Justine
Greening: I am happy to withdraw my amendment. It is
helpful to be aware of the latter point about there being that climate
of minor non-compliance, adding up over time to an unacceptably poor
level of performance. I am pretty sure, however, when I went through
the explanatory notes that that point was not included, which is why I
tabled my amendment. With that helpful clarification, however, I beg to
ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave,
withdrawn. Clause
145 ordered to stand part of the
Bill.
Clause
146Aviation
duty Question
proposed, That the clause stand part of the
Bill. 4
pm
Justine
Greening: This clause provides powers
for the Government to spend money preparing for the new form of air
taxairline pollution duty. I want to press
the Government on this because it is of great importance to the airline
industry and to millions of people up and down the country who use air
travel to get around and to go on holiday. Will the Minister clarify
whether the Government will be going ahead with an assumption of tax
being based on the maximum take-off weight? May I flag up to her one of
the industrys concerns, which is that, although the Government
are seeking to use this is a proxy for CO 2 emissions by
flight, there are factors other than maximum take-off weight that have
an impact on emissions? Emissions depend not just on take-off weight,
but also on the speed of flight and the design of the
plane.
Mr.
Mark Todd (South Derbyshire) (Lab): One of the most
material issues is that this brings the dedicated freight sector of
aviation into a fiscal framework. I hope that, as the Government
construct the details of this review, they give careful thought to the
imperative of modernising freight fleets so that they are as
energy-efficient and noise-efficient as possible, since many of my
constituents, as well as myself, live immediately under freight
paths.
Justine
Greening: That is an important point and brings me to
another key issue, which is uncertainty and the need to have the more
detailed proposals that the Government were planning to introduce.
Talking to the industry is vital if we are to get a thoughtful but
effective new form of air-passenger dutyairline pollution
dutythat will work and see CO 2 emissions reduced.
Perhaps the Minister can tell me whether the Treasury is continuing to
meet representatives of the industry because I have been told by some
industry participants that they are having difficulty getting access to
Ministers in order to outline their concerns, including the issue of
freight.
Mr.
Bone: I refer to my declaration in the Register of
Members Interests. This is a very strange clause where we are
giving powers to spend money on a duty that we know nothing about. It
is a bizarre clause and I am really rather unhappy about supporting
it.
Justine
Greening: Perhaps I can provide some
reassurance. A consultation paper was outlined by the Treasury and,
following that, some initial proposals were made about a how a new form
of airline pollution duty might work. Therefore, I do not have a
problem with starting to provide resources so that the Government can
bring forward some proper, detailed proposals and the definitive
proposal. If it is going to be effective, the industry needs time to
prepare. This has not been proceeded with as fast as we would have
liked and we would be grateful if the Minister could provide the
Committee with the latest timetable for what is going to happen and
when. My final point
is on the issue of legality that has been raised in the last couple of
weeks by the American embassy. Can the Minister tell the Committee
about the Treasurys feedback on that letter from the embassy,
which said that, as far as it was concerned, this was possibly an
illegal form of duty? I understand that it should be possible, if it is
done with some care, to have a per plane charge. I sense that there is
a possibility to get at these issues, but perhaps the Minister will set
out the Treasurys formal responses to concerns raised by the
American embassy.
Suffice it to say that we floated
this policy in our own consultation paper early last year. Obviously,
we support this mutual per plane charge, because it is a much better
structure for the tax and will bear down on CO2 emissions
from
aviation.
Kitty
Ussher: We are in a rather odd situation, because we have
to introduce paving legislation to fulfil a policy commitment, the
announcement on which has not yet been fully made. However, I shall
attempt to enlighten the Committee as far as I
can. On maximum
take-off weight, the only thing that I can say is that it is our lead
option for the aircraft measure element of the duty. We have sought an
objective, uniform measure or combination of measures of an aircraft
and/or an aircrafts flight. Maximum take-off weight has been a
reasonable proxy for emissions en route, but we are still analysing the
consultation responses. The hon. Lady rightly said that we need to work
shoulder to shoulder with industry to get the measure right. We
received more than 160 consultation responses and are considering those
at the moment. No decisions have yet been made.
On the timing of the eventual
decision, we have said autumn 2008. That is currently our intention. We
want to keep working closely with industry and have met
representatives, both formally and informally on a number of occasions.
We understand that it is important that there should be as much
certainty as possible about the structure and rates of tax. We will
endeavour to decide as soon as
possible. I am
concerned that there may be a view out there that access to Ministers
is not as great as some people would like. I shall pass that concern to
the Exchequer
Secretary.
Mr.
Bone: I am surprised that autumn 2008 is the time given.
The package travel industry has a fixed price that it includes in its
brochures, which are already published and it is prepared for autumn
2008. Normally, there is a much greater lead time for the industry.
That seems to be a rather short lead
time.
Kitty
Ussher: That is the policy announcement date that we have
set. Coming back to my
general point, we want completely to understand the effects on industry
as much as possible, which is why we are considering the consultation
responses in detail and why we have held a number of different forums
and tried other ways of ensuring that we understand the effect on the
industry as much as possible. It is always tricky with tax rates, which
cannot be pre-announced informally because there would immediately be a
huge public relations effect. Within those constraints, Ministers are
engaging as much as possible. That is why we have not already
set out the design and detail of the measure. We have been consulting as
much as possible. My
hon. Friend the Member for South Derbyshire, with support on his
general point from the Opposition, asked specifically about the freight
industry. I sympathise with his personal circumstances. It is not the
Governments intention to exclude freight or transfer passengers
from the new duty, but we are taking into account the evidence
provided.
Justine
Greening: Will the Economic Secretary give
way?
Kitty
Ussher: I will, as ever, give way to the hon.
Lady.
Justine
Greening: That is very kind. I am conscious of the time.
Will the announcement that will be made in the autumn cover
eco-labelling, which some carriers like Flybe are already doing? I
understand that when the Transport Committee looked at eco-labelling
earlier in the year, it broadly welcomed it. Obviously, it will give
passengers better data on the impact of noise and carbon emissions.
Just like eco-labelling on fridges, it might help the public to play
their part by making an informed choice to spend their consumer pounds
with aircraft operators who are doing their best to bear down on the
emissions caused by their
operations.
Kitty
Ussher: I agree with the hon. Lady that eco-labelling
plays an important part. It has not yet been decided whether the
announcement in the autumn will address the specific question of
eco-labelling, so I cannot tell her right here, right now, but I do
agree with her general
point. Finally,
the hon. Lady mentioned the US Governments response to our
consultation. As I said, we are considering all the representations
that have been made to us, but we do not think that our proposals are
illegal in any way, and that is our response to the American
Government. We are committed to our international legal obligations and
we will not do anything that we think contravenes
them. Question put
and agreed to.
Clause 146 ordered to stand
part of the Bill.
The
Chairman I congratulate hon. Members on both sides of the
Committee on the way in which they have dealt with something like 40
clauses and schedules. That is an excellent effort, and I wish you a
good weekend. I shall not be in the Chair next Tuesday morning. My
co-Chairman, Mr. Frank Cook, will chair proceedings, but I
shall be with you next Tuesday afternoon.
Further consideration
adjourned.[Mr.
Blizzard.] Adjourned
accordingly at eleven minutes past Four oclock till Tuesday 17
June at half-past Ten
oclock.
|