minister information on how we might get similar wording for any future designation.
Lord Spicer (Con)
What the noble Baroness is saying is very worthy, but is it not a bit academic in the light of the Government’s statement yesterday that five London airports will be completely full up by the 2030s and that there is very little chance of rectifying that, despite some of us warning of this for the last four or five years?
Baroness Randerson
The Minister has already referred to the importance of an airport strategy, and the Government are working on that. As the noble Lord states, there is clearly an interrelationship between the availability of flights and the availability of package holidays.
We need clear wording akin to the words used in the ATOL protection. That phrase “ATOL protection” works because over many years the consumer has come to understand what it means, partly through government advertising, partly through the work of consumer groups and, sadly, partly through the hard lesson of the failure of holiday companies. We need similar clear wording for any new scheme, and I fear that “linked travel arrangements” is not a phrase that trips off the tongue or that will be instantly understood by the holiday-buying public.
I turn to an issue that I have raised before: the variation in protection between credit cards, debit cards and PayPal. We might want to pay for a flight by debit card because in many cases, using a credit card costs additional money—a fee for the privilege of using it. However, it is important that at the point where consumers choose how to pay, they are warned that if they pay by debit card they will not get the same protection as if they pay by credit card. It is important that we modernise the system. I am not sure that this Bill is the place to do that, but it is important that the Government take the point away and look at it.
Lord Rosser
My Lords, I add our support to the amendment moved by the noble Baroness, Lady Randerson. I do not intend to go through all the points she has so ably made, but I share her view that there seems to be a lack of clarity over the rights and protections—or lack of them—available, as the amendment says, to those,
“purchasing flights, package holidays and linked travel arrangements”.
Certainly, in some adverts, to which the noble Baroness, Lady Randerson, has already referred, the situation is not made clear. So we agree with the objective of the amendment, which is designed to make much clearer for people, when booking flights, package holidays or other travel arrangements, exactly what their rights are and are not, and what protections are and are not available.
Lord Callanan
Before I turn to the subject of the noble Baroness’s amendment, which is about information to consumers, let me go through again the business of linked travel arrangements, which I know is causing some confusion—not least to us in the department. As I said to her when we discussed this privately, it was inserted into the directive and a lot of work is going on to work out what it actually is.
The package travel directive has broadened the scope of a package, so it is now clear that protection should apply when customers book customised combinations of travel online. As the noble Baroness outlined in her speech, it is not at all clear what a linked travel arrangement actually is. It is obvious if there is a direct advertisement on a flight website for a linked hotel and that hotel is promoted by the airline directly and is on the same web page. That, it seems to me, is an obvious linked travel arrangement. However, as we know, and as the noble Baroness has discovered in her meticulous research, on the internet, many adverts on webpages have no connection whatsoever with the originator of the webpage. They are placed by advertising companies, principally Google, among others, and the originator of the page has no idea what adverts are appearing on their page. So if you click on an associated advert, that would not necessarily be a linked travel arrangement, but how is the consumer supposed to differentiate between those two things?
Those are the issues we are grappling with at the moment: trying to come up with a definition of a linked travel arrangement and to implement it in regulations. As the noble Baroness said, the directive introduces information provisions to ensure that consumers have a good awareness of the kind of product they are buying, and we are consulting extensively with the industry to try to ensure that that is the case.
Turning to the subject of the amendment, I recognise the purpose of the proposed new clause and the need to ensure that consumers are better informed about consumer protection when they make a booking. This is well-intentioned and entirely in keeping with the Government’s wish that passengers should have a robust level of protection, and that their rights should be communicated to them in a timely and clear way.
However, I do not think that this is the right approach at this time. Let me explain why. First, we need to be mindful that package holidays and linked travel arrangements often do not involve a flight. They could involve a journey by road, rail or sea, so the Civil Aviation Act 1982 is not the most appropriate place for such an obligation. The UK already has regulations in place through the package travel regulations, which cover package holidays across all modes. We are in the process of updating these regulations alongside the Bill to extend them to cover linked travel arrangements, in line with the EU package travel directive.
This brings me to my second point. The new clause would unnecessarily duplicate the new information requirements in the EU package travel directive. The directive has introduced new information provisions which are designed to improve information for consumers. This sets out the specific information that must be provided to consumers about the type of product they are buying and the corresponding level of protection. This must be provided to the consumer both before and after they buy a package or a linked travel arrangement. We have recently completed a consultation on the directive, which proposed that the information provisions will be brought into force in 2018, through changes to the package travel regulations. We are also planning to retain the ATOL certificate alongside these new requirements to help reinforce awareness of consumer protection.
Finally, I fully accept the need to understand the lessons learnt from the Monarch failure, which I outlined earlier to the noble Lord, Lord Rosser, and to respond in the right way. We have to understand the issues that need to be addressed and whether we can make sensible changes to the laws. That is why we are undertaking an internal review, so that we can bring forward solutions that are feasible and have been assessed as being practically enforceable. As the Secretary of State said in his Statement in the other place,
“I do not want us to rush into doing something without doing the ground work properly. We need to look carefully at what has happened, learn the lessons and make any modifications necessary. I assure the House that that is what we will do”.—[Official Report, Commons, 9/10/17; col. 40.]
It is quite possible, of course, that additional information requirements will follow from that review, but it is important that we consider the options and ensure that the steps we take are the right ones and that they both work in the UK and are compatible with EU law.
I therefore believe that an amendment to introduce legislation of this nature—however well-intentioned the noble Baroness is—is premature. So, in summary, if her concern is that the Government are not taking steps to ensure that consumers are informed about consumer protection when they book a trip, I hope she can take comfort that we are ready to make provision through the package travel regulations and the ATOL certificates to do just what she has asked for. In addition, we will of course also consider consumer awareness as we review the lessons learnt from Monarch and, as I said earlier, as we develop our aviation strategy. Therefore, in the light of the assurances I have been able to give her, I hope the noble Baroness will withdraw the amendment.
Baroness Randerson
I thank the Minister for his response. I will certainly watch carefully as the Government respond; I am sure that they are working hard on this. My concern is largely with the consumer, but it is also with travel operators, because it is important that they be able to succeed as much as possible. Consumer confidence is an essential part of that. A simple sentence on a website saying that it is a particular type of arrangement is cheap, easy to organise and involves minimal effort for the companies concerned. It is an easy way to provide additional confidence for consumers. Having said that, I am happy to withdraw the amendment.
Air Travel Organisers’ Licensing Bill
Tuesday 31st October 2017
(6 years, 5 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Air Travel Organisers' Licensing Act 2017 Read Hansard Text Amendment Paper: HL Bill 58-R-I Marshalled list for Report (PDF, 62KB) - (23 Oct 2017)
Royal Assent
Thursday 16th November 2017
(6 years, 5 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Amendment Paper: HL Bill 58-R-I Marshalled list for Report (PDF, 62KB) - (23 Oct 2017)