Airports: Heathrow

Debate between Lord Rotherwick and Earl Attlee

Wednesday 13th February 2013 Lords Chamber

[Earl Attlee]

My Lords, I understand noble Lords’ passion about the problem with Heathrow, but we must also recognise that there are over 200,000 people around Heathrow adversely affected by the noise of airport operations.

[Lord Rotherwick]

My Lords, although people are saying that Heathrow is full up, nearly saturated or working at 98% capacity, is it not true that that in reality is in good weather? During bad weather when the time between landings is extended significantly, considerable delay is caused. It really is time that we should respond to this because it is totally detrimental to the UK that other nations should see that we are incapable of operating an efficient transport system.

[Earl Attlee]

My Lords, I believe that we are responding and that we have handled the bad weather better by proactively cancelling flights in advance in order to reduce the activity at the airport so that the runways can be cleared. It is interesting that at Gatwick, which does not run at 100% capacity, it is much easier to keep the runways clear. Gatwick has the time to do it without having to cancel aircraft.

Civil Aviation Bill

Debate between Lord Rotherwick and Earl Attlee

Wednesday 7th November 2012 Lords Chamber

[Earl Attlee]

My Lords, I recognise that the amendments in this group propose to make further, explicit provisions for general and business aviation in Part 1 of the Bill. I certainly agree with my noble friend that we need a vibrant and successful GBA sector.

In debating my noble friend’s previous amendment, we discussed at length the reasons why it is not appropriate to amend Part 1 of the Bill—which covers the economic regulation of our major airports—to make explicit provisions for general and business aviation. I therefore propose that for the rest of the speech I will address just the specific effect of this group of amendments—although I will read Hansard carefully to digest fully the comments of my noble friend.

Amendments 23 and 26, in Clauses 66 and 68 respectively, look to expand the definition of “airport” and “airport operation services” to cover the arrival and departure of pilots and persons to be carried as passengers in general and business aviation aircraft. The two amendments are ultimately unnecessary. The clauses already cover persons to be carried as passengers—and, as I explained, they already extend to passengers carried by general and business aviation because of Clause 69. Finally, I believe the intention of Amendment 28 is to provide some clarity on what is meant by “user” in its new capacity of referring to users of airport operation services. My noble friend also touched on airfields. The House will recall that I covered that important issue when debating my noble friend’s previous amendment.

I return to the definition of “user”. This is understandably modelled on the definition of “user of air transport service” in Clause 67. However, regrettably, the amendment fails to provide the intended clarity. It clearly sets out the types of user in relation to airport operation services provided for general and business aviation, but does not do so for non-general and non-business aviation. It is unclear why this definition is necessary without the previous group of amendments, which were withdrawn or not moved earlier. If that group of amendments had been agreed, the failure to define “general and business aviation” would have created a risk that these amendments could have the effect of imposing some form of duty to further the interests of all commercial airlines. As noble Lords will recall, the Government are firmly of the view that the new framework should be focused on promoting the interests of passengers and cargo owners.

Noble Lords will be aware from experience that there are circumstances that can arise where airlines’ interests conflict with those of passengers. For example, it may not be in the interests of airlines for the airport to provide adequate refreshment facilities in the terminal building, because airlines can profit from food and drinks purchased on board the aircraft. Therefore, I cannot accept these amendments, which clearly conflict with our policy aim of putting passengers and cargo owners first. That is the policy that the Bill promotes.

As with the previous group of amendments tabled by my noble friend, these amendments are unlikely to deliver the desired benefits. They will confuse the purpose of the Bill and create several unintended consequences. I therefore ask my noble friend to withdraw Amendment 23.

[Lord Rotherwick]

I apologise again for wrong-footing the Minister by decoupling this amendment. It obviously caused some confusion in his answer to this rather technical amendment. I will read Hansard carefully and hope that he will be sympathetic if I come back to him for a meeting on this at a later date. In the mean time, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Rotherwick]

My Lords, Amendments 63 and 64 address the third and final point of principle I wish to pursue with my noble friend the Minister.

I regret the need to return to the House with concerns over Clause 102. My noble friend the Minister helpfully invited me and my advisers to the meeting he chaired with CAA and Department for Transport officials. We were able to voice the very deep concerns in the GBA community over the nature and scope of the change that this clause would bring about and our concerns over the way in which this new activity would be administered.

The further information I was expecting by Report stage, with regard to making claims for prosecution costs in respect of civil penalties and what would happen to any such amounts, has not been forthcoming, nor has any further information emerged about the process by which the range of offences to be dealt with under the new powers are to be selected. This does nothing to lessen my concerns and I hope that my noble friend will be able to provide that information in his response.

Clause 102 of the Bill amends Schedules 5 and 7 to the Regulatory Enforcement and Sanctions Act 2008. It adds the CAA to the list of 27 “designated regulators” that may be empowered by order to issue fixed penalty tickets. It adds to the existing list of 45 regulatory provisions contained therein a 46th, which includes Section 61 of the Civil Aviation Act 1982. The effect of this is to bring Section 61 of the Civil Aviation Act within the scope of the powers of the Secretary of State under Section 36 of the Regulatory Enforcement and Sanctions Act 2008 and allow him to make an order empowering the CAA to issue fixed-penalty notices in the same way that the police do for alleged Road Traffic Act offences.

Section 61 of the Civil Aviation Act is the enabling provision covering the Air Navigation Order. The ANO is a complex document of some 500 pages, detailing thousands of legal requirements for technical and operational matters, such as record-keeping, pilot and aircraft licensing, the rules of the air, aircraft airworthiness and the equipment to be carried on an aircraft.

So we know what Clause 102 will do, but we do not know why. We remain unenlightened as to the justification for this change or the benefits or costs associated with it. We can only infer that the change is proposed because existing sanctions are inadequate and these new sanctions will achieve an improvement in compliance that cannot be secured through existing powers.

In the interests of good government, one would assume that the public good to flow from the exercise of these new powers will bring a benefit to the UK that will exceed the cost of introducing and exercising them. But neither the Department for Transport nor the CAA has made any attempt to quantify the costs or benefits. We are told that they will not do so until after the Bill has passed, the powers have been granted and they have prepared the order implementing the scheme. So perhaps the monetised costs and benefits are outweighed by the public good that will result. The Government’s own published papers say that the main non-monetised benefit,

“is the potential for increased compliance with certain areas of aviation regulation and therefore better protection of passengers and a more level playing field for businesses”.

However, there is no information on the extent of the potential increase in compliance or an identification of the certain areas of regulation.

It is no good for the justification for these powers to be obscured in this way. If there is a reason, it should be made clear so that the House may consider the powers. What compelling reason is there? What improvement in compliance is expected to be achieved? What areas of aviation regulation are failing at present? If we are not persuaded, I may urge noble Lords to support the amendment.

At present, UK aviation, especially GBA, operates in what is described as an open reporting safety culture. The vast majority of pilots, aircraft operators and engineers take their legal responsibilities for flight safety and airworthiness very seriously. There are successful and well supported systems for the voluntary reporting of near misses and general safety occurrences. That takes place in the light of the existing range of prosecution powers, which are used by the CAA where it has evidence to support its case. I understand that in the four years to March 2008 the CAA prosecuted 119 cases of breaches against aviation legislation. This hardly suggests a compliance deficit, given the enormous range of activities. The CAA policy on prosecuting correctly takes account of the fact that the present collaborative approach, where individuals and organisations are free to share information and concerns with the regulator, is more beneficial to safety for the vast majority of people. That valuable safety culture may be undone if the CAA were able automatically to issue fixed penalties. I say that in respect of alleged offences. This may change the relationship between pilots, operators and service providers. If a “no blame” open reporting culture were replaced with prosecution as an administrative commonplace, all the good work built up over decades would be squandered.

The introduction of fixed penalty procedures would also shift the burden of proof. The recipient of a penalty notice would be faced with the alternative of paying up or challenging the ticket in the courts. I am deeply concerned about the financial aspects of this. The penalties imposed under this system will flow to the Treasury. Clause 102 allows the Secretary of State to empower the CAA to recover the costs associated with the fixed penalty ticket system. Therefore, the CAA will be able to launch a new regulatory operation to recover the costs from those it penalises. What incentive does this provide for the CAA to exercise this new function correctly? I was expecting further information on this and it is yet to appear.

We run the risk that our open reporting culture will be fatally damaged, which will work against the interests of increased flight safety. The CAA has adequate penalties and powers of prosecution at its disposal, which it uses wisely and sparingly. No case has been made to the GBA community and no consultation undertaken to back this change. The Bill was consulted on, but inadequately so in respect of the detailed implications and impact that this clause would have on the aviation community. At the very least I would expect my noble friend the Minister, when he winds up on this group of amendments, to provide an assurance that the GBA community will be consulted in detail on the proposed scope and operation of any civil penalty scheme.

I say to my noble friend the Minister that the present arrangements in respect of enforcement of the ANO are working well and with the active consent and participation of the aviation community. We should continue to develop that spirit of co-operation which has achieved so much over the years. My amendment to strike out Section 61 from Clause 102(3) will achieve that. I beg to move.

[Earl Attlee]

My Lords, while I fully appreciate my noble friend’s concerns in respect of the general and business aviation sector, and the effect on that sector of allowing the CAA to make use of alternative civil sanctions in enforcing offences under an air navigation order, I oppose this amendment because it dilutes the intention of Clause 102.

Noble Lords may recall that my noble friend tabled, and this House debated, an identical amendment in Grand Committee before it was withdrawn, and there is more or less only one way for my noble friend to achieve his objectives. Before turning to the detail of the points made by my noble friend on this amendment, it is important to emphasise the purpose and importance of the clause this amendment seeks to alter.

Clause 102 amends Part 3 of the Regulatory Enforcement and Sanctions Act 2008 to enable the Secretary of State to make an order conferring on the CAA the power to make use of civil sanctions where it currently relies almost exclusively on criminal prosecutions. We believe that criminal sanctions are disproportionate in relation to some offences, such as minor breaches or offences of an administrative nature, especially when it comes to a normally diligent and conscientious person.

For example, the CAA has an enforcement function in respect of a number of offences using criminal sanctions which entail liability to a summary conviction and a fine. These include failing to return a certificate of registration to the CAA; failing to preserve a log book; failing to keep a personal flying log book; or failing to carry when in flight documents such as the licences of the flight crew of an aircraft or the certificate of registration in force for the aircraft. Another example is where an organisation does not hold an air travel organisers licence when it is required to do so—in other words when it is trading without the necessary licence. Should a person fail to comply with such a requirement, a civil sanction might well be considered to be a more appropriate enforcement action than criminal prosecution.

Providing the CAA with powers to address non-compliance using civil sanctions would help to reduce the risk of a compliance deficit where such offences might on occasion not be prosecuted at all because on the facts a criminal prosecution was considered disproportionate to the breach, excessively time consuming or expensive. However, my noble friend should be aware that the criminal standard of proof still applies. It needs to be more than just an alleged offence.

The purpose of providing the CAA with a range of additional enforcement tools as an alternative to a criminal prosecution is to allow more graduated and flexible enforcement. For example, some of the civil sanctions available under RESA are variable monetary penalties of an amount to be determined by the regulator; compliance notices containing a requirement to take specified steps to ensure an offence does not continue or happen again; and enforcement undertakings where a person may volunteer a resolution by giving an undertaking to take one or more corrective actions.

Clause 102 enables the Secretary of State to confer civil sanctioning powers on the CAA in respect of offences under primary legislation and extends certain powers of the Secretary of State in the Civil Aviation Act 1982 to make criminal offences by secondary legislation. These include the power of the Secretary of State in Section 61 to create criminal offences under an air navigation order. Such orders set the rules, which the CAA largely enforces, that regulate air navigation in the UK. Conferring RESA civil sanctioning powers on the CAA in respect of offences under an air navigation order would require secondary legislation to be laid before Parliament.

Moreover, the instrument would be subject to full consultation and impact assessment, providing an opportunity for all interested parties to make their views known. We fully intend to write to stakeholders, including those in general aviation, informing them of the consultations in ample time to brief their members to involve themselves. We will involve as many individuals and groups as general aviation stakeholders bring to our attention.

The amendment would deprive the CAA of the use of civil sanctions in respect of offences in an air navigation order. This would significantly dilute the intended purpose of Clause 102 to allow the CAA to make use of alternative civil sanctions. My noble friend referred to the complexity of the ANO, but regretfully there are several regulations that are very complicated. I am interested in the ones on road vehicles, and the construction and use regulations are extremely complicated—and, in addition, refer to other European regulations and directives as well.

The inclusion of Section 61 of the 1982 Act is of central importance, as it will enable the Civil Aviation Authority to use civil sanctions in respect of offences in the air navigation order, which is the most significant instrument for the regulation of air navigation in the UK. Concerns have been expressed during the passage of the Bill as to CAA’s use of civil sanctioning powers. RESA contains a number of safeguards to this effect. For example, before making any order, the Minister must be satisfied that the regulator will carry out its activities in a way that is transparent, accountable, proportionate, consistent and targeted only at cases where action is needed. Prior to exercising any civil sanctioning powers, the CAA is required to consult on and publish detailed guidance on its use of civil sanctions and enforcement of particular offences. For these reasons, I hope that my noble friend will consider withdrawing his amendment.

[Lord Rotherwick]

My Lords, I thank my noble friend for his words and reiterate that I tabled these amendments owing to the uncertainty and concerns about Section 61 in Clause 102(3) that were caused in the GBA community. The Minister’s remarks are helpful and I thank him for them and look forward to reading them in Hansard tomorrow. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Civil Aviation Bill

Debate between Lord Rotherwick and Earl Attlee

Monday 9th July 2012 Grand Committee

[Earl Attlee]

My Lords, I will be delighted to write to all Members of the Committee explaining the Government’s intent on that issue.

[Lord Rotherwick]

My Lords, I thank the Minister for his full reply. He went a long way to try to answer all my questions. He still did not answer the question about whether the CAA asked for this.

--- Later in debate ---

[Earl Attlee]

My Lords, I can easily do that: it did.

[Lord Rotherwick]

That helps a lot: I now know who to hold responsible. I must point out that within the limited scope of the Bill, which pays hardly even any lip service to general and business aviation, in the one area where we are mentioned, we find ourselves caught on the stick, the discipline area; there are no carrots around. I know that my noble friend is a very generous Minister and I hope that there will be some carrots, having had the stick first.

I am grateful that he will write to my noble friend Lord Trefgarne about the consultation. In past consultations, general and business aviation has not always been represented. I would be most grateful if my noble friend feels able to go as far as to say that that will be the case this time: that there will be general and business aviation members of the consultation and, most importantly, that we are not treated like commercial pilots. We do not earn our living from our licence, we are private pilots who do our best to abide by the rules.

[Earl Attlee]

My Lords, I assure my noble friend that the GBA community will be included in any consultation.

[Lord Rotherwick]

My Lords, I am grateful for the Minister bending over backwards on all my questions. I will read everything with consideration and I hope that we might have the letter before Report stage, which, after all, will be at the end of the summer, in order to make a decision as to whether to come back to this issue again. In the light of that, though, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Rotherwick]

My Lords, I have great sympathy with my noble friend Lord Trefgarne’s opposition to the clause. I would be very interested to hear what the Minister has to say because I think that my noble friend’s concerns are those of many similar pilots.

[Earl Attlee]

My Lords, I would oppose my noble friend Lord Trefgarne’s intention. I believe that Clause 104 should remain part of the Bill. My noble friend said that his pilot’s licence was properly suspended for medical conditions. I currently have the same problem with my HGV licence because my blood pressure is too high—but the Summer Recess is coming soon.

My noble friend was concerned that it might be possible to identify a pilot’s condition because of those small cohorts. It is more likely that medical research would be into large cohorts, such as all pilots with condition X or all class 1 medical certificate holders. Should a smaller cohort be of interest, the data controller would normally look to seek consent first.

There are several reasons to keep the clause part of the Bill, by no means the least of which is that the Government are seeking to enact this change because it was recommended by your Lordships’ Select Committee on Science and Technology in 2007 and this is the first legislative opportunity that successive Governments have had to give effect to your Lordships’ recommendation.

I shall turn to the specific points raised by my noble friend so that I can give him the reassurance that he seeks. First, he has suggested to me—certainly in private; I cannot remember whether he has said this publicly—that the CAA may sell on medical records. I make it very clear that this is not the intention of the legislation and that the CAA has no plans to do this. There is also perhaps the prospect of the CAA requiring even more medical data from pilots and flight crew, because it might be useful for the purposes of later medical research. The CAA cannot ask for more medical information than it needs to consider an application for a medical certificate. The CAA has no intention or wish to ask for extra medical information and no mechanism under which to do so without obtaining individual informed consent. The CAA abides by the data protection principle of keeping the minimal data required for the purpose of medical fitness assessments. If an applicant were asked to provide medical information that appeared to have no relevance to their licence application, it could be expected that they would challenge the need for it.

Clause 104 does not provide the CAA with any further powers to collect medical information. Those powers are already there as part of the CAA’s licensing obligation under the Air Navigation Order. The CAA has no intention to expand the scope of the medical information that it requires of applicants, and this provision would not allow for that. The clause is there solely to permit the CAA to disclose the medical information that it already collects for medical research purposes, subject to the strict safeguards contained in Clause 104(3).

The Committee will note that the CAA does not set out to collect medical data but acquires such data from people wishing to be licensed as pilots, navigators and so on because it has to make a judgment on whether those people are medically fit enough to be licensed. We also think that making this change is a good thing to do. The Civil Aviation Authority receives medical information relating to flight crew and air traffic controllers in the course of its licensing functions. Clause 104 provides for the CAA to be able to disclose this medical information to medical researchers by amending Section 23 of the Civil Aviation Act 1982, subject to the strict safeguards included in the Bill. This information could be used for important medical research into the major functional and incapacitation risks to those individuals—for example, the risks of heart problems. We believe that an increased understanding of the main health risks may in turn lead to an improved understanding of the risk to public safety, which is vital in the aviation industry.

The types of important research envisaged here include the analysis of the electrocardiogram tracings of pilots over an extended period to determine whether small anomalies—that is, differences—seen in the tracings translate to heart problems later in their careers. Given the important benefits of this research, we consider that the provision represents a proportionate response to the legitimate aims pursued. I also remind the Committee that this proposal was supported in public consultation on the Bill, where the vast majority of respondents agreed with making anonymised medical data available for ethically approved research. It is of course vital that in doing this we include strong and effective safeguards to protect individuals’ privacy. The Government are committed to ensuring that medical research will not compromise the rights of individuals to have their confidential medical information protected. I have already answered one of my noble friend’s very good questions, which was about small cohorts.

Individuals’ rights under the Data Protection Act 1998 and Article 8 of the ECHR will be fully respected. The CAA will act as the data controller at all times. We have included strong safeguards in the clause to protect those individuals. First, medical information must be anonymised by the CAA before it is released to medical researchers. Secondly, the disclosure must be for medical research purposes approved by a research ethics committee. Thirdly, the CAA must consider that the research is likely to improve the understanding of health risks to those individuals required to provide medical information to them. Fourthly, the CAA must consider that it would be difficult or expensive to take the steps required by existing legislation to enable disclosure of all the information that is to be disclosed—for example, where the research cohort is particularly large. As the information disclosed by the CAA would be anonymised, any published research would also be in anonymous form. These cumulative safeguards will ensure the appropriate balance between enabling important medical research and protecting privacy rights. I therefore hope that my noble friend will feel able to withdraw his opposition to the clause standing part of the Bill.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Rotherwick]

It may help if I jump in. I suspect that planes landing in the Scilly Isles were under CAT—Civil Air Transport. In certain situations, a private plane can be landed under VFR when a public plane cannot under IFR. I only suggest that that might be the case

[Earl Attlee]

My Lords, if the aircraft was being operated under the terms of the Civil Aviation Act, it is a matter for the CAA to regulate and investigate. It is not a matter for me to comment on. If it was an aircraft of the Ministry of Defence, it is not covered by the Civil Aviation Act.

Civil Aviation Bill

Debate between Lord Rotherwick and Earl Attlee

Wednesday 4th July 2012 Grand Committee

[Lord Trefgarne]

My Lords, like my noble friend Lord Rotherwick and, I think, my noble friend Lord Goschen, who is not in his place, I was much disappointed by the Minister’s replies to amendments about civil aviation earlier in our consideration of the Bill the other day. I hope that he will be a bit more forthcoming in response to the latest amendment from my noble friend, which has my strong support.

[Earl Attlee]

My Lords, I thank my noble friend for tabling the amendment. We had an informed debate about general and business aviation on the first day of Committee, and I committed to meeting my noble friend Lord Rotherwick and his team to discuss the interests of general and business aviation further. I am sorry that my noble friends were disappointed by my response on that occasion.

The proposed new clause seeks to replicate the information publishing requirements being imposed on the Civil Aviation Authority by Clause 83. However, the Bill already covers general and business aviation interests where the flights include passengers, cargo or both. So, for example, where a corporate flight is carrying business passengers, the proposed duty under Clause 83 will extend to these situations because the passengers comprise users of air transport services. In these cases, the CAA functions will allow it to correct the asymmetric information market failure that I alluded to when we debated Clause 83 in all instances where there are users of air transport services.

The Bill does not include either the part of general aviation that is for non-commercial leisure use or the part that comprises commercial services that do not involve the carriage of cargo or passengers. Examples of these are crop spraying, flight training and surveying—I suspect that that is a concern of my noble friend. The amendment extends a duty to publish information beyond passengers and cargo. However, the market for general aviation is more transparent than that for the ordinary consumer. General aviation users comprise trained and licensed pilots with ready access to networks and sources of information. Comprehensive information on what facilities are available to pilots at each UK-licensed airport and airfield is already freely available online from, for example, the UKGA website. Much more information is also available through published flight guides or from the relevant aerodromes.

A further duty on the CAA, as the amendment proposes, to take into account the reasonable interests of general and business aviation is therefore unlikely to make a material difference to the information that is available to those airport service users. Against that background, we do not think it appropriate to give specific prominence to the interests of general and business aviation or, indeed, to any other specific sector. Moreover, we consider that such a duty would impose an unreasonable financial burden on the CAA and the aviation industry. The burden would fall either on the aviation industry generally, which would not be equitable, or on the general aviation community, which as I have explained has access to the information that it needs. For these reasons, I hope that my noble friend will consider withdrawing his amendment.

[Lord Rotherwick]

My Lords, I thank my noble friend for his response and my noble friend Lord Trefgarne for his support. I have listened carefully to what the Minister said, but I think I will need to read it as well. The overall principle that I am trying to establish is that the CAA should have more regard to championing the cause of general and business aviation. At present, the sector does not feel that it has a champion to look after it, and this is but a small area in which it has concerns. However, I thank my noble friend once again for his kind words and I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Civil Aviation Bill

Debate between Lord Rotherwick and Earl Attlee

Wednesday 27th June 2012 Grand Committee

[Earl Attlee]

My Lords, these amendments propose the inclusion of new secondary duties that take account of the interests of general and business aviation. I accept that the Bill is limited in scope. It seeks primarily to provide for better regulation of our airports and is not designed to be a comprehensive overhaul of our legislation. Having carefully considered these amendments, I cannot accept them, as they are unlikely to yield significant benefits but could unfortunately introduce unnecessary ambiguity into the Bill.

Despite the amendments being carefully drafted, a technical difficulty arises because of the absence of any definition or description of what is meant by “general and business aviation”, so the amendment may introduce undesirable uncertainty. I am sure that all noble Lords in the Committee understand what we mean by it, but not in legislative terms. I will ensure that I am briefed on the EU declaration that my noble friend Lord Rotherwick mentioned.

There are also policy difficulties with the proposed amendment. One policy intention behind the Clause 1 duties is for the CAA to be provided with a set of clear and unambiguous duties, promoting the interests of passengers and owners of cargo in the provision of air operation services. It follows that the number of secondary duties should be as small as is reasonably practicable. The new framework for economic regulation would apply to airports with significant market power—currently, Heathrow, Gatwick and Stansted. General and business aviation interests will be covered when the flight includes passengers. For example, when a corporate flight is carrying business passengers, the primary duty will extend to the passengers as they will comprise users of transport services. It appears that the only cases where the interests of general and business aviation will not be taken into account are when the flight carries neither passengers nor cargo, other than cargo carried by the pilot. A secondary duty to take into account the reasonable interests of general and business aviation is unlikely to make a material difference, having regard to the very small percentage of such flights to regulated airports.

The Bill recognises that conflicts may arise between the interests of different users of air transport services. In such cases, the CAA has very wide discretion to decide whose interests it should further. Against this background, we do not think that it is appropriate to give specific prominence to the interests of general and business aviation or indeed any other specific sector. For all airports, when demand is higher then capacity for finite take-off and landing slots, this is generally reflected in the fees charged. In a competitive market, an airport operator is likely to prefer to receive flights with large numbers of passengers over those with fewer passengers when this enhances its profits. The Bill will not impact the mechanism for setting airport charges at airports not deemed to have substantial market power, which is the vast majority of airports and airfields used by the general aviation community. This is a further policy reason not to pay special regard to general and business aviation.

However, the Government absolutely recognise the valuable contribution of the general and business aviation sector. The CAA’s Strategic Review of General Aviation in 2006 estimated its contribution to the UK economy at £1.4 billion per annum, a little less than the PWC report referred to—probably because different tests were applied—but still a very significant sum none the less. As noble Lords have observed, it delivers important services such as search and rescue, mail delivery, life-saving organ transport, law enforcement, aerial survey and environmental protection flights, as well as underpinning the training of future pilots. It also has growing economic importance for the European manufacturing industry. I would like to take this opportunity to pay tribute to my noble friends Lord Rotherwick, Lord Trefgarne and Lord Goschen, who miss no opportunity to promote the needs of general aviation.

The noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, mentioned hot air balloons. I like seeing hot air balloons in the summer in the countryside, but my wife has declined to take a ride in one for the reasons that noble Lords have identified. The noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, will know that aviation safety is covered by other legislation but is policed by the CAA as the safety regulator.

The Government are currently developing a long-term strategy for sustainable aviation in the UK. A formal consultation document is due to be published later this summer, when the general aviation community and other aviation stakeholders will be invited to comment. However, I believe that these amendments would create unnecessary ambiguity and ask my noble friend to withdraw or not to move them at the appropriate point.

Amendment 11 seeks to introduce a new clause after Clause 1 that would place a requirement on the CAA to publish a statement of policy setting out how it plans to carry out its functions as set out in Clause 1. I understand that the intention of this amendment may be to be ensure transparency in the CAA’s exercise of its new duties. The Bill as drafted provides a clear primary duty to end-users that the CAA supports. However, there are several reasons why I do not think this amendment will work in practice. First, the amendment as drafted requires the CAA to prepare and publish the statement of its policy with respect to carrying out its functions under Clause 1. However, the CAA has no functions under Clause 1; rather, Clause 1 sets outs the way in which it must carry out its functions under Chapter 1. The amendment as drafted would appear to have no effect. In view of this, I hope the noble Lord will withdraw his amendment.

[Lord Rotherwick]

I thank all noble Lords who took part in this debate and I thank the Minister for his response, although it was not very helpful and rather disappointing. He was not able to offer me much comfort for my amendments. Bearing in mind what he said about consulting later on promoting and safeguarding airports, it would certainly be helpful to sit down with him and his Bill team to find out whether we could get additional comfort.

--- Later in debate ---

[Earl Attlee]

My Lords, I would be delighted to continue to work closely with my noble friend on the issue of general aviation.

[Lord Rotherwick]

I am very grateful for that because it has taken us a generation to have vehicle for this and we do not want to miss it. Perhaps I could talk to him a bit later. I am interested in our not giving a negative statement to the European business community, saying that the UK is not open for aviation in all its diversity. As saturation takes up the three main airports, and then the next five, there needs to be an aviation infrastructure left for the rest of the aviation community to flow into. I thank the noble Lord for all his help on this and beg leave to withdraw.

Petrol: Ethanol Content

Debate between Lord Rotherwick and Earl Attlee

Tuesday 29th March 2011 Lords Chamber

[Earl Attlee]

My Lords, I am well aware of these issues. I declare an interest in that, because of fuel compatibility issues, I have had to fit an electronic fuel-injection system to a 27-litre V12 tank engine.

I am also well aware of the problem with glass-fibre fuel tanks. One of the issues for classic vehicles is the availability of replacement petrol tanks and the difficulty of making an irregular-shaped fuel tank.

[Lord Rotherwick]

My Lords, the noble Earl is probably aware that I am an aviator. Is he also aware that there are new and old small aircraft that rely on car petrol without ethanol in it? What provisions are the Government making to ensure that there is a supply of this in the future?

[Earl Attlee]

My Lords, in the long term, I cannot give reassurances. I will write to my noble friend about the availability of zero ethanol for aviation.

Airports: London

Debate between Lord Rotherwick and Earl Attlee

Wednesday 16th March 2011 Lords Chamber

[Earl Attlee]

My Lords, I was delighted to see the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh, rise, because I anticipated some support from her. The property issues surrounding Stansted are a matter for BAA. She also asked about uncertainty. During my research on this Question, I could not find 1 zeptogram of a suggestion that my right honourable friend the Secretary of State was going to change the policy.

[Lord Rotherwick]

My Lords, in the Minister's Answer to the Question he referred to the Government bringing forward their proposals for aviation at the end of this year. Will those proposals address the needs of general aviation, and will they bring forward a framework to revise the 1982 aviation Act?