Civil Aviation Bill

Public Bill Committee, 8 March 2012.

Clause 77 - Crown application

Jim Fitzpatrick (Labour, Poplar and Limehouse)

I beg to move amendment 62, in clause 77, page 45, line 37, leave out subsection (3).

Welcome back, Sir Roger. It is a pleasure to see you in the Chair again. The amendment is timely given that the Prime Minister, my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition and the Father of the House led the tributes to Her Majesty in the Commons yesterday. With the beginning of the formal celebrations of Her Majesty’s diamond jubilee year, we start the morning’s session with a royal amendment.

Subsection (3) raises the distinction between Her Majesty in her private capacity and her duties as the monarch. Will the Minister of State simply clarify that distinction? We are in no way, shape or form doing anything other than protecting Her Majesty’s interests. I am sure that the Minister will be very able to explain.

Theresa Villiers (Conservative, Chipping Barnet)

I am grateful to the shadow Minister for explaining his motivation in tabling the amendment and the entirely loyal motivation behind his seeking clarification. I am happy to set out the reason for the reference to Her Majesty.

The usual constitutional position is that the Crown is not bound by statute unless the Act of Parliament in question clearly says so. As parts of the Bill implement the European airport charges directive, it is necessary to bind the Crown—for example, Government Departments and Executive agencies—to ensure and to be seen to ensure full implementation of the directive. The Crown does not currently operate any civil airports, and although we do not see that position changing, the reference ensures that the UK is seen to be fully compliant with our obligations under European law.

We have, however, distinguished the situation of Her Majesty acting in her personal capacity, as is consistent with general practice. Although part of the Crown, we seek to follow the usual constitutional position, in part because we see no prospect of Her Majesty operating a civil airport on her own account—essentially as a sole trader. We feel that excluding Her Majesty in her personal capacity is not likely to lead to any risk of a loophole emerging in the system of economic regulation of airports.

Given that reassurance about the motivation behind the provision in clause 77, I hope the shadow Minister will consider withdrawing his amendment.

Jim Fitzpatrick (Labour, Poplar and Limehouse)

I am sure that Her Majesty will be mightily relieved that her Government and loyal Opposition are looking out for her best interests. I am very pleased to beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Clause 78 - Aviation security directions etc

Graham Stringer (Labour, Blackley and Broughton)

I beg to move amendment 34, in clause 78, page 48, line 8, at end insert—

‘(3) The CAA must report annually to the Secretary of State and to Parliament on the exercise of its duties under this Part of this Act and on the progress made towards the establishment of an outcome-focused, risk-based aviation security regime.’.

Roger Gale (Conservative, North Thanet)

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following: amendment 76, in clause 78, page 48, line 8, at end insert—

(a) The Secretary of State may direct the CAA to implement an outcomes-focused, risk-based aviation security regime to govern the exercise of the CAA’s functions under this Part of the Act;

(b) if making directions under this subsection, the Secretary of State must by order set out the framework for the introduction of the outcomes-focused, risk-based aviation security regime;

(c) an order under this subsection must be approved by a resolution of each House of Parliament.’.

Amendment 33, in clause 109, page 64, line 29, at end insert—

‘(2A) In relation to section 78, an order under this section must set a commencement date which is later than the date of the satisfactory introduction of an outcomes-focused, risk-based aviation security regime.’.

Graham Stringer (Labour, Blackley and Broughton)

The amendment explores what the changes to security will mean. Not mentioned in the Bill, but mentioned in the arguments in favour of transferring security, is the relationship of the changes to an outcomes-focused, risk-based security system. Before I get on to that, I refer to the Committee to yesterday’s statement by the Department for Transport on security, which included a quote on the costs to industry:

“We have estimated that the ongoing cost to the CAA of its new security’s functions would be £4.8m per year. This cost, if it were to fall equally to passengers and cargo, would equate to approximately £0.01 per passenger movement per year and £0.001 per kilogram of cargo.”

That is very interesting but I am sure all members of the Committee will have studied carefully the regulatory impact assessment on page 148, which states that the costs will be tuppence per passenger, not a penny. Footnote 3 gives a simple division sum of the original cost of the £4.8 million transfer, divided by the total number of passengers. Why has there has been a change in costs of 50% from the original estimate or of 100% from the current estimate? Although the figure of one penny or tuppence seems small, it is a significant change and I should be grateful if the Minister explained the thinking behind this. I am surprised that she did not want to make a clarifying statement before we got into this debate.

There is a general point, which I have referred to previously. The more I look at the regulatory impact assessment and the more I listen to the debate in Committee and consider whether the Bill as a whole is putting unnecessary burdens on business, the more I am concerned about the Government’s calculations and their justifications for doing this. The basis of the regulatory impact assessment, like most such assessments, is the status quo against the changes proposed, and against a third option, which is to set up a new body.

The Committee will remember that the Transport Committee complained in its review that it did not have enough time to consider this issue. In 2006 it had quite a lot of time, and wrote a much longer report on the CAA. The first recommendation on page 4 of its report reads:

“The Government has been negligent”—

this was the Labour Government and the Select Committee had a Labour majority, but it had all-party support on this issue—

“in its failure to undertake strategic reviews of the role, remit and objectives of the CAA as required by the Sponsorship Statement. We recommend that the Department for Transport carry out a root and branch review to examine the continuing need for the CAA and the extent to which its functions could be more effectively undertaken in other ways.”

Although that is nearly six years ago, I do not believe the previous Government or this Government carried out that review. To that extent, the regulatory impact assessment, which is a very large document, is not as good as it could be and the four or five sections of its conclusions are deficient or incomprehensible.

I have asked the Minister on a number of occasions whether she thinks the Bill is imposing unnecessary extra regulations and burdens on the industry, and her response to the Select Committee was that overall, it would have less impact. I have looked at what she said, and it relates to the amendment directly, but if this is the statement her justification is relying on I would be grateful for an explanation of it. Any other member of the Committee who can explain what it means might get a free glass of dandelion and burdock off me. On page 3 of the regulatory impact assessment, it states that

“it is difficult to conclude … that the estimated benefits to business are robust for the purposes of One-in, One-out. Since the IA provides sufficient evidence to suggest that the benefits to business will outweigh the costs, we propose that this is treated as an OUT with a value of zero.”

That strikes me as a strange basis for the Minister’s justification, particularly when we look at the quantification of that figure beyond that it should be treated as zero. That quantification is a range of £4.6 million to minus £61.2 million. I suppose that is the Government’s definition of zero, which means that they do not know which way the costs and benefits are going.

Against the background of an increasingly muddled Bill that will result in disbenefits rather than benefits to the aviation industry, the amendment is primarily about the transfer of the costs of security within airports to the passenger. The Government’s justification for transferring security costs to the passenger is that the passenger travelling on an aeroplane is the beneficiary of that security, which is true as far as it goes. That is not a difference between the parties, but I would like to ask two further questions.

First, what are the international comparisons? Although at one level it seems fair to transfer the costs of security to the passenger, are we putting our airports at a disadvantage when compared with European and north American airports, with which we are competing? I understand that the security in many other airports is funded by local or national Government. Will the Minister justify the transfer of such costs to the passenger and explain what it will mean for British airports’ competitiveness? The aviation industry in this country is already disadvantaged by the air passenger duty, which is driving intercontinental passengers toward using Charles de Gaulle airport in particular, and toward other European hubs such as Frankfurt, Copenhagen and Madrid. There are real, worked-out cases of tourists from China choosing to go to Charles de Gaulle rather than to a British airport, because doing so saves a family of five or six several hundred pounds. That disadvantage already exists; does the proposal further disadvantage our aviation industry?

Secondly, what is the basis for the proposal? As I said, the disagreement is not party political, and the general drift of policy in this country has been to transfer charges from the taxpayer to the industry. If one thinks about the security issues surrounding 9/11, however, although the passengers on those aeroplanes would undoubtedly have been the beneficiaries of better security, the other beneficiaries would have been the 3,000 people who were killed in Washington and the twin towers. Although passengers benefit, there is a wider gain for society in general. Will the Minister run through the arguments for why, when there are general benefits to society, those are not looked at, so that the taxpayer could take the burden?

Turning to the detail of the amendment, there is a possible future saving from moving to an outcomes-focused, risk-based security system, which the Government estimate could save as much as 1% of the costs. They say that future costs will be balanced by possible future savings, but that is a weak link, because it is not really defined in the Bill. Although I suspect that most airports and most of the aviation industry would welcome a move to such a security system—it is more sensitive, and is likely to be more effective—the people to whom I have spoken in the industry very much doubt that it will lead to such savings.

People in the aviation industry welcome a flexible approach to security, but they are sceptical, if not cynical, about the process, because of their recent experience of investing in new, flexible technology, which is appreciated by both passengers and security staff. Manchester airport, which is one of the airports that has briefed me about this matter, is concerned that the money invested in Rapiscan Secure 1000 Single Pose backscatter scanners—all 11 of them—will be wasted. Although the Government have strongly said to Europe that the scanners are a good thing, there is still a risk that European regulations will ban that innovative new technology. There is increasing scepticism within the industry about whether it will be allowed the necessary flexibility to benefit fully from the changes because of the impact of European regulations.

Theresa Villiers (Conservative, Chipping Barnet)

Although I am sure the hon. Gentleman knows this already, it might be useful to tell the Committee that although the EU has not yet given permission for such scanners to become part of the primary means of checking security at an EU level, it has not been ruled out. The matter is subject to further consideration by scientific experts, so the battle is by no means lost. The Government continue to believe that the technology being used at Manchester airport is very effective, so we will continue to engage with the EU with a view to ensuring that the technology’s role in the security process is enlarged in future and goes beyond the present pilot studies.

Graham Stringer (Labour, Blackley and Broughton)

I am grateful for that intervention. Whatever the Opposition’s criticisms of the Government and the Bill might be, this is not one of them. It is recognised that the Government have been very supportive on the issue, but there is still a worry that the European regulations will stop the use of the scanners. However, the Minister’s statement is welcome.

Part of the overall costs of the transfer of security includes an estimate of £1.5 million for a new IT system. I would buy a second glass of dandelion and burdock for somebody if that estimate is right. Under the previous Government and this one, no estimate for computer IT systems has ever been accurate. The estimates are often two, three or four times out—even 1,000% out—so the overall costs will be higher on the basis that IT systems never come in on cost. The people who sell IT systems are clearly much smarter than the civil servants and Ministers who buy them, so they always go over cost and end up in the bottom line of the computer company.

I will finish on a point to which will shall return later in the Bill’s passage, probably on Report: security for passengers travelling on package tours. When there is all-party support for a Bill—there was no Division on the Bill’s Second Reading—we should be more wary than ever. We should learn the lessons of the Dangerous Dogs Act 1991 and the child protection agency, both of which went through without any opposition, but both of which were disastrous in their own way. The more I get into the skeleton of this Bill, the more confused I find the detail of where the interests of the passenger and the airlines lie, and the more confused it is on whether there will be extra costs to the industry, and whether it represents an increase or decrease in regulation. It is also confused on whether it will make our aviation industry—one of our best and most competitive industries, although it is already under attack from the constraints on the runway system in the south-east and air passenger duty—less competitive and, therefore, less able to create jobs and support the British economy.

John Woodcock (Labour, Barrow and Furness)

It is a pleasure to see you back in the Chair, Sir Roger. Amendment 76 complements and bolsters that tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Blackley and Broughton. I hope that I can also complement the excellent points he made.

Together, the amendments would ensure that there would be greater parliamentary scrutiny in the event of a significant shift in aviation security due to the proposed move away from a “direct and inspect” security regime to the catchily titled outcomes-focused, risk-based approach. Let me summarise briefly what the risk-based approach would mean. Under the new regime, rather than directing specific measures that airports must undertake to maintain security, Ministers would specify a number of key risks that need to be mitigated. Airports would then be responsible for undertaking their own risk assessment and analysis of their local vulnerabilities, and then for designing and implementing appropriate mitigating measures.

The Government have chosen to deal with this issue separately from the transfer of responsibility for security from the Department to the Civil Aviation Authority. There has been a separate consultation on the proposed move to a risk-based approach, and there is nothing in the Bill that refers to the major change I have just set out, which we think is an inappropriate omission.

First, as the Minister acknowledged in evidence to the Transport Committee, although on the face of it the moves are separate, there is a clear link between them; they could be “complementary”, as she put it. The oral evidence given to the Transport Committee has highlighted the industry’s belief that the move to a risk-based regime would be an important follow-on from the transfer to the CAA.

We also note that, during pre-legislative scrutiny, the Select Committee found support among airlines and airports for adopting a risk-based regime, which is significant. However, comments made so far suggest that they attach importance to it not primarily because it would enhance security, although some make that case, but because they see it as the only significant way in which they could reduce the cost burden that they will suddenly take on in the event that the responsibility for the function is transferred from the Department to the regulatory body.

I quote from the evidence given by Mr Andrew Haines, the chief executive of the CAA, during the Transport Committee’s pre-legislative scrutiny. He said:

“I think there is an industry nervousness that they may get the transfer to the CAA without the benefit of that regime”—

the outcomes-focused, risk-based regime. He went on to say:

“That is something we want to work with industry and the Department for Transport to nail. It is certainly outstanding work.”

The Transport Committee has focused on the cost burden and recommended that the move to a risk-based approach should be speeded up by way of minimising that burden. We have considered that and heard the evidence presented to this Committee, and our instinct is to take a different view—I note that the amendment tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Blackley and Broughton proposes that the two be separated out. We think that a credible case has been made that a simultaneous transfer of the function to the CAA and an immediate take-up of a risk-based approach could create unnecessary strain.

Jim Fitzpatrick (Labour, Poplar and Limehouse)

I was reflecting on the quote from Mr Andrew Haines, which finished with the phrase “outstanding work”. In that context, he meant not amazing work, but work remaining to be completed.

John Woodcock (Labour, Barrow and Furness)

That is a very good point. I can only assume that Mr Haines meant “outstanding” in the sense of “yet to be completed”. I have seen no evidence thus far that anyone has thought that the work was particularly outstanding in the other sense.

Our instinct is to take a different approach from the Transport Committee’s. We think that unnecessary strain could be created. More importantly, however, although we should always seek to minimise unnecessary costs on industry and taxpayers due to unnecessary regulation—and, importantly, unnecessary inconvenience for passengers, who naturally seek to travel without disruption—the driver for change in such a fundamentally important area as aviation security must never be cost or convenience. Such a change must enhance the UK’s security regime rather than potentially undermine it.

The evidence given so far creates at least the suspicion that a commitment to reduce cost rather than enhance security could be the primary driver of the move. That suspicion has so far been heightened, rather than diminished, by the Government’s statements on the matter. As an example, let me read, as my hon. Friend the Member for Blackley and Broughton did, from the aviation security brief that the Department’s Civil Aviation Bill team e-mailed yesterday to Committee members, for which I thank them. Page 3 of the four-page brief reads:

“Charging the industry for the regulation of aviation security aligns with the vast majority of other forms of regulation, including CAA’s regulation of aviation safety. The aviation industry already meets the costs of providing security (close to £lbn), and the cost of regulation (£4.8m)”.

My hon. Friend has adeptly set out the provisos around the accuracy of those calculations.

The brief continues by stating that those costs are “a small addition” that—and this is the important point—

“could be neutralised by efficiency savings from the overall reform package.”

That overall reform package is not specified in the brief. The Minister might want to clarify this, but I assume that it is a move towards an impending risk-based regime. Greater parliamentary scrutiny, which is the intention behind the amendment, could more effectively put the case to the test and allow Ministers to set out the strength of their argument on the grounds of security, rather than cost saving.

Let us remember that this country’s aviation security regime has worked since the horror and tragedy of Lockerbie. It has stood up to a series of credible threats and determined attacks from those who seek to undermine—through terror and destruction—our country, our values, and our way of life. Several of those threats, such as explosive devices concealed in shoes, liquids and underwear, were exposed at the time they occurred, and we know that some go unreported by necessity. The Government’s consultation document setting out the case for a move to a risk-based approach acknowledges:

“The UK is recognised internationally as having one of the most effective aviation security regimes in the world.”

As we look for more effective ways of doing things, and for where we can rightly address unnecessary costs and passengers’ continuing and frequent concerns about delays and queues arising from security procedures, we must set the bar high and require Ministers to set out the case properly, so the Government can be held accountable for their decisions. We should consider that there have been several dissenting voices, as the Committee has heard, regarding the suitability of a risk-based approach. Central to that approach will be variation in security procedures between and within airports. In oral evidence to the Committee, the trade union side representative pointed out that the terrorist threat to aviation is fundamentally different in nature from the question of safety, because those who seek to disrupt, maim and kill users of air transport—as well as innocent victims on the ground, as we have tragically seen—are constantly testing our defences. That is why Ministers, and ultimately Parliament, need as great a level of confidence as possible in the risk assessments that individual airports will undertake.

Ministers can of course draw attention to procedures that they believe are overly prescriptive, and I hope the Minister will set out some examples of those on which the case must ultimately be predicated. When removing a uniform approach to security, we must not permit airports to develop a soft underbelly whereby defences are lowered because they self-assess their risk as being low. The risk of terrorists exploiting a small regional airport may be lower than for a major hub, but it is not non-existent. Fundamentally, we have to be able to have confidence in any move away from a uniform approach. Someone intent on doing us harm will continually probe for weaknesses in the system. From bitter experience, we know that Britain has been and remains a nation at heightened risk of terrorist attack. There can be no grounds for complacency.

Employing the aviation industry to provide security functions should, in theory, at least, ensure a co-ordination with other aspects of airport operation that benefits passengers and airlines. Where uniform prescription from central Government on how security standards should be met is genuinely unnecessary, we should not seek to maintain such prescription.

In their impact assessment, Ministers have argued that a move to a risk-based regime is consistent with the principles of better regulation. We stand fully behind the drive to improve and, where possible, lessen regulation. The Minister will know that in government, we enhanced the authority and capacity of the Better Regulation Executive and pioneered new thinking. I had something to do with that in my previous life as an adviser to the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster, briefly, in 2005, when the Cabinet Office housed the Better Regulation Executive. [Interruption.] The Minister says that, but imagine our delight on finding that, on moving from the Department for Work and Pensions in 2007 to the newly created Department for Business, Enterprise and Regulatory Reform—as it was called in the heady early days of the premiership of my right hon. Friend the Member for Kirkcaldy and Cowdenbeath (Mr Brown)—we once again had responsibility for better regulation and the fine civil servants in the Better Regulation Executive.

As the Minister will accept, however, the principles of better regulation do not automatically lead to establishing a risk-based regime instead of uniform cover. Perhaps she can tell us about the experience of other high-risk areas that have adopted risk-based regimes, such as counter-terrorism, which is overseen by the Home Office.

Requiring that the adoption of a risk-based regime be approved by Parliament would allow more detailed probing of the claims made by Ministers for that shift, as my hon. Friend the Member for Blackley and Broughton has rightly suggested. The regulatory impact assessment predicts the costs of changing regimes to be extremely limited, particularly for training and database establishment, as my hon. Friend also said. The cost set out in the impact assessment, just £23.7 million over 10 years, allows for a very high estimated net present value for the regime shift. Parliament needs an opportunity to consider the reliability of those figures in light of consultation.

It is worth noting that, while generally supporting the move to a risk-based approach, Virgin Atlantic said that it expected no cost savings to arise in the short or medium term. I hope the Minister can give us some sense of the capacity challenge that could be created in the event that a risk-based system releases considerable savings for the industry by cutting out procedures deemed to be unnecessary.

Proper consideration is needed of the ability of the risk-based system to cope with the necessary response to specific and sudden threats. Take for example the liquid bomb plot uncovered by UK security services in the summer of 2006. The discovery of this credible threat led to Ministers taking the decision to ban liquids, and for a while pretty much all hand luggage, from flights to and from the UK. The consultation is clear that Ministers will retain the ability to take such steps in an emergency if they felt it necessary, and rightly so.

As everyone here will be aware, rapidly scaling up back in 2006 was a difficult process. However, the key question is, would scaling up become significantly more difficult in a future risk-based system, in the event that spare capacity had been pared back to save the industry the money that it is clearly hoped will be saved? Furthermore, if more than 60 airports in the UK are each operating their own security regime, how straightforward will it be to ensure that emergency measures can be adopted with uniformity and rigour in each case? Would extra costs of inspection and enforcement be incurred and how would they be managed?

A question raised by a number of consultees has been how any such system could be effective, given the baseline of uniform protection demanded by European legislation. So far, the Government have made fairly vague noises about wanting to persuade the EU to adopt similar changes in approach so that a risk-based system here in the UK could be more effective. Does the Minister believe that a move domestically would be worth while only if Europe moved in tandem? If not, how would overlaying two different governing principles—one from Europe and a different one from the UK—enhance security, rather than potentially undermine it?

I know we are all in agreement that major changes to aviation security policy cannot and should not be taken lightly. As I said earlier, we note the broad levels of support from airlines and airports for this proposal, but we believe there is a strong case for additional scrutiny of a move to a risk-based system, and that Parliament should have the final say. Cost and the principle of lessening regulation are not by themselves sufficient justifications for what would amount to a very significant reform of aviation security. Before any such switch, the Government should give Parliament and the nation greater confidence that their proposals will make air travel more secure and improve the passenger experience.

Roger Gale (Conservative, North Thanet)

Order. The hon. Member for Bolton West asked me whether I intended to allow a stand part debate on this clause, and my immediate reaction was yes. However, in light of the entirely reasonable and completely in order remarks made by the hon. Member for Barrow and Furness, I have now taken a different view. It will be difficult to discuss these amendments, together or separately, without setting the argument in context. For that reason, I have already decided that it is probably better to have a broad-ranging debate on aviation security now—I am therefore giving the Committee notice of that fact—rather than to have a stand part debate at the end, which may prove to be after the event.

I am also going to go a bit further—I may live to regret this—and allow a wide-ranging debate on aviation security. That is in the hope and expectation, because the next several clauses and schedules relate to aviation security, that it may be possible to deal with a number of matters collectively, have a rounded debate and curtail some later debate. I ask for responsible treatment from hon. Members of that view. I will be reasonably lenient about the breadth of contributions now.

Jim Shannon (DUP, Strangford)

I should like the Minister to clarify the outcomes-based security regime. I know that the previous speaker, the hon. Member for Barrow and Furness, outlined the case clearly, but I want to outline an example. Through that example, perhaps the Minister can clarify who will have the last say on security.

Outside of the Bill, the Government have consulted on introducing an outcomes-based approach to security regulation. Currently, airports have to follow very prescriptive processes, which are laid down, step by step, in regulation. Those processes specify, for example, the proportion of passengers whose footwear has to be searched and how it is searched, as the hon. Member for Barrow and Furness said. The operator is obliged to follow the procedure set down in regulation and little discretion can be exercised, according to what I have been told.

Under the new proposals, an airport operator could, for example, decide how many people’s footwear should be searched and determine what equipment might be used for that. The requirement would be, for example, to meet a given outcome to screen footwear in accordance with a minimum standard approved by the Government.

Will the Minister let us know whether how that standard is met will be up to the operator? Will she assure this Committee and those outside that security is paramount and cannot be left to a company that might say, “We can get away with a minimum requirement here”? What if the threat outside is higher and it is necessary to have a strict security system in regulation for airports?

The example is footwear, because we can all relate to it. Will the Minister give some indication on who has the last say, the company or the Government? Can the Government suggest to the company, “Here is a regulation that we want you to meet, which we feel is necessary because of the current terrorist threat”? We need clarification on that. Those of us who travel on planes—everyone in this room does, and many outside this room do as well—want to be absolutely secure in our minds that the highest security has been used when we travel on them.

Pat Glass (Labour, North West Durham)

I want to speak on clauses 78 and 79, which cover the transfer of security functions from the Department for Transport to the CAA. The proposed transfer is a significant shift, which did not receive proper pre-legislative consultation and scrutiny, because it was included in the Bill only at a very late stage. I want to ask the Minister a number of questions, which she needs to address because concerns have been raised at a number of levels—not only within industry, but within the Transport Committee. That Committee tells us:

“At the time of the Queen’s Speech, it was not envisaged that the bill would include security measures. Indeed, these did not form part of the DfT’s consultation and industry witnesses told us that they had not been consulted on this aspect of the draft bill. Dr Humphreys…told us that there was a lack of clarity and consultation on the proposed division of responsibilities between the DfT and CAA. There was also concern about the additional costs that the aviation industry would face.”

My hon. Friends have discussed that in detail this morning.

Will the Minister explain the major shift in responsibility? Why has there been insufficient pre-legislative scrutiny? Why was the industry not consulted on the measure? Why now? I want to focus on the most important question, which is how will the change be made without causing major disruption to the system and a security gap for passengers?

Of paramount concern is the potential fragmentation of responsibility between security policy and direction, which will remain with the Secretary of State, and security functions, which will be transferred to the CAA. The measure risks changing a security system that, as we have heard, has worked well since the Lockerbie tragedy, which led to our present arrangements. I have spent most of my career looking at things that work adequately and trying to improve them. I am not against change if it will lead to improvement, but we must consider the provisions’ consequences, some of which will be unintended.

We should not forget how and why we arrived at the present system. We should not move lightly from an approach that has existed as a result of such tragic loss of life, particularly as, according the impact assessment, the clear stated purpose is to

“Reduce the costs to the taxpayer”

in line with spending review commitments

“by introducing the user pays principle.”

I am not necessarily against that aim, but it should not be the underlying reason for changing a security system that has served us well for many years.

Although the Government do not propose major changes, they will, for example, pass to the CAA the obligation to

“make arrangements for carrying out that vetting, including… arrangements for renewing and withdrawing clearance”.

In addition, the CAA rather than the Secretary of State must maintain the list of persons approved to provide particular aviation security services. For almost all my career, until I came here, I worked in education, and that list sounds very much like our list 99. I know about and understand the security and sensitivity around list 99; the very idea of transferring responsibilities for maintaining a similar list from the Secretary of State to the CAA is simply unacceptable. Will the Minister explain why she believes that the Department for Transport should no longer bear responsibility for keeping the list? What will be the Secretary of State’s role in reviewing or maintaining it, as the Bill removes all such laws?

Concerns have been raised by staff representatives. Mr Moloney, who represents the Department for Transport trade union side, warned against changing a critical system developed in the aftermath of the Lockerbie bombing, which has proved its effectiveness over the years. He argued that the division between policy operation is not always clear cut, that the division between the two organisations would be a recipe for confusion and delay and that there would be a danger of things falling between two stools.

Again, I bring in my background in children’s services. We know that tragedy and disaster lie in that gap. Where there is confusion and where no one is sure whose job something is—that is where disaster lies. We must ask the Minister strong questions about how the transfer will be implemented. She must set out precisely who will be doing what, and how policy decisions will be implemented, because there is confusion about the matter.

The Minister tried to reassure us that the separation of policy making from operation is not unusual. She cited the example of policing, in which policy is set by the Home Secretary and operational decisions are made by the chief constable. She denied that ministerial accountability for aviation security would be reduced when the Bill is enacted. However, I remain concerned that the provision to transfer aviation security regulations and functions from the Department to the CAA was made at a late stage.

Roger Gale (Conservative, North Thanet)

I remind the Committee that with this we are discussing the following: amendment 76, in clause 78, page 48, line 8, at end insert—

(a) The Secretary of State may direct the CAA to implement an outcomes-focused, risk-based aviation security regime to govern the exercise of the CAA’s functions under this Part of the Act;

(b) if making directions under this subsection, the Secretary of State must by order set out the framework for the introduction of the outcomes-focused, risk-based aviation security regime;

(c) an order under this subsection must be approved by a resolution of each House of Parliament.’.

Amendment 33, in clause 109, page 64, line 29, at end insert—

‘(2A) In relation to section 78, an order under this section must set a commencement date which is later than the date of the satisfactory introduction of an outcomes-focused, risk-based aviation security regime.’.

Pat Glass (Labour, North West Durham)

I will quickly recap what I said this morning, but I will not start from the beginning as I have entertained the Committee enough.

I talked about the concerns raised by the Select Committee on Transport, the industry and, latterly, the staff. I was fair to the Minister by saying that she had pointed out that separating policy making from operation was not unusual and had cited the example of the Home Secretary, whereby the chief constables make operational decisions.

I remain concerned, however, that the decision to transfer aviation security regulatory functions from the Department for Transport to the Civil Aviation Authority was included at a late stage and has not been subject to sufficient pre-legislative consultation or scrutiny. I am also concerned about clarity on who is responsible for what, which is always a recipe for disaster, and on which staff will transfer.

We have been told that 85 staff will transfer, but that involves some major assumptions. Do they all want to transfer? Have we asked them? How many are of an age to choose early retirement? How many will, in the run-up to April 2014, choose to transfer to other Departments rather than be forcibly transferred to the CAA?

We have heard that staff are worried about the terms and conditions, status and redundancy rights that they have built up and may lose in the transfer. I do not think we can safely assume that 85 staff will simply transfer because the Government wish them to.

We should also remember that the staff cannot easily be replaced. I am told that they are highly specialised and experienced—we are not talking about the upstairs maid—and cannot be replaced. Such staff do not hang on the back of doors waiting for us to pick them up. At the risk of stating the obvious, any of us who has worked with and managed large numbers of staff knows that staff simply do not do what we might wish. Even if the Government wish the staff to transfer as a block, slavery has been abolished. Those highly skilled and experienced staff have many other options. We have to accept that any transfer will create gaps. How do the Government plan to fill those gaps?

Before the Bill proceeds, the Minister needs to explain not only to the CAA, but to the aviation industry and others, the detailed division of security responsibilities, how the transfer will happen and how it will operate in the public interest. She has not yet made the case for that transfer, so will she explain how she intends to ensure that ministerial responsibility for aviation security will not be reduced if the Bill is enacted in its current form? What action, if any, has she taken on the Transport Committee’s recommendations? How does she envisage the division of security responsibilities working in practice?

Going back to what I said this morning, I know from my experience of working in children’s services and child protection that tragedies and disasters happen in the gaps between responsibilities. They do not happen in those areas where everybody knows what they are doing; they happen where it is nobody’s responsibility and everybody thinks that somebody else is doing the relevant thing. How will the division of responsibilities work in practice? What evaluation has been made of the risks? What are the Government’s plans for the potential loss of expertise and experience? Finally, how will the proposed detailed division of security responsibilities operate in the public interest?

Julie Hilling (Labour, Bolton West)

I, too, share the Transport Committee’s concern about the transfer of duties to the CAA. I share the concern about the loss of expertise that the transfer could entail; I know that that will be discussed further under future clauses. I am also concerned about the total “user pays” principle, because we do not use that for the police or for other safety and security issues and services. The Government need to explore further some of the issues around transferring all that to the “user pays” principle.

I specifically want to discuss my concerns about the outcomes-focused risk-based approach to security. As my colleagues have said, the terrorist has to get through only once, and we have to be 100% successful at stopping terrorist activity. I am still not convinced that the focus on outcomes will achieve the necessary ends.

On costs, the Government say that the freedom of airports to devise their own systems could lead to cost savings, and that worries me hugely. Will that mean airports potentially looking at how they can cut costs, and will they therefore be cutting corners? I am concerned that some airports will be less rigorous. Our biggest concern over the past few years has been about transatlantic services, which are high-prestige targets for terrorists. However, any attack on any airport or airliner—or train, ship or anything else—would be significant and would have that wonderful splash of publicity that terrorists like to see. If we do not prescribe what airports should include in their security services, the risk is that we will not be able to monitor them properly, and some of the smaller airports may become soft targets for terrorists.

On discrimination, security services have talked to us about the profiling of potential offenders, but I am concerned that people with brown skin are more likely than others to be pulled over for more rigorous security checks. I am not yet convinced that that will not occur, and we have certainly seen it happening with stop-and-search on the streets. Will that be replicated in our airports?

Chris Heaton-Harris (Conservative, Daventry)

Is the hon. Lady comparing the stop-and-search of the ’70s and ’80s with the highly intelligent risk-based profiling that goes on in the security system nowadays?

Julie Hilling (Labour, Bolton West)

I am not talking about the ’70s and ’80s; I am talking about what is happening with stop-and-search on our streets today and about the police targeting certain groups. The percentage of black and minority ethnic people who are stopped and searched by the police is much higher than that for the white population. The police can argue, as can any security service, that certain people are more likely to be involved in street crime and gang-related violence, but the result of that is the capturing of everybody of a certain colour or ethnicity, which becomes worrying.

I want to discuss what was going on in Manchester, because the system there meant that someone would not be targeted because they looked or behaved in a certain way or had a certain background. It was about everybody being treated the same in certain ways, and then people being picked out for extra attention. The issue should not be based on ethnicity, but I am concerned that that will continue.

Kwasi Kwarteng (Conservative, Spelthorne)

Is the suggestion that the security provisions in the Bill will make the situation worse in respect of profiling?

Julie Hilling (Labour, Bolton West)

That is my concern. I am not saying that it is based on any evidence, but the points on which people will be profiled must be specified. We were told, both at the Select Committee and here, that the issue is also about looking at people’s behaviour—how they purchase tickets, insurance policies and other things. However, I am concerned that a fundamental element underneath that is saying, “But that group of people is more likely to be committing that offence.” Certainly, that happens on the streets with the police. The idea is that a certain group of people is more likely to commit an offence.

Henry Smith (Conservative, Crawley)

On Monday, in Washington, I met Homeland Security officials from the Transportation Security Administration. Profiling carried out by US and British authorities is far more sophisticated than simply profiling people crudely; it includes looking at how tickets are purchased and whether cash is used. Other sophisticated profiling methods are used. That has to be beneficial for the security of the travelling public.

Julie Hilling (Labour, Bolton West)

I am glad that the hon. Gentleman is reassured by all those things. I am not yet reassured. I hope that the Minister will reassure me and colleagues that the proposals will ensure that people are caught and not able to commit atrocities in our skies.

There is an increasing number of complaints from disabled people concerned about how they have been treated at airports, particularly when people with colostomy bags, or other physical attributes, have needed pat-down searches and so on. Again, we must consider how we are going to ensure that disabled people are not discriminated against.

I went on a trip to Auschwitz with my hon. Friend the Member for Barrow and Furness, who was on crutches; he was taken away to be searched because he was on crutches and setting off machines. That demonstrated that somebody with a disability—fortunately, a temporary disability in my hon. Friend’s case—was singled out for different treatment because he was on crutches.

Chris Heaton-Harris (Conservative, Daventry)

The hon. Lady is so completely wrong that it defies belief. The hon. Member for Barrow and Furness, who was legless at the time, was taken away for a different security procedure precisely because he had crutches on and therefore would set off the machines. To allow everybody else on the plane to feel secure, he had to undergo a special security check. This is what happens. It is not special profiling or discrimination; it is just security.

Julie Hilling (Labour, Bolton West)

Are we saying that every disabled person must be subject to special checks because they are on crutches, leading to their being treated differently?

John Woodcock (Barrow and Furness) (Lab/Co-op) rose—

Julie Hilling (Labour, Bolton West)

I give way to my hon. Friend, who had the experience.

John Woodcock (Labour, Barrow and Furness)

Let me explain myself and what happened in the airport on the way back from Auschwitz. I had done my knee in and had a metal strap around it. The problem was that that set off security scanners. In that instance, the airport did the right thing, because I was led off and put in a private room to take my trousers down while officials had a good prod around. [ Laughter .] I will not dwell on that for longer than necessary.

My hon. Friend makes a good point, however. Although Warsaw airport did things right and enabled me to do that in privacy, there are still too many examples of airports that do not allow that, which is why I am glad that my hon. Friends have tabled the amendment.

Julie Hilling (Labour, Bolton West)

I thank my hon. Friend, because it is about people being treated differently. That has happened to a number of people, and they have certainly written to me—if not to other members of the Committee—about their having medical evidence to prove they have a colostomy bag, for example. That should mean they are not singled out, treated differently and given a pat-down, or subjected to other searches. If a person has a colostomy bag, they should—[ Interruption. ] The hon. Member for North Herefordshire looks puzzled. I hope he is puzzled by the fact that an airport is treating people in such a way, and not by my talking about it.

All people should be treated with respect and in the right way. It is a question of how people should be treated in the first place, rather than adopting an-outcomes focused, risk-based approach.

Theresa Villiers (Conservative, Chipping Barnet)

I would like to give some reassurance. As we will discuss in considering the next set of amendments, it is vital that disabled people be treated with dignity and respect, whether during the security process or in relation to anything else at the airport. It is important, however, that they be subject to the appropriate security checks, both for their safety and that of other passengers. If any group receives special, lighter treatment, it makes them a target for terrorists who might seek to blackmail them into taking explosive devices on planes.

Julie Hilling (Labour, Bolton West)

I thank the Minister for that intervention. We are in agreement, because it is about the “how”. I absolutely agree that some people should not be treated better than others, but we need to work out how to deal with this issue.

My hon. Friend the Member for Blackley and Broughton has mentioned Manchester airport, and I want to talk about the scheme in place there and the concerns that have emerged. Since 2009, Manchester airport has been trialling body scanners that use backscatter X-ray technology, which has not yet had EU approval. The radiation from a body scan is equivalent to cruising for two minutes at altitude, and the scanners have been approved by the Health Protection Agency. However, when the trial ends in October 2012, unless there is an extension, the airport will not be able to continue using those scanners.

The passenger approval rate for the body scanner is 95%. People much prefer it to the old-fashioned pat-down search, as do security staff. It avoids the need to touch the passenger, and for a lot of bending and stretching. Not everybody goes through the body scanner, but everybody goes through the first security phase. Then, a door opens and people either go through the body scanner, or they go straight ahead. The system has worked, but the concern is that if the EU does not approve it, the investment will be wasted.

On the outcomes-focused, risk-based approach, the Minister seems to be saying that the Bill gives airports the chance to innovate and to look at other ways of reaching the same solution. However, that approach is not working for Manchester airport, because it will not be able to continue using the scanners unless the Government can agree with the EU that that system should continue. That raises an ongoing issue: will airports be less likely to want to innovate? Will they be less likely to want to invest their own money in different security systems—which may reduce costs or be more efficient, for example—if they can be prevented from using them? Even if the outcomes that the Government desire were being achieved, a different input method would be being used. My worry is that there is not a clear enough picture of how we achieve the outcomes-focused, risk-based focus.

Chris Heaton-Harris (Conservative, Daventry)

I completely understand the hon. Lady’s points. Perhaps she is willing to join the EU Fresh Start cross-party group in this place and vote against certain EU regulations, or to try to repatriate the powers that cause the problems, so that Manchester airport can provide security in the way the Bill envisages. It is not the Bill that will stop innovation in this context; it is the European Union’s regulations.

Julie Hilling (Labour, Bolton West)

I think I will resist the hon. Gentleman’s invitation to join his group. However, this is a worldwide issue, and we need to make sure that passengers returning to and departing from the UK have stringent security checks. Whether it is across the European Union or globally, we need to have security systems in place that we can all live and work with.

I hope the Minister will come back to this issue. I am not at all convinced that saying that there is an outcomes-focused, risk-based approach will allow innovation or ensure that all our airports have the same level of security. It is not just about EU regulations; we operate globally, and it is a question of ensuring that air passengers, and people on the ground, are safe. Will airports be able to innovate in the current situation, even in the light of this Bill? I suspect that innovation will not happen, which will have all sorts of consequences for us.

Roger Gale (Conservative, North Thanet)

I shall now call the Minister. I know that Mr Woodcock wants to come back on some stand part issues. Depending on how the debate then develops, I will call Mr Stringer to wind up and indicate whether he wishes to move his amendment formally.

Theresa Villiers (Conservative, Chipping Barnet)

I am grateful for the opportunity to have a wide-ranging debate on an important issue. I will run through a number of the points made by hon. Members before looking at the wider issues concerning the transfer of functions to the CAA and the nature of the complementary reform, which is a move to an outcomes-focused, risk-based approach to aviation security regulation. In response to points made by a number of Members, including the hon. Members for Barrow and Furness and for Strangford, I can confirm that security is paramount. That is the case under the current system and will remain so under the reformed system. Matters such as cost and passenger convenience are significant ones to consider, but keeping passengers secure will always be the paramount consideration.

The Government would not be putting forward the changes set out in the Bill if we believed they would in any way jeopardise the current high levels of security that we deliver in the UK aviation sector. As I will explain, we believe that combining safety and security regulatory enforcement functions in the same body, and the move to outcomes-focused, risk-based security, have the potential to improve high security levels still further.

In response to some of the points made by the hon. Member for Blackley and Broughton, yes, it is acknowledged that transferring regulatory enforcement functions to the CAA will mean that the cost of the system is transferred to the aviation industry. That will add some £4.8 million to industry costs, but that is significantly outweighed by the reduction in regulatory costs provided by other parts of the Bill. As I informed the Committee last week, the Bill will deliver a reduction in costs for the aviation sector of approximately £150 million net present value over 20 years. That does not include any potential savings the industry might make as a result of a move to outcomes-focused, risk-based security.

The hon. Member for Blackley and Broughton also referred to the 1p and 2p figures in the impact assessment. The net cost per passenger is 1p, and for freight owners the net cost per kilogram of cargo is 0.001p. Where the cost is applied only to passengers, it is 2p. The hon. Gentleman also expressed concern—as did the hon. Member for Bolton West—that the aviation industry had to pay for the costs of security, and he asked for examples of the approach taken overseas. Like the UK, most European countries apply the “user pays” principle. We believe that it is fair to ask those who use and provide aviation services to meet the costs of keeping them secure. The last Government did not propose to change that approach during their 13 years in office; if the Opposition now propose doing so, that would involve a spending commitment of some £1 billion.

The hon. Gentleman also mentioned APD. Tempting as it is to trespass on to that turf, taxation matters are of course a matter for the Chancellor, as he will appreciate. He also highlighted the cost of computers, referring to an estimate of £1.5 million. That figure includes some transitional costs, but his point is well made and it will of course be important for this project to be properly managed and scrutinised, as arrangements for the transfer of functions develop. The Department will be making those arrangements with care. The Government take seriously the need to improve the track record we inherited from the previous Administration on IT projects whose costs spiralled out of control.

Both the hon. Gentleman and the hon. Member for Bolton West mentioned the very successful security scanner scheme run by the Manchester Airports Group, involving backscatter technology. As I said in an intervention, the Government have been very impressed by the results of the pilot, although it is currently just a pilot and not authorised as a primary screening method for the purposes of EU regulation. The issue is still under discussion and has been referred for further expert consideration. We continue enthusiastically to support the approval of this type of scanner as a primary screening method for the purposes of EU regulation.

A number of Members—the shadow Minister, and the hon. Member for North West Durham in particular—talked about how the split of responsibilities between the CAA and the Department for Transport will work in practice. It is an important issue, which is one of the reasons why the Department has circulated a note to Committee members giving them further insight into our approach. I emphasise that the policy and the giving of directions will remain the responsibility of the Secretary of State for Transport. The CAA will be given responsibility for enforcement and for providing advice on policy and directions.

The shadow Minister mentioned the introduction of the rules on liquids and the circumstances that led to their introduction. Under the new system and the proposed transfer of responsibilities to the CAA, such changes would still be decided by the Secretary of State. They would be advised by the CAA, which is the expert regulator dealing with the front line and enforcing the provisions, but the Secretary of State would decide whether additional rules on liquids, for example, were required.

John Woodcock (Labour, Barrow and Furness)

I had understood that; that was our understanding of what the regime would be. My particular question is about capacity. Once significant efficiencies have been made in a risk-based system, is there not an increased risk that, if such increased stringency suddenly needed to be directed again, a more fragmented and pared-down system would be unable to meet that challenge?

Theresa Villiers (Conservative, Chipping Barnet)

I was going to come to that, actually. The capacity issue is very important. When the liquids rules were introduced, my understanding is that there were certainly issues with capacity, which is why queues lengthened considerably for some time after that. However, I think that I can provide the hon. Gentleman with some reassurance on the point. As in the current regime, ensuring that airports take appropriate steps to deal with contingencies—preparing for them and providing the necessary spare capacity to react to changing circumstances—will form part of the new regime.

I want to give a further illustration of the split of responsibility between the CAA and the DFT. If, for example, problems were to arise, as was the case with the impact of new EU rules on the searching of religious headgear, it would again be entirely open to the Secretary of State under the new system to take exactly the same steps as the former Secretary of State took in that instance—temporarily to suspend the operation of the new EU rules until a way could be found to run a pilot to provide a more culturally sensitive way to ensure that the goals of the EU rules were achieved.

John Woodcock (Labour, Barrow and Furness)

The Minister is being generous with her time. I was going to touch on that topic in the next debate. As she has brought it up, I should say that she will be aware that, although the trial has been implemented, it is not universal. There are still significant problems in some areas. Indeed, my right hon. Friend the Member for Warley (Mr Spellar) and my hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton North East (Emma Reynolds) raised the issue with me last night and hoped I would be able to press the Minister on it. Does the Minister think that any change could create another opportunity to get more universal coverage for the issue of Sikh headgear being treated with greater sensitivity, or could it place greater barriers?

Theresa Villiers (Conservative, Chipping Barnet)

As I am sure the hon. Gentleman is aware, a significant majority of the UK’s major airports are participating in the pilot. We have been very impressed with its results so far. We are also ensuring that the European Commission is made aware of progress on the pilot, because we think there is potential for lessons to be learned in relation to the EU rules. I have written to Transport Ministers across Europe, explaining the work we are doing on this and the importance of the issue to minority ethnic communities in the UK.

The hon. Gentleman asked whether similar risk-based approaches are being developed elsewhere; one example is the field of civil nuclear security. He asked whether it was worth going ahead with an outcomes-focused, risk-based—or OFRB—approach in relation to UK rules before the EU rules start to adopt a similar approach.

I would argue that it is worth making progress even before any changes at EU level. Roughly a third of the rules that we apply in aviation security regulation are UK-based. There is real scope for OFRB to deliver change, even if the EU does not subsequently follow a similar approach. We hope that with engagement the EU will find that an outcomes-focused, risk-based approach could play a positive part in improving security outcomes across Europe.

The hon. Member for Bolton West asked about profiling. We do not use profiling as a means of selecting passengers for security searches. Ethnicity is expressly excluded by the rules as a criterion for selecting people for searches. We have been working with security agencies on what value behavioural analysis could provide in aviation security, but again that focuses not on ethnicity, but on issues such as paying cash for a ticket.

I hope the hon. Lady will be reassured that her fears are not justified by the present system. We have no plans to change that at the moment, and neither the move to the CAA in terms of enforcement of regulation responsibilities nor an OFRB approach to security need have any impact on that general approach.

Julie Hilling (Labour, Bolton West)

I am confused. Some of the people who gave evidence to us talked very much about this, although “profiling” may be the wrong word to use. In answer to questioning, they talked about looking at the individual in terms of the risk they pose. They seemed to talk very much about profiling, although, as I said, I am not sure that “profiling” in its full sense is the correct word. It is used in the sense that a person fits certain patterns. I am confused by the Minister’s statement that that is not used now and will not be in future.

Theresa Villiers (Conservative, Chipping Barnet)

I can only repeat that ethnicity is expressly excluded as a criterion for selecting people for security searches. That is the case now and the Government have no plans to change that. The changes in the Bill would have no impact on that.

On the general issues to do with the security reforms, the Government are committed to reforming how aviation security is regulated and that work features prominently in the Department for Transport’s business plan. I welcome the indication of support in the amendments and from some, although not all, members of the Committee.

We have put together a joint Department for Transport and CAA team with the relevant skills and knowledge to develop, trial and implement the new regime. We have consulted stakeholders and hosted several interactive events with industry to explain our proposals and understand industry views. Later amendments will give us more opportunity to debate staff transfer in greater detail with the hon. Member for North West Durham, so I will not dwell on that, but we are already engaging with those staff because we fully value the skills that they offer, and we are hoping that as many of them as possible will want to stay in post.

We are analysing the responses to the consultation before making decisions on the next step. We will move forward with our reformed approach to security regulation as quickly as possible, but the priority must be to ensure that aviation security remains robust at all times. The industry asked for the move to an OFRB regime, experts on security regulation expressed support for it in the evidence sessions and it had the support of the previous Government.

The proposal to enable the industry to use security management systems approaches, which would draw on the safety management system approach currently used by the CAA, will have a positive impact on security outcomes. As I said during the evidence sessions, an outcomes-focused approach could deliver important benefits and could well be expected to improve levels of security above the high standards that apply today, because we will be giving more opportunity for the airport industry to develop innovative ways to deliver security outcomes and apply principles of continuous improvement.

A focus on outcomes, with more flexibility for airports to decide the best way to deliver them, should enable security to be delivered in a potentially more passenger-friendly and lower-cost way. Conferring aviation security regulation enforcement functions on the CAA could also benefit industry. With the industry able to deal with only one regulatory body, rather than two, we anticipate that efficiencies could be gained through having aviation security and safety regulation in one place.

The CAA also has valuable experience not only of regulation generally, but of safety management systems designed to manage risks as effectively as possible. Such experience, coupled with the skills and experience of Department for Transport staff, could benefit how we regulate aviation security.

We need to get such things right to ensure that our aviation security is not at risk. The Committee had a reminder of that during the evidence that Andrew Haines, chief executive of the CAA, gave the Committee on 23 February. The amendments ask us to press ahead quickly with outcomes-based security, but he emphasised his concerns about a “one-hit implementation”. In his view, moving regulatory responsibilities at the same time as a big transition to an OFRB approach would be a riskier strategy than a staged approach. It is also not possible to move to an OFRB system in a one-off change; it will take some years to roll out across industry, depending to a significant extent on the pace at which different airports want to deliver new systems and methods.

The new approach is in some senses a cultural change, which will take some time to filter out across the industry. We will press on with reforming the aviation security regime at an appropriate pace, but do so in a way that avoids risking our aviation security by clustering reforms too closely. That is why I am unable to accept amendment 33, which explicitly links the two.

On amendment 34, I assure the hon. Member for Blackley and Broughton that section 21 of the Civil Aviation Act 1982 already obliges the CAA to make an annual report to the Secretary of State on the performance of its functions during the year. Subsection (2)(d) enables the Secretary of State to specify such information with respect to the plans and the past and present activities of the CAA that shall be included in its annual reports. Subsection (3) requires the Secretary of State to lay a copy of every report made to her before each House of Parliament. The requirements of the 1982 Act are sufficient to achieve the purposes of amendment 34.

The CAA’s aviation security functions, as conferred on it by the Bill, would fall within the scope of section 21 of the 1982 Act. Thus the CAA will be required to report on those to the Secretary of State, who in turn must lay the reports before Parliament. There is nothing to prevent the Secretary of State, when using the powers given to her under section 21 of 1982 Act, from requiring the CAA to report on its work regarding the outcomes-focused, risk-based approach to aviation security.

I hope that that explanation provides the reassurance needed to persuade the hon. Gentleman to withdraw the amendment.

John Woodcock (Labour, Barrow and Furness)

Thank you, Sir Roger, for indulging me a little bit further in setting out our general concerns about the clause. I ought to have done so in my first speech, but foolishly I had not anticipated that we would not have a stand part debate.

First, I am disappointed that the Minister rejects our amendment’s proposals for a sensible, greater level of parliamentary scrutiny for the move to a risk-based system. Such scrutiny could be a sensible way to ensure greater confidence in the measure and tease out any further, as yet unknown, problems with the proposal. We will not force the amendment to a vote, but we hope that the Minister will give it serious thought before Report and return with something a bit more measured—I do not suggest that she has not been measured; Committee members know what I mean.

My hon. Friends have mentioned concerns about the clause, but it is worth stressing the manner in which the changes have appeared, which increases our concern about the process and therefore, potentially, the outcome of the changes. The proposal to transfer security is one of the most significant changes in the Bill, so we are slightly at a loss about the haphazard way in which it has evolved. It is worth stressing that, at the time of the Queen’s Speech, the Government had no intention to include security in the Bill. The pre-legislative scrutiny report makes it clear that industry witnesses told the Committee that there had been no discussion with them about that aspect of the Bill.

Thus far the Minister has not adequately explained why the Government have chosen to go about the process in so rushed a way. Why does she believe that now is the right time to make the change, given that, as we have already discussed, a consultation is under way on moving to risk-based security? How will the new system overcome the challenge of increased fragmentation in moving security functions to the CAA, while retaining security policy and direction with the Secretary of State? That is important.

Again, we are not necessarily opposed to such a move. As the Select Committee mentioned, there may be welcome synergies in placing safety and security functions under one regulator, but the case has not yet adequately been made. All Committee members should be clear that these are big changes. For example, shifting vetting, renewing and withdrawing security clearance to the CAA is a remarkable expansion of its capacities and we should leave no room for doubt about its ability to undertake the new responsibilities.

The Minister rightly suggested that there would be greater discussion about this matter in debates on future clauses, but there are widely acknowledged difficulties to do with the staff transfer involved. I hope that she can tell us, either now or in future debates, how she has such apparent confidence—at the moment, frankly, we do not share it—in the ability of the Department and the CAA to manage the process of transfer effectively so that we end up with the right result.

The concerns of the trade union representative have been well set out, and it is worth adding a flavour of similar concerns that airline and airport representatives have expressed about the lack of clarity. For example, David Hart of British Airways told the Transport Committee:

“There is a lack of clarity for us, as an airline, about exactly who will be doing what and how the policy decisions will be filtered down and implemented.”

In the light of all that, I press the Minister to set out more convincingly how she can be confident that the proposed division of responsibilities is sufficiently robust and clear.

My final point concerns timing. On Second Reading, the shadow Secretary of State, my hon. Friend the Member for Garston and Halewood (Maria Eagle), raised concerns about the proposed time scale for the transfer. The Under-Secretary of State for Transport, the hon. Member for Lewes (Norman Baker), responded to the debate, because it was on the day or just after—

Theresa Villiers (Conservative, Chipping Barnet)

I was on the operating table.

John Woodcock (Labour, Barrow and Furness)

The Minister was on the operating table at the time, and for some reason seemed unwilling to make the commitment to do her duties in the House. The Under-Secretary of State for Transport responded to the question in writing, stating that the DFT was aiming for a transfer of function to the CAA in spring 2014.

I feel a little indelicate about doing so, but it is important to point out that the Department has got itself a bit of a reputation for tardiness under the stewardship of the Minister and her colleagues. We have these brand spanking new departmental business plans, but the deadlines that they loving set out regularly sail past without the Department’s raising so much as an eyebrow.

The Secretary of State has just finished setting out the Government’s rail strategy, which was originally timetabled for November last year, and there is still no sign of a policy on airport capacity. The fact that Ministers regularly fail to meet deadlines set only a few months in advance means that we must surely treat the spring 2014 deadline with some scepticism.

Will the Minister give us a whizz-bang, copper-bottomed guarantee in this debate that that deadline will be met, or will she at least set out her continued commitment to the time scale given by the Under-Secretary of State for Transport for the transfer of aviation security regulation functions? In addition, will she set out how many staff are or will be working on the arrangements for the transfer of functions, and the expected costs of making that transfer? Those costs have not been fully set out in any statement that has been made so far.

Clause 78 represents the largest shake-up of aviation security regulation in well over a decade, and it is right that we continue to press for details before we are able to give it our support.

Theresa Villiers (Conservative, Chipping Barnet)

I will respond briefly. I spared the Committee my technical concerns about amendment 76, but as the shadow Minister is keen to press the point, I will return to them. I do not see that amendment 76 would produce the enhanced parliamentary scrutiny that he feels it would. It seems to suggest that the Civil Aviation Authority could implement the outcomes-focused, risk-based aviation security regulatory regime. That is a misunderstanding of how aviation security regulation is implemented, and how it would be implemented under the new arrangements in the Bill. Part 2 of the Aviation Security Act 1982 sets out the Secretary of State’s powers to give directions to industry for the purposes of that part of the Act. Those powers broadly cover the protection of civil aviation against acts of violence. It is those powers that the Secretary of State intends to use to implement the requirements relating to outcomes-focused, risk-based regulation.

Clause 78 inserts new section 14A into the 1982 Act, which confers on the CAA a duty to review the aviation security directions currently in force and make recommendations to the Secretary of State about them and about giving further directions. The clause also amends the definition of “authorised person” in section 24A of the 1982 Act, so that it can mean a person authorised in writing by the Secretary of State or the CAA. Authorised persons—that is, inspectors—monitor and enforce compliance with the directions in force.

The CAA will not, therefore, have the power to give aviation security regulation directions to industry. As I have said, that is a matter for the Secretary of State under the current and proposed regimes. There would, therefore, be no point in the Secretary of State directing the CAA in the terms suggested in amendment 76.

John Woodcock (Labour, Barrow and Furness)

I am grateful to the Minister for picking up on what she believes is our imperfect drafting. I would be delighted if she wanted to take the amendment away to her splendid team of civil servants and bring back something that she believes would do the trick on Report. I would be happy to withdraw the amendment in those circumstances.

Theresa Villiers (Conservative, Chipping Barnet)

I am afraid that I do not find that an attractive option, because I have not found the shadow Minister’s arguments convincing. As I say, I find it surprising that Labour has made another U-turn, because it supported this general approach in government. It has certainly changed its approach.

Consultation has taken place on a possible move to an outcomes-focused, risk-based security approach. The transfer to the CAA proposed in the Bill was referred to in that consultation. Pre-legislative scrutiny has also taken place, including on the provisions on transfer of responsibilities between the Department for Transport and the CAA. I assure the Committee that the DFT is actively engaging with staff on the transfer’s impact on them.

The shadow Minister persists in the allegation that the outcomes-focused, risk-based security approach will lead to lower standards and increased fragmentation. I do not believe that it will. As I have said on numerous occasions, there are good arguments that the new approach could improve security as well as making it more passenger-friendly. We have an example of where such an approach has worked well. The CAA’s safety management system has much in common with the security management system that will be an important part of an OFRB approach. The safety management system has been incredibly successful in protecting and keeping safe passengers on aircraft in this country.

The shadow Minister persists in concern about the division of responsibility. We have sought to provide further detail as the process goes forward. We will provide further details nearer to the implementation of the transfer, but the reality is that our proposals are not out of line with other regulatory contexts where Ministers set policy and give directions and enforcement is left to expert independent regulators.

Graham Stringer (Labour, Blackley and Broughton)

This debate has ranged widely from European regulations to the prodding of my hon. Friend the shadow Minister by security staff. I intend to address just four issues, if my arithmetic is right.

Will the Minister—I will happily give way to her—agree to put in the Library or provide to members of this Committee the information that she was relying on when she said that the funding basis for security in other European airports was akin to the proposals in the Bill? I have no reason to disbelieve her, as she has always been straightforward in her dealings with me, the Transport Committee and this Committee, but I would like to see the evidence.

Mrs Villiers indicated assent.

Graham Stringer (Labour, Blackley and Broughton)

The Minister is nodding, so I look forward to the Committee receiving that information.

I was less convinced by the Minister’s belief that the aviation industry would have fewer costs at the end of the process. As any reading of the regulatory impact assessment will show, that view is at odds with the information in that assessment. At best there is ambiguity, and as we have debated the issue in Committee, the ambiguity on cost has increased. We do not understand how the CAA will approach its regulatory asset base. We do not even know why certain elements, such as hotels in terminals, are included. There is much that we do not know and cannot be sure about. The CAA may have a different approach to the economic regulation of airports, and the Minister’s argument rests on there being less regulation. I hope that she is right, because that would be the right direction to go in. However, she has not offered any reassurance that convinces me that that is definitely the case.

Sir Roger, I am sure that you will not let me get into a debate on European regulation, but we should all be worried about the transfer of functions from the CAA to the European Aviation Safety Agency; the Transport Committee has been concerned about that for some time. As the Minister will know from her recent visit to the Transport Committee to discuss flight time limitations, the Transport Committee is worried that European regulations will lead to lowest-common-denominator reforms. On that visit, the Minister was able to reassure the Committee—I do not want to pre-empt its report—that that would not be the case with pilot hours. On security and other issues, however, I am worried that the transfer to EASA will lead to lowest-common-denominator policies.

Those points bring me back to costs and what is really happening in the Bill. At the start of the debate, I read from a 2006 Transport Committee report that basically asked why, if many safety functions are transferred from the CAA to EASA, and if the general direction is to have less regulated airports, which I think the Committee would welcome, there will be more staff at the CAA at the end of the process than when it had two major functions. If the Minister looks at the evidence given to the Transport Committee, she will find that the CAA will grow, not diminish, despite the significant losses and the addition of the security service.

I will not repeat what my hon. Friend the Member for Barrow and Furness said about the security services, but my worries are similar. The Transport Committee clearly stated that the proposal was added to the Bill at the last minute. It is not wrong in principle, but sufficient thought has perhaps not been given to it. As the trade unions said, if it ain’t broke, why try to fix it? To put that in a different way, if an awful thing happened because of a security lapse, and there was successful terrorist attack in this country, who would be to blame? Under the regulations, is it easier to know whether the Secretary of State, the chair of the CAA or its chief executive are to blame? There is a balance to be struck between the synergies of putting the security and safety functions together in the CAA, which the Minister has talked about, and the transparency of the line of responsibility up to the Cabinet and the Secretary of State for Transport. I am unconvinced that adding the measure quickly at the end of the process will provide clarification or improvement. That is a different way of saying that if it ain’t broke, why try to fix it?

Finally, the only difference between the Minister and me on amendment 34—she accepts the principle—is whether it should be in the Bill. The difference is not, as she said in response to my hon. Friend the Member for Barrow and Furness, about the speed of implementation. The amendment could be implemented at any speed. Rather than leaving the matter to the discretion of the Secretary of State, the amendment states that the principle is of sufficient importance to be in the Bill.

Having said that, this has been a wide-ranging debate, and I am certain that we will return to the subject of security on Report. I hope that the Minister will fair-mindedly reflect on the points raised. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Clause 80 - Advice and assistance in connection with aviation security

Nicholas Dakin (Labour, Scunthorpe)

I beg to move amendment 32, in clause 80, page 49, line 31, at end insert—

‘(2A) The CAA may also provide advice and assistance to such persons in connection with maintaining the dignity of disabled users of civil air services who are subject to security checks.’.

The amendment is in my name and the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Middlesbrough South and East Cleveland (Tom Blenkinsop), who, on 1 February, introduced a ten-minute rule Bill on the subject, drawing on his constituents’ experience.

Air travel is now commonplace for many people, but it is still stressful, whether they are travelling for leisure or business. My hon. Friend the Member for North West Durham told the Committee of her family’s experience of how such stresses may manifest themselves from time to time. Treating people, whatever their particular needs, with courtesy and dignity, and as individuals, is crucial, and they should be respected by airport security personnel when those personnel are carrying out their proper and important duties.

Security and individual needs need to be balanced, so that both imperatives are properly delivered. Earlier, there was a useful exchange between my hon. Friend the Member for Bolton West and the hon. Member for Daventry that, in a sense, illustrated the need for both requirements to be well met. We were treated to more information than we really wanted on the trials and tribulations of my hon. Friend the Member for Barrow and Furness. Security personnel should handle issues appropriately and properly, so as to allow dignity to be recognised while security needs are met.

Amendment 32 would allow the Civil Aviation Authority to provide advice to ensure that the dignity of stoma bag users and other disabled people is protected at airport security checkpoints throughout the United Kingdom and the European Union. I will draw heavily on the information provided by my hon. Friend the Member for Middlesbrough South and East Cleveland. In his ten-minute rule Bill, he drew attention to the fact that many people who have faced life-threatening health conditions, such as bowel cancer, bladder cancer and Crohn’s disease, have had to undergo colostomies and urostomies. Such surgery should not, and does not, end their right to travel, whether for business, pleasure, or to see friends and family. Nor should it end their right to be treated with dignity while travelling.

Unfortunately, sometimes things go wrong—perhaps more often than we would wish. My hon. Friend the Member for Middlesbrough South and East Cleveland drew attention to the experience of one of his constituents, who had cancer and now requires both urostomy and colostomy pouches. She was humiliated by her experience in several airports. At Budapest airport, she explained to security personnel that she had a difficulty. They were far from sympathetic. After a pat-down search, they wanted to examine her underwear, despite her attempts to explain that she had colostomy pouches. She was required to attempt to explain to them in front of fellow holidaymakers in the security queue, and she found the experience, as we all would, totally degrading.

Sadly, such practices and such a lack of sympathy are not unique. The constituent of my hon. Friend the Member for Middlesbrough South and East Cleveland described similar poor treatment at an airport in the north-east. The purpose of the amendment is to address these concerns. Despite the fact that my hon. Friend’s constituent had a card and a doctor’s letter with an explanation of her situation in several languages, she none the less encountered difficulties. She was also separated from her hand luggage, which added to her problems. A man from Ballymena also had a letter signed by his doctor, and even offered to be searched privately. His letter and request were apparently ignored by the guard. Sadly, those are the sorts of practices that take place, and we would all agree that they need to be addressed properly.

The amendment would enable the CAA to give

“advice and assistance to such persons in conjunction with maintaining the dignity of disabled users of civil air services who are subject to security checks.”

I am sure that the Minister will reassure me that the matter will be taken seriously as the Bill proceeds, so that we can address the concerns of the constituents of my hon. Friend the Member for Middlesbrough South and East Cleveland and others, and ensure that this does not happen in future.

Theresa Villiers (Conservative, Chipping Barnet)

I fully agree with the hon. Gentleman on the crucial importance of ensuring that passengers are treated with dignity in their journey through the airport and onwards. Of course, that includes those who have disabilities and those with medical conditions requiring stoma bags and so on. The incidents he described are distressing, and involve behaviour that falls well below the standards that we expect from those running airport security systems. I fully agree about the importance of the matter for passengers with disabilities or reduced mobility. I hope that I can provide the Committee and the hon. Member for Scunthorpe with some of the reassurance that he sought: the goals that the amendment is designed to achieve are delivered by existing legislation.

Airports are regulated by European and domestic regulations when it comes to undertaking security checks on all passengers. It is the responsibility of airports to ensure that their customers are treated with respect and dignity. Some passengers may well worry about security checks and feel uncomfortable at being subjected to searches. It is important that the searches are conducted in such a way as to maintain the dignity of the passenger. It is important that such searches are carried out if security is to be maintained in the face of a real and continuing threat from terrorist groups that seek to do us harm. European regulation 1107 of 2006 covers the rights of disabled persons and persons with reduced mobility when travelling by air. It imposes legal obligations on airports and airlines, and penalties may be imposed for non-compliance.

The Civil Aviation (Access to Air Travel for Disabled Persons and Persons with Reduced Mobility) Regulations 2007 provide for the enforcement of regulation 1107 by the CAA. In addition, the Department for Transport has produced a comprehensive code of practice, which aims to provide assistance and guidance to the travel and aviation industry in meeting its obligations under regulation 1107 and, of course, the Disability Discrimination Act 1995. The code has a chapter on security at airports and includes detailed guidance to staff on the handling of security checks involving passengers with reduced mobility.

Moreover, clause 80 of the Bill inserts a new section, 21I, into the Aviation Security Act 1982 which requires the CAA to provide aviation security advice to airports, airlines and other groups set out in new subsection (3). In giving such advice, the CAA has to have regard to the purpose of Part 2 of the 1982 Act, which, broadly, is the protection of civil aviation against acts of violence. If the CAA considered it appropriate, that certainly could include advice about passengers with disabilities, mobility issues or the conditions referred to by the hon. Member for Scunthorpe. For example, it could relate to the Department for Transport’s code of practice on security checks.

I hope those comments reassure the hon. Gentleman, whose arguments I have listened to carefully. The Government place the same importance on ensuring that passengers are treated fairly and with dignity through airport security checks. There are provisions in the Bill and in previous legislation to provide appropriate protection.

Nicholas Dakin (Labour, Scunthorpe)

I thank the Minister for her comprehensive reply. I am sure that between now and consideration on Report, there will be the opportunity to reflect on all the assurances she has given, and in particular on how, through proposed new section 21I, the CAA can ensure that the advice that the amendment would have led it to put place will be put in place and monitored. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Clause 82 - Transfer schemes

John Woodcock (Labour, Barrow and Furness)

I beg to move amendment 66, in clause 82, page 51, line 10, leave out ‘the CAA’ and insert—

‘(a) the CAA;

(b) the individuals referred to in subsection 1(a); and

(c) trade unions representing the individuals referred to in subsection 1(a).’.

The amendment is intended to probe the Government a little further on the concerns about staff transfer, which have already been extensively debated, so I will not go over that ground again. I want to draw out a few more specifics that I hope the Minister can give clarity on.

Can the Minister assure the Committee that the transfer will not lead to a loss of expertise, which has been widely discussed thus far as a possibility? Specifically, why are secondments not seen as a better option for staff? What do Ministers intend to do beyond simply hoping that staff will stay on, which is effectively what her colleague the Under-Secretary of State for Transport, the hon. Member for Lewes, set out in his letter to the shadow Secretary of State?

The amendment would also give departmental employees who might be transferred to the CAA by the Bill—I think there are 84 posts—and their representatives the right to be consulted by the Secretary of State before any such transfer. Without provisions to give more support to staff who might be transferred, any such process could lead to a serious loss of expertise as employees leave before being transferred.

When the Minister address that issue will she also, as a brief hangover from the previous debate, give an example of when the previous Government supported a risk-based system for aviation security? That would be quite helpful, because she keeps accusing me of making U-turns, and I am not clear that I have done so

Theresa Villiers (Conservative, Chipping Barnet)

On that last point, I can provide some further information. That was the advice I was given on arriving at the Department for Transport. I seem to recollect that the previous Government made statements on this issue when I was in opposition; I will investigate further and provide the hon. Gentleman with an indication of the work done by the previous Government.

The Department for Transport has already begun engaging with staff and their trade union representatives on the proposed transfer to the CAA. The Department’s human resources unit has formally engaged with the trade unions—Public and Commercial Services, and Prospect—on matters relating to the proposed transfer of posts and post-holders to the CAA.

There have been briefing events for staff, including a joint event with the CAA on 31 January. We shall continue to engage with staff and their trade union representatives as we develop the transfer arrangements over the coming months and up until the planned transfer in spring 2014. Engagement with staff is vital, not least because we want to ensure that as many as possible transfer to the CAA, taking their skills and experience with them.

Our debates today have highlighted the crucial importance of aviation security. The Government very much value the skills, expertise and dedication of the people who carry out the work needed to ensure that security is appropriately and effectively regulated.

Julie Hilling (Labour, Bolton West)

The Transport Committee report recommended that the Department for Transport and the CAA should investigate employment arrangements—possibly including secondments, rather than transfers—to avoid losing experienced staff. Has the Minister looked at the possibility of secondments? She has talked about consultations taking place regarding transfers. What about alternative models? Have they been examined?

Theresa Villiers (Conservative, Chipping Barnet)

I will come to secondments in a moment, in response to the shadow Minister’s questions.

As I said to the Transport Committee in December last year, we hope that as many of our current staff as possible will want to stay in post following the transfer of their posts to the CAA. We will be working with them to provide as much visibility and clarity as possible about the transfer. I am afraid that we cannot answer all their questions yet, but I will reflect carefully on the points made today and on any made on the next set of amendments. All those will be passed back to the Secretary of State and the team dealing with the transition of posts from the Department for Transport to the CAA.

Nicholas Dakin (Labour, Scunthorpe)

I recognise from what she is saying that the Minister’s hope and wish is for people to stay in these roles. When the process has gone through, what percentage of people not transferring would she find concerning?

Theresa Villiers (Conservative, Chipping Barnet)

We are working to ensure that as many of the current post-holders transfer as possible. I do not think it would be productive to talk about percentages. We are making every effort to ensure that we retain as much expertise as possible when the current staff transfer to the CAA.

The engagement and consultation provided for in amendment 66 are already happening, so I hope that will persuade the shadow Minister to withdraw it. On the points made about secondment by the shadow Minister and the hon. Member for Bolton West, I appreciate that similar points were made by the Transport Committee and, of course, by the Public and Commercial Services Union in evidence to this Committee. We can and are looking at how secondments might be used as we develop our plans for the proposed transfer. However, we consider that seconding Department for Transport staff to the CAA instead of transferring them is unlikely to help ensure that experienced staff remain with the CAA when the secondments end. We do not see that as necessarily providing a solution, but we are prepared to consider whether it could play a part in the transitional arrangements.

Julie Hilling (Labour, Bolton West)

I am interested in the point that the Minister just made about when the secondment ends. My understanding is that, in the civil service, people are seconded to another Department on a long-term basis, so it would not be unusual to do that for the CAA. It is not about, “You’re seconded for 12 months”, but someone’s post is effectively seconded over, obviously with the finance for it coming out of a CAA budget rather than a DFT budget. It is not about when the secondment ends that person would be lost, because the secondment in that case and—as I understand it—across the civil service does not end until contractual arrangements with any Department actually change.

Theresa Villiers (Conservative, Chipping Barnet)

The key limitation on the use of secondments to try to respond to the concerns expressed by Opposition Members is that the Bill provides for these posts to transfer over. The posts will transfer over, even if there might be scope for using secondments as temporary measures. I see no way that we could achieve the result using secondments that the Bill provides for, namely a transfer of posts to the CAA. We hope that as many people as are in those posts currently will choose to stay in them when they transfer over to the CAA and we will continue to engage with the work force to seek to bring that about. On that basis, I cannot support the amendments but, as I emphasised, what they require the Government to do is already under way.

John Woodcock (Labour, Barrow and Furness)

I welcome what I think was open-mindedness about secondments—

Theresa Villiers (Conservative, Chipping Barnet)

Yes.

John Woodcock (Labour, Barrow and Furness)

That is good. I welcome that and I will withdraw this amendment. I just urge the Minister to do more than the Government have done so far to make this process—if it goes ahead at all—have a greater chance of being successful and smooth. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Schedule 12 - Aviation security: further provision about transfer schemes

John Woodcock (Labour, Barrow and Furness)

I beg to move amendment 67, in schedule 12, page 113, line 13, leave out paragraph 3.

Roger Gale (Conservative, North Thanet)

With this, it will be convenient to discuss amendment 68, in schedule 12, page 113, line 43, leave out paragraph 5.

John Woodcock (Labour, Barrow and Furness)

These final two amendments on the security provisions are both probing amendments. Amendment 67 seeks to question further what actions will be taken if an individual employed in the Department is transferred to the CAA but objects to that transfer. I hope that the Minister can explain what measures the Department will take to ensure that such an objection will not arise, because the Bill currently does not allow for the employee or their representative to be consulted before a transfer.

I suggest to the Minister that if the Government are serious about preserving the expertise that has been built up in the Department, they need to say more fully why they have chosen not to have this measure and also say whether they would consider making it part of a provision of a transfer process.

I hope that amendment 68 prompts the Minister to clarify paragraph 5(1) of schedule 12, which refers to someone in

“employment in the civil service of the Crown on terms which do not constitute a contract of employment.”

I hope that she can tell us what that means and to whom it would apply. Is that measure there simply to prevent those who are on secondment from being seconded more than once? Or could it potentially refer to those being paid through single-person companies to avoid tax, as unfortunately we have recently found out was the case with 25 senior staff at the Department of Health?

Theresa Villiers (Conservative, Chipping Barnet)

I am grateful for the indication that these are probing amendments; in that case, I will not dwell on some of the technical problems that I find with them. The substance of the shadow Minister’s points is consistent and in line with our discussion on the previous set of amendments. As I said then, we very much hope that the staff in posts due to be transferred will want to continue working in aviation security and will take their skills and experience to the CAA.

We have begun engaging staff and their representatives in the trade union movement on the transfer, including a briefing session from the chief executive of the CAA. We are developing the transfer arrangements and hope that the majority of staff will consider the package on offer and decide to go to the CAA when their roles transfer. However, if some people decide to move elsewhere, we expect that there will be enough time to manage that, as the transfer is not planned to occur until spring 2014. That is another reason for the staged process of implementation to which I referred in our earlier debate on aviation security.

However, when the date of transfer comes, people in roles that are transferring to the CAA cannot opt to remain in the DFT, because their jobs will be with the CAA. We believe that that provision is necessary in order to provide as much certainty as possible that the CAA will inherit staff with the skills and experience required to undertake its new aviation security functions.

On amendment 68, the shadow Minister referred to people who are employed on terms that do not constitute a contract of employment. We have not yet undertaken an assessment of whether any staff—or how many—currently in the posts due to transfer are employed on terms that do not constitute a contract of employment. In any case, that number could change between now and spring 2014. The shadow Minister asked what the relevant provision in the schedule is designed to ensure: it aims to ensure that if any individuals are employed on such terms, their posts will be able to be transferred.

Other issues about the terms of transfer have been raised. In respect of pensions, we of course understand that staff want clarity on important matters such as pension rights. The principal civil service pension scheme and the CAA pension scheme are under review, and I am afraid that we cannot say at this point what pension rights transferring staff might expect. None the less, the Government’s fair deal policy on pensions provides that transferring staff should be offered a broadly comparable pension in the CAA. We will ensure that staff pension rights are provided as per Government policy at the point of transfer.

On redundancy rights, we are intending to apply the TUPE principles to the transfer. The application of TUPE principles will mean that continuity of employment for transferred staff will be preserved. In relation to whether there will be any specific entitlement of transferred staff to receive a particular level of redundancy payments in the event of redundancy at the CAA, no decision has yet been made on whether the transfer scheme will contain such a provision. I appreciate the importance of that to the individuals concerned. It was raised in evidence, and the Department will endeavour to provide clarity as soon as is practical. As I have mentioned, we are some way off the transition to the new system and we have time in which to resolve those matters. We will seek to do so as soon as we can, and with that, I hope the hon. Gentleman will consider withdrawing his amendment.

John Woodcock (Labour, Barrow and Furness)

Although we continue to have concerns about the process, the amendments were probing, so I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.