Lewes Liberal Democrats

Enforcement is a matter for the police along with local traffic authorities who also have responsibility for traffic calming. The Department has been working with ACPO to revise their guidance in this area. We are also currently reviewing our own guidance on speed limits, and are liaising with the police and local authorities as part of this.

Work within the Department for Transport (DFT) is looking at the potential renewable energy production and greenhouse gas savings derived from a variety of different technologies. This includes synthetic biology where micro-organisms are used as biocatalysts to turn materials into biofuels.

DFT recognises that advanced biofuels may offer many benefits including increased greenhouse gas savings, producing fuels from land which was otherwise unproductive or from waste material with no other uses. Some advanced biofuels may also be more readily used in current vehicles than first generation biofuels.

The fact of the matter is that we have not inherited powers to deal with those bonuses. This is the Network Rail structure that we inherited, and we are now trying to sort it out.

Let me deal with Network Rail's performance, which comes within my portfolio. It is not as good as it should have been, and passengers are rightly unhappy when their train is delayed or cancelled, especially when that happens regularly. To be fair to Network Rail, we must put that performance in context. In 1997-98, the annual public performance measure was 89.3%. After the accident at Hatfield in 2000, it fell to 74.2%. Since then, it has risen progressively, and punctuality today stands at 91.7%. I am not saying that that is good enough, but it is not the catastrophic case that is sometimes presented. It is certainly not true that, as the Labour party spokesman said, performance has been declining at an alarming rate. It has not; it has been improving. It has not met the targets, but it has been on an upward trend.

The current high level output specification for the railways specifies a further improvement to 92.6% during the period to 2014, and that is what the Department is focused on, as is the ORR. There is still a lot to do. I am concerned that performance over the last year has been iffy for various reasons, including the previous two exceptionally severe winters and an increase in the number of external events, such as cable theft. What is happening about cable theft is not the full range of the Government's response, and it is inaccurate to present it in that way. We are simply using existing legislation to

do what we can. Further measures will emerge as and when we can take them. In addition to cable theft, other issues have affected Network Rail's performance that I am told were within its control.

Remedial plans have been put in place to enable improvements by the end of the current year, and plans are being developed for the remaining two years of the current rail control period. I am happy to tell my hon. Friend the Member for St Albans that a great deal of work has gone into much better winter resilience, including third-rail heating to prevent the sort of problems that occurred in previous winters, to which she rightly referred. I hope that she will be reassured by the fact that I meet Network Rail and the train companies monthly to examine performance with a specific analysis to ensure that they are keeping up to scratch with their plans.

As has been said, the ORR has published enforcement orders requiring Network Rail to take further steps to improve performance, particularly for long-distance passenger services and freight services. Hon. Members will know of the letter written by the ORR to Network Rail-it is fair to say that the train companies also have responsibility to do their best to ensure that punctuality and performance are maintained-and I simultaneously wrote to the train companies about their responsibilities to ensure that they are doing what they can to maintain performance at their end.

My hon. Friend the Member for St Albans referred to the National Audit Office. Network Rail is officially a private sector company. That classification is determined not by the Government, but by the independent Office for National Statistics, and that is what it has decided. I am not aware of any precedent for the National Audit Office having jurisdiction over private sector companies.

Under the terms of the Railways Act 1993, as subsequently amended, Network Rail is subject to scrutiny and regulation by the ORR, which has access to information that it needs from Network Rail, properly to assess the company's performance and efficiency. The ORR is part of the public sector, so it is subject to National Audit Office scrutiny. The National Audit Office and the Public Accounts Committee have recently undertaken audits of the Office of Rail Regulation, taken evidence from Network Rail and others and produced reports on the regulator's effectiveness.

We note and endorse the conclusions that the ORR must take steps to ensure that it has the capability that it needs properly to hold Network Rail to account and to drive it to close the efficiency gap with leading European comparators. I have sought assurances from the ORR that it will take such steps. Hon. Members have referred to the consultation that is taking place on the ORR's powers. Any plans to expand the ORR's role take account of its performance to date and its future capability, as well as comments that are received as part of the consultation process.

As a private sector company, Network Rail is not subject to the Freedom of Information Act, nor could it be without primary legislation. However, Network Rail has promised that it is in the process of developing a voluntary information rights code, which will mirror many of the provisions in the Freedom of Information Act. We welcome that initiative and believe that, if properly implemented, it will provide an alternative to

legislation. We expect the company to introduce the code alongside a broader package of Government reforms later this year.

My colleagues and I in the Department for Transport, including the Minister of State, Department for Transport, my right hon. Friend the Member for Chipping Barnet (Mrs Villiers)-I am grateful for the comments about her accident, and I am happy to say that she is recovering well-will keep the matter under close scrutiny.

Hon. Members raised a number of specific points, but I must give my hon. Friend the Member for St Albans time to respond properly. If there are any points that I have not dealt with, I will write to the relevant hon. Members.

The fact that efficiency savings or reductions in numbers take place does not necessarily mean that safety is affected. Obviously, the hon. Gentleman's point has been well made, and I will take it back with me. Network Rail today is a significantly improved body from what it was in February 2007. None the less, we share the Office of Rail Regulation's concerns about certain aspects of the company's recent performance, such as punctuality over the past 12 months, some weaknesses in safety culture and poor implementation of integrated train planning under certain conditions.

The Government look to the Office of Rail Regulation to hold Network Rail to account and to continue to drive improved value for money from the company. As part of that process, the ORR has set Network Rail a requirement to make efficiency savings of 21% in its 2009 baseline by 2014. It will continue to produce annual reports benchmarking Network Rail's efficiency against its international peers.

The Office of Rail Regulation's latest annual report states that Network Rail has made progress against its efficiency targets, but that it has more work to do to justify all of its claimed savings. When Network Rail delivers on its current commitments, the ORR expects it to have closed around two-thirds of this efficiency gap by 2014 and the rest by 2019.

A key part of the McNulty review is to see much closer working and alignment of incentives between Network Rail and the train operators. A number of Members raised that, and it is something that the Government are focused on and it will feature in the Command Paper.

We welcome Network Rail's regional devolution initiative to focus its business down to the route level and to work closely with train operators. David Higgins is taking forward work on structural reform to form closer alliances with the train operators. Moves towards asset management concessions and improved supplier engagement are vital.

We recognise concerns that Network Rail's governance has not, so far, provided adequate mechanisms for holding the company's board to account. That has been particularly apparent in respect of bonuses. The Secretary of State for Transport has been rightly firm on that matter, as indeed has No.10, despite what we have heard this afternoon. We expect bonuses to be dealt with in a responsible and a sensible manner by Network Rail, as we do by others. However, the Government's powers, which we inherited from the previous Administration, to deal with those bonuses are extremely limited. Let me remind the hon. Member for Barrow and Furness (John Woodcock) that in 2009-10, under the previous Government, Iain Coucher received a bonus of £348,184, and the top seven directors together clocked up £1,347,000.

I shall have to give a high-speed reply to get through the various points that have been raised by Members this afternoon. It has been a very good debate, and I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for St Albans (Mrs Main) for introducing it.

The coalition Government are delivering the biggest and most ambitious rail upgrade programme since the Victorian era. I would go so far as to say, without hyperbole, that this is the most pro-rail Government that we have had for decades. Despite pressure on budgets, we have made a strategic choice to increase capital investment in those parts of the infrastructure that best deliver sustained and sustainable economic growth, including rail. That is why £18 billion was allocated in the 2010 spending review to deliver an ambitious programme of investment in rail infrastructure and rolling stock.

Our problem now is success: there are more people on the railway now than at any time since 1929, with a network about half the size. My hon. Friend the Member for Northampton South (Mr Binley) is absolutely right; this is all about capacity, which is why we must get on with High Speed 2. We will try to deliver it as soon as we possibly can, and if we can, we will bring it forward, but we will not over-promise on what we can do on that or on anything else.

Many projects are going ahead, including Thameslink and Crossrail. I will not bother listing them all. Suffice it to say that we have a progressive programme of electrification that involves not simply one or two schemes. We want progressively to electrify the entire network and have already announced schemes that were not envisaged by the previous Government.

As Sir Roy McNulty found in his independent analysis of the value for money of the industry, our railway is the most expensive to run in Europe. It is up to 40% more expensive than some on the continent. Taxpayers and fare payers have shared the burden of inefficiency through some of the highest fares in Europe and some of the highest public subsidies, but this high-cost status quo is no longer an option. It is bad for passengers and bad for taxpayers, and we intend to deal with it.

Alongside our commitment to modernise and improve the network comes an equally crucial commitment to drive down costs and improve the efficiency of the railway, which was the third choice to which my hon. Friend the Member for Northampton South referred in his contribution. In large part, that involves addressing the concerns that my hon. Friend the Member for St Albans and others have raised about Network Rail's accountability and performance.

Sir Roy concluded that efficiency savings of up to £1 billion a year could be achieved by 2018, without radically restructuring the industry, cutting services or compromising quality or safety. However, that will require all parts of the industry to focus attention on driving out waste and driving up efficiency. If they do that, we can have the long-term growth future for the railway that I for one want to see. We also want to end the era of above-inflation fare rises and the RPI plus 1% formula that was introduced and happened year on year under the previous Government.

Hon. Members have asked about the Command Paper. It will be published shortly-I think that "shortly" is an official word in civil service speak-and will build on the findings made by Sir Roy and set out a blueprint for rail reform. Developing the role of Network Rail will be at the heart of the Command Paper. Although Network Rail is not perfect, it is not Railtrack, and Sir David Higgins is not Iain Coucher, so I hope that hon. Members can take some comfort from that.

The railway needs an infrastructure operator that is responsive, accountable and able to deliver the best possible results for operators, fare payers and the wider population who fund it through the public purse. Equally, Network Rail must be better incentivised. Reform of Network Rail's structures and governance is therefore a key part of the Government's rail agenda. Let me give this absolute assurance to the hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington (John McDonnell): we are determined that no changes should be made that would jeopardise the impressive improvements in safety and punctuality made by Network Rail and the rail industry in recent years.

We know about the tragedy of Grayrigg in February 2007. I am not being complacent when I say that that was the last tragic event in which a passenger died. It is worth pointing out that there were four deaths at level crossings in 2010-11. That is four too many, but it is the fewest such deaths that we have had for a decade. Efficiency does not mean compromising safety.

My hon. Friend the Member for St Albans (Mrs Main) has to speak again.

The Department received representations on a number of issues related to the Renewable Transport Fuel Obligation (RTFO) during consultations on the Renewable Energy Directive (RED). These included suggestions that the RTFO should distinguish between bioethanol and biodiesel, arguing that if it did, this might provide a mechanism to drive equal demand for both products. The suggestion was taken into account through the consultation exercise.

It is important to recognise that the RTFO is a mechanism designed to reduce carbon emissions and promote the supply of sustainable biofuels. The RTFO has now been amended to implement the transport elements of the RED. This requires reporting against mandatory sustainability criteria and allows biofuel which is produced from wastes, residues, non-food cellulosic material and ligno-cellulosic material feedstocks to be eligible for double rewards. However, the current RTFO is not a mechanism to direct the market towards a specific sustainable biofuel product or method of production.

The Association of Train Operating companies notified us of several changes to the National Routeing Guide in December relating to journeys made via Bromsgrove. No formal request was made by ATOC for the approval of the Secretary of State for Transport to these changes as no valid routeing permissions were withdrawn. Separate changes were made by the train operator to the time of day restrictions on the regulated off peak return tickets priced by Cross Country Trains in the Midlands and other regions. These alterations were all made within the prescribed limits set out in the franchise agreement of every train operator, and consequently no consent from the Secretary of State is required in such circumstances.

I have taken this question to mean which of the EU directives my Department is directly involved in have not been implemented. EU regulations have direct effect and so do not require transposition, although it may be necessary to introduce some related measures, for example to ensure that there are effective remedies and penalties.

EU law provides that directives become part of EU law once they are adopted. The EU directives requiring transposition which my Department is directly involved in implementing are:

Directive 2003/20/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 8 April 2003 amending Council Directive 91/671/EEC on the approximation of laws of the member states relating to compulsory use of safety belts in vehicles of less than 3.5 tonnes (one discrete aspect remaining);

Directive 2006/126/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 20 December 2006 on driving licences;

Directive 2008/57/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 17 June 2008 on the interoperability of the rail system within the Community;

Commission Directive 2008/65/EEC of 27 June 2008 amending Directive 91/439/EEC on driving licences;

Directive 2008/110/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 December 2008 amending Directive 2004/49/EC on safety of the Community's railways (Railway Safety Directive);

Council Directive 2009/13/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 February 2009 implementing the Agreement concluded by the European Community Shipowners' Associations (ECSA) and the European Transport Workers' Federation (ETF) on the Maritime Labour Convention 2006, and amending Directive 1999/63/EC;

Directive 2009/18/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 April 2009 establishing the fundamental principles governing the investigation of accidents in the maritime transport sector and amending Council Directive 1999/35/EC and Directive 2002/59/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council;

Directive 2009/20/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 April 2009 on the insurance of shipowners for maritime claims;

Directive 2009/28/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 April 2009 on the promotion of the use of energy from renewable sources and amending and subsequently repealing Directives 2001/77/EC and 2003/30/EC;

Directive 2009/30/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 April 2009 amending Directive 98/70/EC as regards the specification of petrol, diesel and gas oil and introducing a mechanism to monitor and reduce greenhouse gas emissions and amending Council Directive 1999/32/EC as regards the specification of fuel used by inland waterway vessels and repealing Directive 93/12/EEC;

Directive 2009/40/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 6 May 2009 on roadworthiness tests for motor vehicles and their trailers;

Commission Directive 2009/149/EC of 27 November 2009 amending Directive 2004/49/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council as regards Common Safety Indicators and common methods to calculate accident costs;

Commission Directive 2010/36/EU of 1 June 2010 amending Directive 2009/45/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council on safety rules and standards for passenger ships;

Commission Directive 2010/47/EU of 5 July 2010 adapting to technical progress Directive 2000/30/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council on the technical roadside inspection of the roadworthiness of commercial vehicles circulating in the Community;

Directive 2010/40/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 7 July 2010 on the framework for the deployment of Intelligent Transport Systems in the field of road transport and for interfaces with other modes of transport;

Directive 2010/65/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 20 October 2010 on reporting formalities for ships arriving in and/or departing from ports of the member states and repealing Directive 2002/6/EC;

Commission Directive 2011/18/EU of 1 March 2011 amending Annexes II, V and VI to Directive 2008/57/EC of the Parliament and of the Council on the interoperability of the rail system within the Community;

Commission Directive 2011/63/EU of 1 June 2011 amending, for the purposes of its adaptation to technical progress, Directive 98/70/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council relating to the quality of petrol and diesel fuels;

Commission Directive 2011/75/EU of 2 September 2011 amending Directive 96/98/EC on marine equipment; and

Directive 2011/72/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 14 September 2011 amending Directive 2000/25/EC as regards the provision for tractors placed on the market under the flexibility scheme.

The 2010 spending review confirmed funding for consumer incentives for ultra low emission vehicles for the lifetime of this parliament and that we will monitor the most effective way to deliver this investment.

Last month, I announced that the scheme is being extended to electric vans, with a potential discount of £8,000, or up to 20% of the total value of the vehicle.

holding answer 20 January 2012

The Department has not entered into any recent contracts with Northgate Information Solutions Ltd or its subsidiaries.

I have not assessed IPPR North's specific assertion that 84% of the transport infrastructure spending announcements in the autumn statement of 29 November 2011, Official Report, columns 799-810, will benefit London and the south-east.

However, the following table breaks down spend on both the transport schemes announced as part of the autumn statement and the further Local Authority Major Transport schemes announced on 14 December 2011, Official Report, columns 104-6WS.

This clearly demonstrates that the autumn statement announcements will improve transport networks across the country.

It can be difficult and misleading to assign spend to a particular region as the benefits of certain projects can be far more widespread (for example, improvements to a particular section of motorway will not only benefit those living nearby). In addition, a number of projects announced in the autumn statement, such as funding for bridge renewals, are not specific to a particular region. For Trans Pennine Electrification, spend has been apportioned between the north-west and Yorkshire and the Humber for the purpose of this exercise.

The Department has made no assessment of the operation of this section. Individual licensing authorities are responsible for testing any taximeters which are fitted in the private hire vehicles which they license. They can take action against any person who attempts to deceive consumers by tampering with a taximeter.

There is a wider point about ensuring that any taximeter placed on the market complies with the Measuring Instruments (Taximeters) Regulations 2006 (SI 2006/2304). We are currently looking into various options as to how the enforcement regime under these regulations will be carried out in the future.

In the autumn statement, the British Transport police were given the go-ahead to undertake expenditure from the £5 million fund for the establishment and operation of a dedicated national taskforce to tackle metal theft. Work is now under way to establish a central command and management team to co-ordinate operational activity and intelligence, supported by a number of regional teams, comprising police, Environment Agency and HMRC representatives, who will undertake enhanced enforcement and detection activity.

The Government believe that the existing regulatory regime for the scrap metal industry is no longer effective and needs to be revised. As the Secretary of State for the Home Department, my right hon. Friend the Member for Maidenhead (Mrs May), announced in a written ministerial statement on 26 January 2012, Official Report, columns 25-26WS, the Government will be tabling amendments to the Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Bill to prohibit cash payments for the purchase of scrap metal, and to increase fines for offences under the Scrap Metal Dealers Act 1964. Further measures will be brought forward in due course.

In 2011 my Department spent £8 on Christmas decorations at the Air Accidents Investigation Branch, Farnborough. This was for the replacement of lights/bulbs that were at least 12-years-old and deemed to be a safety hazard. I do not regard this as unreasonable.

There was no other expenditure on Christmas trees or decorations in the Department for Transport.

My hon. Friend makes a point that others have made. If he or others want to pursue it in Committee, they will need to demonstrate that there is information that needs to be provided or actions that need to be taken that would not be provided or taken under the regime in the Bill. If he can demonstrate that, I am sure that Ministers will have an open mind.

The hon. Member for Milton Keynes South (Iain Stewart) made an interesting point about the CAA's new consumer panel, suggesting that it could help the CAA to decide how to use those powers and what information to collect. That sounds like a good idea, and we will encourage the CAA to consider it. I am grateful to him for his suggestion.

Members on both sides of the House mentioned the National Audit Office. The NAO's role is to scrutinise public spending on behalf of Parliament, but the income that the CAA derives from the industry is not public spending, as Parliament recognised when it removed the NAO's role in 1984. The issue of the CAA's auditors was considered by Sir Joseph Pilling, as my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State mentioned, as part of his 2008 strategic review of the authority. He concluded that there was no need for the NAO to be involved directly with the CAA.

Many other points were raised in the debate, but I am conscious that I have taken much longer than the shadow Minister. I therefore do not have time to deal with the issue of the smalls raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Daventry (Chris Heaton-Harris)-he went on at some length about that-but I can assure Members that all comments will be taken onboard. If I have not answered any questions, I will ensure that a letter is sent out from the Department.

In conclusion, I think that this is a useful Bill. I am grateful for the support of Members from across the House, and I commend the Bill to the House.

Question put and agreed to .

Bill accordingly read a Second time.

I am happy to advise the hon. Gentleman that the Department for Transport is producing a comprehensive aviation strategy, which according to the Department's business plan will be published in March.

He will be able to look at that and see whether it deals with the Northern Ireland situation in which he is clearly interested.

The shadow Secretary of State referred to the issue of future passengers, as against present passengers. I recognise that that is an issue, and clause 1(5) empowers the CAA to determine how to fulfil its primary duty to promote the interests of users when conflicts arise. This is in line with affording requisite discretion to the regulator and taking politics out of regulation. In other words, it would not be helpful for the case the hon. Lady makes to be more specific about the CAA's powers than the Bill currently is.

One or two hon. Members asked why the airline consultation supplementary duty has been dropped. Stakeholders including airlines should be consulted by the CAA when it carries out its economic regulatory functions. There is an obligation to consult bodies representing airlines on licence conditions, licence modifications and penalties. Any airline is free to make representations, and we do not believe that the CAA would ignore any relevant representation. Furthermore, whenever a conflict arises between passengers' interest and those of airlines, the CAA will be bound to act in passengers' interests, given the primary duty in the Bill. A further secondary duty would not affect that position, which is why we came to that conclusion.

The shadow Secretary of State also asked about resilience. The implication of her comments was that since the former Secretary of State for Transport-with her, it appears-was out at Heathrow, nothing has happened, but nothing could be further from the truth. There have been extensive discussions between the Department and the owners and operators at Heathrow about winter resilience. This winter, I am happy to say that the major airports in London are much better prepared than they were last year. But when the CAA proposes full airport licences, it will of course be required to consult on the content of those licences and any subsequent changes to the licences. It will have to take into account any representations during those consultations when setting conditions, and we will require it to include welfare plans if those are in current and future passengers' interests. I hope that that gives the hon. Lady the satisfaction she was seeking on that point.

Several hon. Members referred, rightly, to the welcome proposals in the Bill on ATOL, especially my hon. Friend the Member for Cambridge (Dr Huppert). He wanted an assurance that consumers would know when a holiday was ATOL-protected, and I can assure him that that is a key objective of the Government in the changes we are proposing. We are also interested, of course, in the Transport Committee's deliberations on this important issue.

The hon. Member for Amber Valley (Nigel Mills) asked whether the Ryanair holiday model would be covered by the ATOL reforms. The intention is to ensure as far as possible that any holiday booked with a flight is covered by the changes. The hon. Members for Bolton West (Julie Hilling) and for Congleton (Fiona Bruce) also raised issues relating to ATOL reform. I confirm that we consulted over the summer on proposals to improve clarity for consumers about the ATOL scheme's coverage. I agree fully that the current situation can be unclear and misleading for consumers, which is why action is needed as soon as possible.

We propose to expand the ATOL scheme to include flight-plus holidays that work like packages but lie outside the narrow legal definition. We also propose that an ATOL certificate should be issued whenever consumers purchase an ATOL-protected flight or holiday, as a further means of providing clarity. We aim to announce a decision shortly on the reforms, which can be implemented by new regulations under existing powers. We are taking steps forward on that. The holiday industry has made strong representations that it is no longer clear whether holidays are ATOL-protected. As I said, we think we can deal with that problem by allowing for the addition of more flight-based holidays.

In her introductory comments, the Chair of the Select Committee referred to impact assessments. The Transport Committee stated that

"licence conditions, and their associated costs to airports, may not be proportionate to the benefits delivered",

and that was the thrust of her point. Ultimately, where costs are associated with licence conditions, users of air transport services will pay those costs. Where the costs of a proposed licence condition are seen to outweigh the benefits to passengers, it will not be in passengers' interests to impose the condition, so the CAA's primary duty would not be met if it did so.

The Bill requires the CAA to consult on proposed licence conditions and states that a licence may not include conditions that differ significantly from those on which it has already consulted. It must set out the reasons for conditions included in the licence, how it has taken into account any representations made, and the reasons for any differences from the conditions initially proposed. I think that that makes the case for the approach that we are taking. The fact that putting the passenger centre stage is the CAA's primary duty will we hope give the hon. Lady the reassurance that she rightly seeks. I will come to security issues in a moment.

The shadow Secretary of State referred to vexatious appeals. I do not think that they are likely to occur. The Government's proposed regime has features to deter frivolous or vexatious appeals. In particular, in most cases the appeal will not suspend the licence condition's coming into effect, although the appeal body will have the power to impose interim relief under circumstances. There is therefore limited incentive to appeal for the purpose of delaying the decision.

The shadow Secretary of State also referred to the consumer panel. We believe that it is a useful innovation in the Bill. As she might know, the successor body to the Air Transport Users Council is being consulted on. It was announced on 18 January this year. The CAA will set up the CAA consumer panel as soon as possible and will immediately seek a suitable chair.

Environmental issues were raised by several Members, including my hon. Friend the Member for Cambridge, who was concerned, as were some Opposition Members, about the absence from the Bill of an environmental duty. The matter has been considered carefully. One reason why the Bill does not include such a duty at the moment, although the Government fully accept the need to take the environment into account in aviation, as everywhere else, is that it is thought that economic regulation is not the appropriate vehicle for doing so,

not least because it enables the CAA to address only airports with substantial market power and only where regulatory intervention is warranted. That currently includes only three airports, but environmental externalities are present at a wider range of airports and need to be factored in. That is why the Government decided to proceed by placing on the CAA an information and publication duty that is considered to be more concrete and of more practical benefit to the public than the previously proposed environmental objective. The CAA is under an obligation to publish such information and can also issue advice and guidance to airport operators.

I welcome the kind comments from Members on both sides of the House in respect of my right hon. Friend the Minister for Transport-she is indeed my friend. If she is watching, she ought not to bother but get some rest.

I congratulate the hon. Member for Feltham and Heston (Seema Malhotra) on an excellent maiden speech, which the House enjoyed. She will be a powerful addition to the House in the years ahead.

I welcome the many constructive comments in the debate, and I am particularly grateful to the Transport Committee for expediting the process of pre-legislative scrutiny when this earlier slot became available for the Bill. The Committee found that both airlines and airports welcome the Bill.

The Bill process has been going on a very long time, as Opposition Members will know only too well. I accept that it would have been ideal to have slightly more time for scrutiny but, on the other hand, in the aviation industry if a slot becomes available, we must take it. It would not have served customers, passengers or the industry well to have let that slip while a number of months went by, because there is a great deal of Government business to fit in.

My right hon. Friend and I welcome the Transport Committee's response and look forward to the comments of members of the Public Bill Committee. We will listen carefully to members on both sides of that Committee.

Many hon. Members have made the case for the continuing importance of our aviation sector. We have a vital, dynamic aviation industry. The continuing success

of that industry is essential to our economic growth. Our reforms have been designed to allow competition to flourish and for our industry to innovate and thrive.

I shall do my best to respond to the many points made in the debate. A number of hon. Members spoke up for their local and regional airports, including Luton airport and Teesside-or is it Durham and Tees Valley?-airport. The hon. Member for Sedgefield (Phil Wilson) asked for a meeting about his particular situation. I am sure my right hon. Friend will be very pleased to see him and other hon. Members on a cross-party basis to discuss that situation when she is back in the saddle.

As the Secretary of State made clear in her opening remarks, most airports in this country are competitive and look after their passengers. Our reforms are designed to protect the interests of passengers, particularly at the small number of airports such as Heathrow that have substantial market power. For all other airports, the main change introduced by the Bill is that the CAA will be able to bring its expertise to the investigation and remedy of anti-competitive behaviour by having concurrent powers with the Office of Fair Trading.

The Bill replaces an inflexible, one-size-fits-all approach based on five-year price controls with a flexible regime under which regulation can be tailored to individual airports' circumstances so that the CAA can reduce the scope of economic regulation while retaining essential protection for passengers.

At the heart of the new proposals is a single, clear, primary duty to further the interests of end users-passengers and freight owners, now and in the future. The passenger is centre stage. This will enable the CAA to undertake enforcement action in real time when this becomes necessary. The Chair of the Transport Committee, and the Committee's report, asks if we might have greater clarity in the Bill's definition of users of air transport services and suggested the phrase

"passengers and shippers of cargo, both present and future."

I would draw to her attention clause 69 which defines air transport service as

"a service for the carriage by air of passengers or cargo to or from an airport in the United Kingdom".

Users of air transport services are persons present and future who are or will be passengers carried by such services, and persons with a right in property carried by such services. This will not cover shippers of cargo, unless they have a right in property in that cargo, because we think it is more important to protect the interests of the owners of cargo, rather than the shippers-again, putting the customer at centre stage. I hope that the Chair of the Select Committee will recognise that the clarification she seeks is in that clause in the Bill.

Inspection of works to monitor compliance with the Specification is a matter for individual highway authorities, and accordingly the Secretary of State for Transport, the right hon. Member for Putney (Justine Greening), has made no central assessment of the level of compliance. Where authorities identify instances of non-compliance with the Specification, they normally exercise their powers under section 72 of the New Roads and Street Works Act 1991 to require the responsible person to carry out the necessary remedial works (at their own expense), rather than seeking to pursue the matter through the courts. It is in the interests of the local authorities themselves to identify below standard replacements works.

Persons proceeded against for offences under the New Roads and Street Works Act 1991 cannot be separately identified on the Ministry of Justice Court Proceedings Database, as they form part of a miscellaneous group.

I am today publishing the outcome of the Government's consultation on proposals to allow trials of lane rental schemes to be undertaken by a small number of "pioneer" local authorities. Lane rental would involve the local authority applying a daily charge where street works obstruct traffic at the busiest times, providing a clear financial incentive for works to be carried out in less disruptive ways.

The Government are now inviting applications from authorities wishing to operate "pioneer" schemes. The guidance I am publishing today makes clear that the Government are prepared to approve up to three such schemes, in areas where the local authority has already sought to achieve the desired effect through other means, including through a road works permit scheme. Lane rental charges would need to be targeted on those streets where works cause the greatest disruption, and would need to provide a genuine opportunity for works promoters to avoid charges by carrying out their works at less disruptive times. Evidence from the performance of the "pioneer" schemes will inform future decisions on whether lane rental should play a wider role. Any revenues raised from lane rental will have to be used for purposes that will help to reduce the disruption caused by works-for example, research and development into disruption-saving techniques and technologies.

The guidance and other documents are now being published on the Department for Transport's website, and I will be laying the necessary regulations before Parliament shortly.