UK Parliament / Open data

Civil Aviation Bill

Proceeding contribution from Lord Rosser (Labour) in the House of Lords on Wednesday, 7 November 2012. It occurred during Debate on bills on Civil Aviation Bill.

My Lords, the Civil Aviation Authority’s primary and overriding duty under this Bill is to carry out its functions in a manner that it considers will further the interests of users of air transport services, including in relation to the cost of current airport operation services.

This amendment adds an additional requirement on the Civil Aviation Authority to publish information and advice to assist users of air transport services to compare the full cost of travel for users of such services, including all relevant surcharges that they might be expected to pay. In Committee, we argued that it was surprising that the specific duty to make such information relating to cost available to users was not already in the Bill. Apparently it was left entirely to the discretion of the Civil Aviation Authority under the part of the Bill that says that the CAA should publish such information and advice as it considers appropriate.

We tabled this amendment because of concerns expressed about the extent of significant add-on charges, sometimes running into three figures and levied chiefly by budget airlines for such things as having a bag in the hold, changing the name on a ticket, having a bag even marginally over the weight limit, seat reservations and flight change fees. The purpose of this amendment is not to stop such charges but to ensure that they are transparent and readily known rather than, as appears to be the case at present, imposed with a degree of stealth on unsuspecting passengers, to whom it may well not have occurred that charges of such magnitude would be imposed for such relatively minor matters.

If the Civil Aviation Authority published the full, actual and potential costs of air travel, including all relevant surcharges, passengers would soon come to recognise that there was an independent source of information on charges that would enable them to make realistic judgments and comparisons on the full cost of travel, and potential full cost of travel, if surcharges were incurred. This would help reduce the likelihood of users getting caught out by a charge that they had not anticipated and of which they were unaware.

In his response in Committee the Minister referred to Clause 83, stating that the Bill already provided for the CAA to be able,

“to publish comparable information on air transport service pricing”,

and that the showing of,

“the full costs of travel and surcharges … is being addressed in other ways”.—[Official Report, 4/7/12; col. GC374.]

However, I do not think that the wording in Clause 83 is as precise as the Minister implied. It refers to,

“such information … as it considers appropriate for the purpose of assisting users of air transport services to compare … air transport services provided to or from a civil airport … services and facilities provided elsewhere in the United Kingdom and used, or likely to be used, in connection with the use of air transport services provided to or from a civil airport”.

Where in that wording—or any other wording in the Bill—does it refer to the Civil Aviation Authority being required to publish information on pricing, which, if it was as comprehensive as it should be, would have to include the full costs of travel for users of air transport services, including all relevant surcharges such users would be expected to pay, as called for in the amendment? The short answer is, surely, that it does not.

I will of course wait for the Minister to respond to the House and indicate, if he is going to do so, which words in Clause 83 do lay that requirement on the Civil Aviation Authority, in clear and unambiguous terms. The Minister also said in Committee:

“On the full cost of travel, consumers are already protected throughout the EU by Article 23 of EU Regulation 1008/2008, which … requires airlines to display at all times their prices”,

with prices for so-called optional extras being,

“displayed at the start of the booking process”.

The Minister then went on to say that the CAA considered that some airlines are,

“now compliant with Article 23 of the regulation”.—[Official Report, 4/7/12; col. GC374.]

However, that does not solve the problem. If the Minister considers that it does, why does he think that three Members of your Lordships’ House, from different parties, came in to support my amendment at Committee stage? I suggest they did so because they were aware that there continues to be a problem, as indeed is highlighted in surveys. My noble friend Lord Soley said in Committee:

“It is one thing to say that they”—

airlines—

“must publish information under Article 23”,

but it is another to say that they are completely up front with that information,

“so that a passenger knows”.—[Official Report, 4/7/12; col. GC375.]

If we are to address this matter then there needs to be a clear requirement on the Civil Aviation Authority to publish this information on comparative fares and charges, including surcharges, in order to assist passengers and show them that, as an authority, the interests of users are crucial to its role, as provided for in Clause 1. If the CAA does not provide this comparative information, in a transparent, impartial and objective manner, nobody else will—whatever Article 23 of EU regulation 1008/2008 may say and however much the Government or the CAA may feel that the problem of unanticipated additional charges and surcharges has already been addressed. I beg to move.

6.45 pm

Type
Proceeding contribution
Reference
740 cc1045-6 
Session
2012-13
Chamber / Committee
House of Lords chamber
Back to top