Let me map out a fundamental alternative scenario to the position that I outlined earlier. The world has changed fundamentally in the past 30 years. Travelling abroad has become commonplace and it is not as if people are going to the moon. They are far more versed in foreign travel and the choices that they face in doing that, and they are experienced consumers. In addition, the CAA is duty bound to establish that airlines are financially sound. We should therefore ask whether we need such a scheme in the modern world. Why should air travel be singled out as the one aspect of business that merits a special bail-out fund to cover the risk of corporate failure? I sense that the Government themselves are ambivalent about the merits of the fund, and we should use the Committee stage of the Bill to explore whether we should retain it.
This is a pretty messy little Bill with no strategic shape, no clear purpose and no easily predictable consequences. It gives authority to the Secretary of State to do all sorts of things, yet it is not at all clear what he will end up doing. We shall seek to improve it in Committee and reserve the right to amend it on Report, once we have found out quite what the Government intend to do.
Civil Aviation Bill
Proceeding contribution from
Alan Duncan
(Conservative)
in the House of Commons on Monday, 27 June 2005.
It occurred during Debate on bills on Civil Aviation Bill.
About this proceeding contribution
Reference
435 c1055 Session
2005-06Chamber / Committee
House of Commons chamberSubjects
Librarians' tools
Timestamp
2024-04-21 09:44:01 +0100
URI
http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_253960
In Indexing
http://indexing.parliament.uk/Content/Edit/1?uri=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_253960
In Solr
https://search.parliament.uk/claw/solr/?id=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_253960