MR TONY BIRD, MR RICHARD TOBIAS OBE AND MR IAN REYNOLDS

TUESDAY 19 NOVEMBER 2002

  140. So which ones would you get rid of?
  (Mr Reynolds) I would not get rid of any of them because they have already been passed by Parliament or by the European Union in anticipation of them being implemented by Parliament. What we would seek to do is to make sure that, when they are implemented, they are implemented in a sensitive way. For example, the requirements of the Terrorism Act could mean that airlines have to take passenger details at check-in desks when airlines have calculated that, if the regulations were implemented in that way, it would probably take an extra minute to check each passenger in. That would mean that they would have to cancel schedules because the flights would not be able to get away as there would not be the resources at our airports to do that. So we are in negotiation with the Home Office as to how that can be implemented in a sensible way which means that the Government can ensure that security can be preserved without it being too onerous on the industry and the consumer, so it is constructive issues like this that we are taking forward on behalf of our members. We have got many, many examples and many will be at the detailed level.

  141. I was not going to mention Heathrow Airport until somebody else did. My constituents get most of the noise and I have never opposed development until now. I have worked in the private sector all of my career until I came here. It is usually industry and commerce that criticises the Government for short-sightedness and now the whole of the industry, whether it is BAA or you who are saying the same thing, that the expansion should be at Heathrow Airport. It is very short-sighted because if we want a hub airport in this country, the next step from a third one would be to have a fourth and then we would have to knock even more houses down which would otherwise be more unacceptable to live in. The only people who seem to be saying that we need a new airport are those that do not want the runways to be near them. Why do you not think we should build a new hub airport for the future and plan properly?
  (Mr Tobias) As far as we are concerned, we start with the basic premise that air travel will increase in the next 30 years and all sorts of plans are put forward, but the reality of course is that nobody really knows. We probably will need extra capacity if we are to attract both business and leisure travellers to the UK and, conversely, on the way out. We work backwards on the problem; it is where our customers want to fly to. The south-east has the heaviest population density. International hubs are set up normally in capital cities whether it is Paris, or in Italy or Germany. The reality is that our customers want to fly from Gatwick, Heathrow or Stansted. Cliffe, whilst I have no intimate knowledge of the impact on the environment, would need a huge infrastructure, not just the airport and the facilities there, but the road structures and the rail structures. We take the view that we have three good airports serving the south-east and we should be working on those to improve them, to improve the facilities, to improve the number of flights that can come in and out of those airports as it is where our customers want to fly to, so it is customer-driven and we make no pretence of that.

  142. You are going into a dead airport because as Heathrow gets more expanded after the next runway, it is unacceptable. I am interested to hear that you want legislation to improve the quality of hotels and boarding houses. Do you still call them that? You do in Blackpool. I think it is desperately needed. It is a fragmented industry and I can see that we can get those standards raised by that, but if it was owned, and I am not advocating this, but if it was owned by three major multinational companies from fish and chip shops up to five-star hotels and casinos, the standards would be higher. How does the industry cope with some of the resorts where you can get horrific proportions as long as planning permission is given by the local authority which can be damaging? If individual entrepreneurs can damage an area, how do you cope with that because you are not owned by three multinationals? How do you cope with that? Do we need legislation or a managing director or a secretary of state to control these things? Does it need more detailed legislation than just on hotels and boarding houses? What do you advocate for getting over that problem?
  (Mr Tobias) The expression was used a moment ago of a "light touch". Very few industries would advocate for increased legislation, but there is a need , there is a call for legislation which ensures that the few do not damage the whole. Tourism is very important for a whole variety of reasons. There are some within the industry that frankly give us a bad name. I have to say that I think that we Brits probably spend more time examining our faults and our navels than we do our plus-points. I am not sure that ministers in other countries would necessarily criticise within their own countries the accommodation standards, but I make no further comment on that. We certainly would not be looking for additional legislation and the idea that three major companies might own most of the tourism product in the UK may well raise the game in terms of the quality, but I suggest that it would also raise the game in terms of cost. One of the advantages of the industry being fragmented, though I prefer the word "diverse", is that it is fiercely competitive and the number of players within the industry keeps the cost down as far as possible to the consumer, so there is positive advantage in having a fragmented or diverse industry.

  Chairman: The clock has struck, I am afraid. Thanks very much indeed, gentlemen; much appreciated.