House of Lords
Farming Practices: Sustainable Farming Incentive
(1 week, 1 day ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Willis of Summertown
To ask His Majesty’s Government how they are assessing whether farming practices such as regenerative agriculture align with the sustainable farming incentive payments.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Baroness Hayman of Ullock) (Lab)
My Lords, the sustainable farming incentive is largely aligned with regenerative agriculture. There are actions for cover crops, no-till farming and providing insect-rich habitats. Furthermore, SFI includes actions for precision application of crop nutrients and pesticides.
Baroness Willis of Summertown (CB)
I thank the Minister for her response. It is good to hear that the Government will move towards increased SFI funding, with a focus on regenerative agricultural practice. However, much of the scientific evidence suggests that adopting these techniques can reduce crop yields in the first three to five years. Can the Minister reassure the House that the SFI agreements are sizeable and have long-term certainty, beyond the current Treasury settlement, so that farmers know that they will be supported through this critical five-year transition period? Without that, I believe there will be very low uptake of the SFIs.
Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)
When we brought in the new offer, we wanted to take away the uncertainty as to what was happening with SFIs in the longer term. We have made it clear that we will keep the main SFI offer largely stable from now until the end of this Parliament to provide certainty to farmers that we are going to continue this kind of SFI offer.
Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Con)
My Lords, common land is excluded from both the SFI and the countryside stewardship higher tier. When will the Minister ensure that owners and graziers on common land can apply for SFI and the higher tier? She will be aware that most of these people are in the uplands and are really suffering at this time.
Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)
I am very aware of the issue the noble Baroness refers to; we have discussed it in Parliament. The issue is that common land and shared grazing are in principle eligible for both SFI and CSHT—the higher tier—but, for technical reasons, it is not currently possible for common groups to apply for SFI or to enter the new higher-tier grants, as the noble Baroness so rightly said. The RPA is engaging with the different external stakeholders, including the Foundation for Common Land, to discuss what can be done to ensure that they can apply for grants and get the support they need. We are looking to introduce the ability to apply in respect of common land under the stewardship higher tier later this year. We will be trialling applications before we spread it out more widely.
Baroness Grender (LD)
My Lords, does the Minister agree that species-rich grassland is one of the clearest examples of regenerative farming in practice? Why, then, has support for it been removed from SFI 2026? How does that sit with the Government’s commitment to regenerative agriculture?
Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)
We have tried to bring SFI into new areas because it is really important that smaller farms and different types of farms have the opportunity to get the grants to do regenerative farming. Alongside that, we are looking at other ways to support the kind of things the noble Baroness is talking about. It is also important to remember that, when there is a grant for something, it does not mean that is the only thing you can get a grant or support for. I would encourage landowners to look broadly at what we have to offer.
Baroness Boycott (CB)
My Lords, will the Government consider looking back at the criteria on which the ELMS payments are made? If you farm regeneratively, you not only improve the soil by cover crops—growing beans and legumes—mob grazing and not tilling, but you improve every single thing in the ELMS. It would be a way of transferring money to farmers, who get far too little out of the food system, and of encouraging them to move their farming practices over ASAP.
Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)
We are looking at the uptake of the current round of SFI, which has been very encouraging. We recently said that 50% of the SFI budget has been allocated, and we will be reviewing that. It is also important to look at the changes that this is encouraging, because much of it was designed to make the biggest difference. We work very closely with farmers who do regenerative farming, such as Martin Lines. It is important that we target what we see as making the biggest difference the quickest.
Lord Blencathra (Con)
My Lords, the introduction of sustainable farming incentives under ELMS remains something we on these Benches are particularly proud of. They were intended to be part of a transitional scheme preparing farmers for greater private finance involvement in restoring nature through sustainable farming practices. The 25-year farming road map contained aspirations on this but very little detail, so could the Minister give us some real-world evidence of private sector finance creating incentives for sustainable farming?
Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)
It is important to assure noble Lords that, just because something is not specifically in the farming road map, that does not mean that it will not be part of this long-term plan. The whole point of the farming road map is that it is not specific and dialled-down—it is a 25-year look ahead. On the basis that it is a long look ahead, you would not expect all the detail and information to be in it, because that will be developed as we move forward, and things will change a lot over 25 years.
Lord Watts (Lab)
My Lords, is it not the case that, for too long, rich farmers have been getting far too much subsidy? Is it not good that this Government are introducing a system that will help smaller farmers and hill farmers?
Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)
The new SFI, which we announced fairly recently and which runs through to September, was very much aimed at smaller farms and those that do not already have an agreement. The fact that 50% has been allocated already shows that that was a very popular decision.
Baroness Butler-Sloss (CB)
What are the Government doing to encourage food production?
Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)
Our encouragement of all sorts of farms that did not already have grants and support demonstrates that we are keen to look at food production. We also have a farming innovation programme that supports agrotechnology for farmers, which can help with food production as well. The whole picture is about supporting food production, because, as we have said, we believe that food security is national security, and we take that very seriously.
Lord Gardiner of Kimble (Con)
My Lords, I declare my farming interests. One should not be provoked by comments, but it is important that we feed the nation, and I am worried about this concern that, if you are a medium or large farmer, somehow you are the enemy. We need all farmers to ensure that we are well fed and have national security through that, as well as enhancing our environment. It is important that farmers have clarity and certainty; the Minister has touched on that, but farmers need far more of it.
Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)
It is absolutely right that farmers need clarity and certainty, which is why we have brought in the 25-year farming road map. With regard to larger farmers, that is also why, from September, the SFI will be open to all farms. We are trying to encourage farms that had not previously taken part to come forward and be supported by the Government.
Earl Russell (LD)
We certainly do not see larger farmers as the enemy, but we are aware that small farms have particular problems in accessing these grants. So I kindly ask the Minister: what further measures are the Government taking to make sure that smaller farmers have the skills and the ability to access these grants?
Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)
That is an important question. We do not see large farms as the enemy; they are incredibly important if we are going to meet our food security targets. I really understand what the noble Earl is saying, because I have a small farm. I did not apply for the new grants a couple of years ago because it was too complicated. My farm was not of a size that would employ a land agent to help with the application. So we have tried to work with the RPA to simplify the process and offer targeted support to smaller farms.
Lord Forbes of Newcastle (Lab)
My Lords, many of us on these Benches are supportive of British farming and congratulate our farmers on their excellent work in food production. But I have a question for my noble friend the Minister. It is entirely possible in the current system that multiple SFIs will be applied to one farm. Can she say more about the process of moving to one SFI for the farmed area of a farm without losing out on financial support?
Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)
I am not sure how many SFIs one farm would ever get; it depends on what it is looking to support, for example. There are different things—there is catchment-sensitive farming and different tiers—and each of those will be looked at on its own merits so that it achieves the outcomes we want.
Employment: Artificial Intelligence
(1 week, 1 day ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Khan of Burnley
To ask His Majesty’s Government what assessment they have made of the impact of artificial intelligence on employment in the UK; and what support they plan to provide for affected workers.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Science, Innovation and Technology (Baroness Lloyd of Effra) (Lab)
We published an assessment of AI impacts on the labour market in January, and the new AI Economics Institute will broaden and deepen our analytical capability. We will upskill 10 million people through the AI skills boost and help people to develop digital skills through the £187 million TechFirst programme. Our £20 million Early Careers Jobs Alliance will bring together employers, unions and young people to redesign roles while maintaining progression in the digital and technology sector.
Lord Khan of Burnley (Lab)
I thank my noble friend the Minister for her response. The Open University’s latest Business Barometer report on the employer skills gap included a survey of 1,500 UK businesses and over 1,000 young people outside education, employment and training. Some 42% of young people agree that AI is threatening their job prospects, and 49% are wary of the future of AI and its impact on their future work. Do His Majesty’s Government agree that the best way to equip our people for the future is upskilling, as the Minister talked about, and investing in people? What assessment, strategy and planning are taking place to ensure that all regions are upskilled and no one is left behind?
Baroness Lloyd of Effra (Lab)
My noble friend is right about the potential of AI and that many people are uncertain about how it will develop in the future. The critical point that I think he and I agree on is that the best way of approaching this technological development is equipping people in all regions of the country—young people and those who need retraining—which is exactly the approach we are taking. With our AI skills boost, we will upskill 10 million people in work, and we have already reached 1.7 million. In that way, workers in this country will be able to make the most of this technological revolution.
Lord Clement-Jones (LD)
My Lords, the Milburn interim report, Young People and Work, found that a growing share of entry-level roles are now filtered by algorithmic screening before a human has even seen an application. Given that NEET numbers are shockingly high, what specific assessment have the Government made of the extent to which AI-driven recruitment tools are narrowing rather than widening life chances for these young people? Will the Minister commit to mandatory algorithmic impact assessments, as suggested by the TUC, for recruitment algorithms so that employers and platforms are required to test for bias before these tools are deployed at scale?
Baroness Lloyd of Effra (Lab)
The Government previously set out guidance on recruitment in the age of AI. The new future of work unit will look at what is developing in the labour market and at whether guidance such as that needs updating and in what respect. In the meantime, we are supporting young people, through our youth guarantee and through provision of early training opportunities for them, so that they can get into work now and continue to advance through their careers.
Baroness Manzoor (Con)
My Lords, what action are the Government taking to tackle interoperability within government departments? What are they doing to ensure that there is AI investment in the regions? We need actions, please.
Baroness Lloyd of Effra (Lab)
On investment in the regions, the Government are supporting huge investment in AI through AI growth zones and through investment in people, with the £10 million jobs boost and £187 million to support young people and those returning to work to get the skills that they need. These programmes are developed centrally and delivered in partnership with local organisations and civil society. We are investing in infrastructure and we are investing in people.
Viscount Colville of Culross (CB)
My Lords, I am concerned about the adverse effect that AI is having on employment in the creative sector. The Communications and Digital Committee, in its recent report on AI and copyright, recommended protections against both unauthorised digital replicas and harmful AI outputs in the style of a creator’s work. The consultation that the Government announced in March appears to cover only digital replicas. Will the Minister tell the House whether she will address harmful “in the style of” outputs?
Baroness Lloyd of Effra (Lab)
The noble Viscount is right that we have a programme of work looking at digital replicas. We will be consulting on that. The fact that there are many who are affected by this—musicians, politicians and everyday citizens—means that it is an extensive piece of work. I will take back his question on the precise remit of this consultation and reply to him.
Baroness O’Grady of Upper Holloway (Lab)
My Lords, my noble friend the Minister is right that skills are critical, and the launch of the AI skills hub is welcome, with its focus on providing free training for 10 million workers. However, is she aware of reports that the majority of courses on the hub charge fees and that some are tied to particular products? Will she agree to monitor the quality of courses on the hub, alongside unions and educational professionals, to ensure that workers get the training they need?
Baroness Lloyd of Effra (Lab)
I will indeed do what my noble friend suggests and make sure that we look at the quality of the courses that are available. They are provided in concert with a large number of providers who are developing these courses to support their workers and are extending them to other workers, in particular SMEs, because we know that SMEs and other workers are those who most need to adopt AI and who may be currently lagging in this country.
Captain of the Honourable Corps of Gentlemen-at-Arms and Chief Whip (Lord Kennedy of Southwark) (Lab Co-op)
My Lords, it is the turn of the Cross Benches, then the Conservative Benches.
Baroness Lane-Fox of Soho (CB)
My Lords, I declare an interest as chair of the Mayor of London’s taskforce on the effect of AI on jobs in London. What we found consistently in our live data and in talking to employers is that there are crucial skills that are not being delivered right now, around the human part that goes alongside AI: critical thinking, judgment, creative ability and curiosity. What steps are the Government taking to ensure that, in a world of augmented humanity, we are developing the human skills, for young people in particular?
Baroness Lloyd of Effra (Lab)
The noble Baroness raises an important point. The development of technology and what can be augmented leaves the human aspect very much to the fore, which can include issues around discernment and judgment. The Government have a number of courses and training opportunities—for example, to support businesses in management. I know that the Office for Students is looking carefully at what all this means for higher education, for example, and the Department for Education has provided a range of advice to schools about this. The noble Baroness’s point is well made and is something that the future of work unit will look at, among its other considerations.
Lord Hintze (Con)
My Lords, the Minister has been very clear on how much it will cost. But it is not clear to me, and not for the first time, how effective the Government’s money—taxpayers’ money—will be when it is spent in this way.
Baroness Lloyd of Effra (Lab)
Some of the programmes that I have mentioned, including the TechFirst programme, have been running for some time. TechFirst has been successfully run and we learn from what is effective. We work carefully with partners to deliver these programmes. They are seeing good outcomes in the alumni who then go into the industry.
Lord Fox (LD)
My Lords, whatever the effect on jobs, the figures set out by the noble Lord, Lord Khan, indicate that there is already a crisis of confidence among our young people as they face the future. The point made by the noble Baroness, Lady Lane-Fox, is key. What are the Government doing, alongside training, to set out a vision—a human vision—for the young people of today?
Baroness Lloyd of Effra (Lab)
We are supporting young people to get into work. We are supporting youth employment through the changes to the youth guarantee and to the growth and skills levy, so that we can provide work and training places in jobs. We can support businesses hiring those young people, so that they get the opportunity of the experience of work and of the changing labour force, and can be supported through that.
Viscount Camrose (Con)
I welcome the Government providing a great deal of skills education, but I do not see how the Government know what skills the marketplace is looking for in AI, particularly in the situation in which we find ourselves, where the recruitment marketplace has been so badly damaged by the misapplication of AI that the market signals on what skills are actually required are not getting through. What does the AI Economics Institute think about this and how will the incoming Prime Minister take this forward?
Baroness Lloyd of Effra (Lab)
The Government have set up the future of work unit and have built on that with the AI Economics Institute precisely to examine the changes in the labour market and the changes to jobs—whether that is sector-specific changes or changes to particular cohorts, such as if women are particularly affected—and to then determine what action should be taken in that resolve. That is exactly what we are doing; we are being very active in understanding the technological change coming.
Climate Change: Housing Insurability, Mortgage Lending and Financial Resilience
(1 week, 1 day ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Northover
To ask His Majesty’s Government what assessment they have made of the long-term implications of climate change and nature loss for housing insurability, mortgage lending and household financial resilience.
The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Lord Livermore) (Lab)
My Lords, climate change clearly poses a long-term risk to financial stability and household resilience. The Government’s remit to the Financial Policy Committee ensures that it considers climate-related risks as relevant to its primary objective of maintaining financial stability. The Climate Change Committee’s recent report identified declining insurability and reduced mortgage access as credible risks, and the Government will reflect this evidence as they prepare the fourth national adaptation programme.
Baroness Northover (LD)
I thank the Minister for that reply. I hope he has read the adaptation report of the Climate Change Committee, in which it warns very clearly about the effects of increased flood and wildfire risk to the financial sector and the economy more generally. The Minister will remember the effect of the US subprime market on the UK economy from 2008 onwards. In the UK we can already see that property values, insurance availability and mortgage lending are all affected by climate change. Can he give further details as to how urgently the Government are addressing these risks?
Lord Livermore (Lab)
I am grateful to the noble Baroness for her Question. I am very conscious that she is far more expert in these matters than I am. As she knows, the independent Climate Change Committee has made recommendations on the preparedness of the UK for current or future climate change risks. The Government will consider these recommendations as part of the next national adaptation programme.
The noble Baroness mentioned households and mortgages. The Bank of England’s assessment suggested that it would take a severe shock to borrowing costs, household incomes or the cost of essential goods to put aggregate debt servicing under pressure. The Government do not expect climate change to have an immediate impact on mortgages or household resilience, though they recognise the long-term pressures that climate change could have on a property’s value, insurability or suitability as security for mortgage lending. The Government will, of course, continue to work with industry to address any market failures.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath (Lab)
My Lords, on the issue of financial resilience and climate change, has my noble friend seen the CBI report that came out a few weeks ago, showing that the net-zero economy is now worth over £100 billion and is promoting growth in all parts of the UK? Having said that, what does he make of the leader of the Opposition’s now opposition to net zero and wish to repeal the Climate Change Act 2008 and deselect Tory candidates who support net zero? What impact would that have on our economy?
Lord Livermore (Lab)
It is a great shame what my noble friend says about the Opposition; with such a significant issue as climate change and the importance of net zero, we want a cross-party consensus to drive forward the measures necessary in this country. He is absolutely right to say that economic growth is our number one mission, but without economic growth we cannot meet our climate change targets, and by investing in climate change measures we can drive greater levels of economic growth. If we step back from that, it would be a great shame and would do serious damage to our economy given that, as my noble friend says, the net-zero economy is growing so strongly.
Baroness Hayman (CB)
My Lords, the Minister is obviously correct that we really do need to step back from this divisive and completely unsubstantiated move away from the consensus on the need to do something about the changes in the climate we are seeing around us day in, day out.
What the Minister said about systemic risk to financial services and long-term risk was reassuring, but I wonder whether I could ask him to have a word with his noble friend, the noble Lord, Lord Stockwood, about the Financial Services and Markets Bill currently going through this House. There are grave concerns that the provisions we put in three years ago to a Bill that the Minister will remember are being watered down when they need to be strengthened.
Lord Livermore (Lab)
I am grateful to the noble Baroness for her question. She is absolutely right in what she said about climate change. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change—the world’s foremost authority on climate change science—established in its sixth assessment report that climate change is real and is being driven by greenhouse gas emissions. It predicts that if the rate of warming is not limited to 1.5 degrees centigrade above pre-industrial levels, we risk severe and irreversible damage to our planet and our people. Of course, it will be good if we maintain a cross-party consensus on the measures necessary to tackle that.
I heard what the noble Baroness said about financial stability. She will know that the Bank of England’s December 2025 financial stability report set out the committee’s assessment of climate-related risk to UK financial stability: it is low relative to other countries in the shorter term.
Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb (GP)
My Lords, the Minister has been saying some very important things about climate change: that it is happening and is very dangerous. But I do not really understand why he keeps using the term “longer term” because, quite honestly, it is happening now. It is not only about economic and financial stability but about the safety and well-being of people. It seems to me that this Government, judging from the legislation coming through at the moment, do not have any sense of urgency. Can the Minister take that back to his department and talk urgency?
Lord Livermore (Lab)
The Government have already committed significant investment in the transition to net zero, including £2.6 billion to decarbonise transport, £1.4 billion to support the uptake of electric vehicles, £2.7 billion a year for sustainable farming and nature recovery, and £13.2 billion to support the rollout of heat pumps and other low-carbon technologies as part of the warm homes plan, so I do not accept what the noble Baroness has said.
Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Con)
My Lords, London is the world’s leading international centre for commercial insurance and reinsurance, which is a subject of this Question. Does the Minister agree that insurance companies, with their considerable long-term expertise, are best placed to determine how the effect of climate change is reflected in premiums? Does he agree that, going forward, that knowledge should influence those—not least our planners—determining where it makes sense to build, so that we get on with housing and infrastructure as we need to do?
Lord Livermore (Lab)
The noble Baroness is absolutely right about the importance of getting on with housing and infrastructure, and that is what this Government are seeking to achieve. She is absolutely right to say that a resilient and affordable insurance market is necessary for enabling businesses and households to recover quickly from climate events. The Climate Change Committee has assessed that the insurance gap is currently low relative to most countries. However, without sufficient adaptation, the number of properties that do not have the necessary insurance is expected to grow as climate risks increase. The Government are committed to ensuring that the long-term impacts of climate change are managed. The Government will strengthen the UK’s approach as part of the fourth national adaptation programme, which will set stronger adaptation objectives to improve preparedness for climate impacts.
The Lord Speaker (Lord Forsyth of Drumlean)
My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Campbell-Savours, is taking part remotely. I invite the noble Lord to speak.
Lord Campbell-Savours (Lab) [V]
My Lords, on housing insurability, what consideration is being given to the problem of premium escalation and refusal to insure in areas that have not flooded but are shown as at risk on flooding mapping due to climate change? Would it not be helpful if we could have some review on how local authorities disseminate such information, its effect on premiums and how it is used during property conveyance? I declare an interest as a resident of an apartment where flood protection measures have enabled us to avoid the increased premiums I am referring to in this question.
Lord Livermore (Lab)
As I said, the Climate Change Committee has assessed that the insurance gap is currently low relative to most countries. Flood risk, though, is the most immediate concern for UK households. The Environment Agency’s latest flood risk assessment indicated that around 6.3 million properties in England are at risk of flooding, increasing to 8 million as a result of climate change. The Government are working with Flood Re to ensure the scheme remains effective and financially sustainable through to its planned end date of 2039, and discussions are ongoing to understand and tackle the medium-term pressures.
The Lord Bishop of Manchester
My Lords, yesterday the Church of England General Synod reaffirmed its commitment to net zero. Back when we were first looking into that, I remember sitting down with the chief executive of one of the world’s largest insurance companies and asking him why he was so interested in climate change. He said that extreme weather events are the biggest risk for insurance companies. Does the Minister agree with me that if we are going to make insurance affordable, we have to reduce extreme weather events? It is not about adapting; it is about getting down to net zero.
Lord Livermore (Lab)
With the greatest respect, I think it might be both. We have to adapt and take long-term action to get down to net zero, as the right reverend Prelate says. I agree on both points.
Earl Russell (LD)
My Lords, once we reach three degrees of warming, no one can take on the risks, so there will be no more insurance and:
“The financial sector as we know it ceases to function”.
Those are the conclusions of Günther Thallinger of Allianz, who warns that Governments will be unable to backstop the resulting losses. Given this stark warning, what discussions have taken place with the Prudential Regulation Authority on the systemic financial stability risks of climate-driven insurance withdrawal?
Lord Livermore (Lab)
I am grateful to the noble Earl for his support for many of the Government’s measures in this area. As he knows, the Financial Policy Committee is responsible for identifying, monitoring and taking action to remove or reduce systemic risks with a view to protecting and enhancing the resilience of the UK financial system. The Government’s remit to the committee makes clear that it should continue to regard the risks arising from climate change as relevant to its primary objective. The Bank of England’s December 2025 financial stability report set out the committee’s assessment of climate-related risk to UK financial stability, which is that it is low relative to other countries in the shorter term.
Clean Water Bill: Chalk Streams
(1 week, 1 day ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Grender
To ask His Majesty’s Government when they intend to publish the Clean Water Bill; and what steps they will take before its publication to ensure that urgent protections for chalk streams are in place.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Baroness Hayman of Ullock) (Lab)
My Lords, the clean water Bill was announced in the King’s Speech in May, to be introduced during this Session. We have set out our ambitious programme of reforms in the water White Paper, which was published on 20 January, and we are protecting chalk streams, including by reducing the risk of harmful abstraction, by modifying water company abstraction licences and ensuring that chalk streams are prioritised for improvement in our storm overflows discharge reduction plan.
Baroness Grender (LD)
My Lords, I thank the Minister for her response. Does she regret that, despite repeated assurances that chalk streams were an urgent priority during the passage of the Planning and Infrastructure Act 2025, they still do not have statutory protection? Can she assure the House that they will not be left out of the clean water Bill, or indeed the final National Planning Policy Framework, especially if there is any danger of that being published in a rush over the next few days due to a change in the senior management team in the House of Commons?
Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)
We are very aware that chalk streams are an important ecological resource and we are doing a number of things that will make a difference, which is what we have to do. We are holding water companies to account. We are working within the environmental land management scheme to provide incentives for farmers; for example, six of the ELMS-funded landscape recovery projects are being developed in chalk stream catchments. The Environment Agency is working, as I said, to tackle the impacts of harmful abstraction. We made a number of changes to the then Planning and Infrastructure Bill to ensure that chalk streams feature in local nature recovery strategies so that they can be embedded into any legislation. There are also actions embedded in the water White Paper, which we will discuss as we take forward the legislation.
Lord Grayling (Con)
One of the opportunities we have to protect our chalk streams is to prevent off-flow from farms. One way of doing that is to create a biodiversity break between a chalk stream and farming activity. When the Minister looks at these issues, will she examine whether financial support could be provided to farmers through the existing schemes to encourage the creation of that kind of biodiversity margin to protect chalk streams?
Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)
As I just mentioned, there are encouragements through the existing ELMS, but I take the noble Lord’s point. As we develop our support for farmers going forward, it is important that important ecological parts of our environment, such as chalk streams, are fully supported.
The Duke of Wellington (CB)
My Lords, as the Minister knows, I am extremely supportive of the creation of a new single regulator for the water industry, which will be in the new Bill. Admittedly, however, I am slightly disappointed that it is taking quite some time to bring it into effect. When does she think the new single regulator will become operational?
Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)
We have said that we will create a powerful new regulator. We will abolish Ofwat and bring together the different functions of Ofwat, the DWI, the Environment Agency and Natural England into one new body so that we no longer have a fragmented system. That will be part of the clean water Bill when it comes forward. We have said we will do it in this Session. We are currently working on it, and as soon as we find a suitable legislative slot, we will crack on with this.
Lord Sikka (Lab)
My Lords, Wessex Water, Thames Water, Southern Water, Anglian Water and Yorkshire Water have terrible records of dumping untreated sewage into chalk streams. None has had its licence to operate revoked. Can the Minister explain how many criminal convictions these companies need before the Government will listen to the people and revoke their licences?
Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)
I am sure my noble friend is aware that, as a Government, we have created the ability to hold the directors and higher-up members within the water industry to account, including through criminal charges. That is an important step forward. The key thing is that we cannot carry on as we are, which is why we have pledged to bring in the clean water Bill this Session to tackle all the issues that he and other noble Lords are so concerned about.
Lord Blencathra (Con)
My Lords, we have a unique responsibility to protect our chalk streams, given that we possess 85% of the world’s total stock. These chalk streams have suffered mistreatment, given that they are located in some of the most densely populated areas of our country. They suffer from creaking sewage treatment systems, industrial and agricultural run-off and pressure from development. The Minister mentioned that in an earlier answer, but is it not time now to encourage true catchment-level restoration projects through landscape-scale recovery schemes that can deal with priority issues for each individual river and stream? Will she take an early opportunity to stress that to the new Prime Minister?
Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)
We are investing a lot into chalk streams. As well as the £2 billion that water companies are investing over the next five years into targeted actions towards chalk stream restoration, which is part of our plan for change, we are investing £1.8 million through the water restoration fund and the water environment improvement fund for locally led chalk stream clean-up projects across affected regions. Much of that will be catchment led, because a lot of local projects are worked on right across catchments.
Lord Watts (Lab)
My Lords, does not the state of our chalk rivers demonstrate what problems were caused by a Government who did not care about the state of the rivers and a regulator that turned its back on them?
Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)
My noble friend is absolutely right that this is a long-term problem that has been going on for many years. Unfortunately, the water industry has simply not been held to account in the way that it should have been, and that is why we are bringing in the clean water Bill and changing the regulator.
Lord Redwood (Con)
Can the Government give us their estimate of the cost and the timetable for putting in the extra pipes and processing capacity so that we can clean up our rivers?
Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)
That is probably a cost for the water companies to assess.
Earl Russell (LD)
My Lords, I understand that the Government are on the verge of planning the NPPF. Does the Minister agree that it is more important that this is got right than got out quickly? She talked about making sure that we do something about the run-off from roads. Can she add any more detail to that?
Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)
When the NPPF was revised fairly recently, for the first time it included a lot of positive actions on the environment—for example, about how it needs to be taken into account during planning. In fact, sadly, I keep a copy of it in my drawer so I can refer to it if I need to. I am pleased that we are continuing to revise it and to look at how planning and the environment work together rather than against each other. The noble Earl raises an important point about run-off from roads, and we need to look at that in more detail.
Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Con)
My Lords, I think this is the first time the noble Baroness has said that the Bill may not reach Parliament in this Session. Where there is no need for primary legislation—for example, the proposals in the Cunliffe review—will she look to bring these in through secondary legislation where that is appropriate?
Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)
The noble Baroness must have misheard me. I absolutely did not say that the Bill was not coming in this Session. It is absolutely our intention to fulfil the pledge made in the King’s Speech that we will bring in the clean water Bill this Session.
Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb (GP)
I do not understand the Government’s reluctance to take Thames Water into special administration when it so clearly behaved appallingly and refuses to clean up the mess it has made of not only our chalk streams but the rest of our countryside.
Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)
Very strict conditions have to be met before the Government are allowed to do that. However, we have said that we will keep all options on the table if it comes to that.
Lord Gardiner of Kimble (Con)
In terms of our desire for clean water, can I ask that the Government work very closely with the champions of clean water—the fishing community, who are often the eyes and ears on early signs of pollution? It is important because, although we have the desire to do this, we need volunteers and others to ensure that this comes into effect. I very much hope that Defra and the noble Baroness will work extremely effectively with the fishing community.
Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)
The noble Lord makes an important point. In fact, much of the damage and the problems that have been caused by the water industry were first flagged up by fishermen and people such as Surfers Against Sewage—those who use our waterways, seas, rivers and lakes. It is incredibly important that we work with them constructively as we now move to clean the situation up.
The Lord Speaker (Lord Forsyth of Drumlean)
That concludes Oral Questions for today. Those who wish to stream out of the Chamber can do so quickly and quietly.
Railways Bill
(1 week, 1 day ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill
That the Railways Bill be committed to a Grand Committee and that it be an instruction to the Grand Committee that they consider the bill in the following order:
Clauses 1 to 11, Schedule 1, Clause 12, Schedule 2, Clauses 13 to 91, Schedule 3, Clauses 92 to 96, Schedule 4, Clauses 97 to 102, Title.
Lord McLoughlin (Con)
My Lords, perhaps we could have a bit more of an explanation from the Government as to why this Bill is being taken not on the Floor of the House but in Grand Committee. This is a major piece of legislation which affects every rail user up and down the country. It was first announced in the first King’s Speech of this Session and, unusually, repeated in the second King’s Speech, so it is not as if it is something new. This was supposed to be a priority. It is a priority which is taking a long time to deliver. It has incredibly important consequences and should be discussed not in Committee but on the Floor of the House. Perhaps the Minister will explain why the Government want to take this Bill into Committee rather than deal with it on the Floor of the House, as we usually do with most of the controversial pieces of legislation before your Lordships’ House.
Lord Grayling (Con)
My Lords, I echo my noble friend’s concerns. I am a relatively new Member of this House but I believed that significant pieces of legislation were taken on the Floor of the House and that less significant legislation was taken in Grand Committee. I really do not understand why the Government appear to have downgraded this legislation, particularly when it involves the biggest change to our transport system for more than 30 years. It involves a substantial amount of taxpayers’ money and support. The Bill also contains what can charitably be described only as a poison pill for a future Government: it seeks to tie the hands of the next Parliament on the specifics of governance. Surely all those things merit a debate in Committee on the Floor of the House.
Lord Harper (Con)
Just before the Minister rises, I ask him to forgive me, as an even newer Member of the House than my noble friend. I fear that we, as former Transport Secretaries, have managed to appear in threes; I hope that will not be a precedent.
I echo what my noble friends said. This is supposed to be a flagship piece of legislation, according to the Government. It is controversial: even though setting up GBR has some element of cross-party consensus, there are quite a number of areas of controversy, as demonstrated at Second Reading. It is a Bill which potentially touches on everybody in the House. It is not a narrow piece of legislation; it is very broad. I would have expected it to be taken on the Floor of the House. The Minister will be pleased to know that the usual channels were sufficiently persuasive to hold us back from dividing the House on this matter, but they may be less successful in holding us back when we reach Report, unless we hear a convincing explanation from the Minister today.
Baroness Morgan of Drefelin (Lab)
My Lords, as someone who has been in the House for a little bit longer, I would be really concerned about us seeing the work that is done in Grand Committee as downgraded or second best. From my point of view, the work done in Grand Committee is equally important. It is a really good opportunity for technical, detailed scrutiny of a Bill. If there are any areas that need to be voted on, there is always Report.
Baroness Dacres of Lewisham (Lab)
My Lords, following on from my noble friend’s point, can my noble friend the Minister confirm that any Member of this House can attend Grand Committee, and that it is recorded and can be watched back?
Lord Sentamu (CB)
My Lords, I sat through the Second Reading of this Bill. At the first debate, 30 people spoke and then a whole raft of amendments were put down by the noble Lords, Lord Hunt of Wirral and Lord Sharpe of Epsom, and the noble Lord, Lord Fox, from the Liberal Democrat Front Bench.
The Lord Privy Seal (Baroness Smith of Basildon) (Lab)
To help the noble and right reverend Lord, we are discussing the Railways Bill commitment Motion.
Lord Sentamu
What I want to say is that the numbers towards the end of that Bill were not as big as people suggest. Look in Hansard; the numbers were less.
The Minister of State, Department for Transport (Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill) (Lab)
My Lords, what a joy it is to hear from three former Transport Secretaries whom I have worked for. I predict hearing from a former deputy chair of Transport for London whom I have worked for shortly as well.
I know, as many do in this Chamber, that passengers and taxpayers have had enough of the current failed system. Change to our railways cannot come soon enough. I want to get on with fixing the railways by starting the scrutiny of this Bill as soon as possible. Divisions such as this simply delay the job that we are all here to do. It is perfectly normal for Bills to be committed to Grand Committee. A significant number of Bills, many of which propose significant legislative change, are committed to Grand Committee each Session. In the last Session of the previous Government, much important legislation was scrutinised in that way.
As my noble friends have confirmed, Grand Committee is not a lower standard of scrutiny. Any noble Lord can participate and proceedings are broadcast, as my noble friend just said. Its use means that the House’s time can be managed more effectively. It does not hinder, curtail or prevent detailed scrutiny of legislation. The Bill will return to the Chamber on Report.
Electricity Capacity (Amendment and Transitional Provision) Regulations 2026
(1 week, 1 day ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Whitehead
That the draft Regulations laid before the House on 14 May be approved.
Considered in Grand Committee on 7 July.
REACH (Amendment) (No. 2) Regulations 2026
(1 week, 1 day ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Hayman of Ullock
That the draft Regulations laid before the House on 24 March and 3 June be approved.
Relevant documents: 57th Report from the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee, Session 2024–26 and 5th Report from the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee (special attention drawn to the first instrument). Considered in Grand Committee on 7 July.
Criminal Justice Act 1988 (Offensive Weapons) (Amendment) (England and Wales) Order 2026
(1 week, 1 day ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Hanson of Flint
That the draft Order and Regulations laid before the House on 8 and 2 June be approved.
Considered in Grand Committee on 7 July.
Wireless Telegraphy Act 2006 (Directions to OFCOM) (Revocation) Order 2026
Baroness Ramsey of Wall Heath
That the draft Order and Regulations laid before the House on 18 May and 4 June be approved.
Considered in Grand Committee on 7 July.
Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Act 2026 (Establishment of Schools) (Consequential Amendments) Regulations 2026
Baroness Blake of Leeds
That the draft Regulations laid before the House on 20 May be approved.
Considered in Grand Committee on 7 July.
Steel Industry (Nationalisation) Bill
Monday 13th July 2026
(1 week, 1 day ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Steel Industry (Nationalisation) Act 2026 View all Steel Industry (Nationalisation) Act 2026 Debates Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: HL Bill 22–R–I(a) Amendment for Report (Supplementary to the Marshalled List) - (7 Jul 2026)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Business and Trade (Lord Leong) (Lab)
My Lords, I begin by making a short statement on legislative consent. The Government engaged with all three devolved Governments as soon as possible following the introduction of the Bill. A full devolution analysis was sent to all three devolved Governments on 18 May. Since then, my ministerial colleagues and officials have engaged at pace to address the issues that have been raised.
I am pleased that the Scottish Parliament granted legislative consent to the Bill on 23 June. I thank UK Government and Scottish Government Ministers and officials for working constructively and at pace to reach that outcome before the Scottish Parliament rose for recess. In Wales, a legislative consent memorandum was laid on 1 July and a legislative consent Motion has been tabled for debate in the Senedd tomorrow. I am happy to report that the Government have been able to address the concerns raised by Welsh Ministers regarding the Bill.
If the Government did decide to exercise the powers in the Bill, we would of course want to consider the appropriate governance. If a steel undertaking which had its principal place of business in Scotland, Wales or Northern Ireland were to be nationalised using the powers in the Bill, the Government would seek appropriate involvement for the relevant devolved Government to ensure that their views were considered in discussions where appropriate. This reflects the Government’s commitment to consulting the devolved Governments where decisions impact devolved policy areas, while acknowledging that the specifics of company governance would need to reflect the specific circumstances of an undertaking.
The responsibility for the management of the company would always rest with the board, which alone would possess voting rights and the right to make decisions. This would ensure that a devolved Government could be involved in shaping how a future asset is governed, while respecting the board’s responsibility for the management of the companies. Importantly, the arrangement also recognises the Secretary of State’s ultimate accountability to Parliament for the spending of UK government funds and the running of a nationalised undertaking. As a result of this commitment, my understanding is that Welsh Ministers will be recommending that legislative consent be granted to the Bill when the consent Motion is debated tomorrow.
In Northern Ireland, the Department for the Economy laid a memorandum on 26 June indicating that consent was not currently being sought by the Executive from the Assembly. The Government regret that it has not been possible to secure legislative consent from the Northern Ireland Assembly before Third Reading. We also recognise that the pace of the Bill has made the consent process more challenging. The Government sincerely regret that we were not able to engage with the devolved Governments before the Bill was introduced. However, by its nature the Bill contains commercial and market sensitivities. Those sensitivities limited the extent to which the Government could discuss a proposed approach in advance. Since its introduction, we have sought to engage openly and constructively. In addition to official-level discussions, Minister McDonald met Minister Archibald on 17 June and offered further engagement to address any concerns and to support the legislative consent process.
Steel is a vital industry for the whole United Kingdom. This Government are determined to secure the future of UK steel-making capability. For that reason, it remains important that the Bill extends to all parts of the United Kingdom, notwithstanding the present position on legislative consent in Northern Ireland. I beg to move.
Lord Leong (Lab)
My Lords, steel has shaped our nation’s history. It has built railways, bridges, factories, ships, homes, energy infrastructure and defence capability. It remains essential to our future—to growth, resilience, national security and the critical infrastructure on which our country depends. This legislation is one part of the Government’s wider commitment to the steel sector. It gives us the tools to act decisively if strategic steel-making capability is at risk. It supports our objective of restoring confidence, protecting jobs, strengthening domestic capability and securing a sustainable future for UK steel.
I express my sincere gratitude to noble Lords from across the House who have contributed to the scrutiny of the Bill. In particular, I thank the noble Lords, Lord Sharpe of Epsom, Lord Hunt of Wirral and Lord Fox, for the constructive, professional and friendly way in which they have engaged throughout. I am genuinely grateful. I also thank other noble Lords who have spoken with deep knowledge of industry, constitutional practice, devolution, public finance, workers’ interests and the wider economy; their contribution has helped ensure that this House has done its job properly. Finally, I thank the Bill team, my private office, officials from across government, the devolved Government officials who have engaged with us, parliamentary counsel and the House authorities for their work in supporting the passage of this legislation at pace and under considerable pressure.
This House has sent a clear message. The United Kingdom must be able to act when a strategic industry is at risk. We must protect steel-making capability, support workers and communities, and safeguard the critical supply chains on which our national resilience depends. I beg to move.
Lord Hunt of Wirral (Con)
My Lords, I thank my noble friends Lord Sharpe of Epsom and Lord Redwood, and the noble Lord, Lord Fox, for their considerable contributions and the expertise they have demonstrated throughout our consideration of the Bill. I also pay tribute to the two committees of this House that have contributed so much to our understanding of this urgent matter in their excellent reports—the Constitution Committee and the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee.
I also extend my thanks to the noble Lord, Lord Leong, the Minister, who has taken a very close interest throughout not only in the case for the Government taking the action that they have but in understanding our concern on a number of aspects. I thank his officials and the Bill team for all their hard work. Although significant differences remain between us, the Minister has always engaged constructively with concerns raised on all sides of the House, and I believe that the Bill has been improved as a result of that engagement.
Working together, we have secured a more credible sunset mechanism: any extension of the principal transfer powers will be limited to two years and will require the affirmative approval of both Houses. We have secured provisions requiring the Secretary of State to consider the likely costs before exercising the share transfer power or the property transfer power. We have also ensured that the relevant environmental, pension, and health and safety liabilities must be properly reflected in the independent valuation process.
We particularly welcome the greater parliamentary controls secured in Clauses 39 and 45: regulations under Clause 39 concerning the consideration and terms attached to continuity obligations will be subject to the affirmative or “made affirmative” procedure; regulations under Clause 45 concerning the enforcement of obligations arising from share or property transfers will be subject to the “made affirmative” procedure rather than the negative procedure originally proposed.
The Minister’s commitment to debates in both Houses on the steel strategy and the impact of this legislation is also very welcome, as are his assurances that any exercise of transfer powers will require an impact assessment and that quarterly Written Ministerial Statements will be provided for at least the first year in which a steel undertaking remains in public ownership. Those Statements will give Parliament the information that it needs to scrutinise operational performance, public expenditure and the consequences for workers, communities and the wider steel industry.
Nevertheless, a great deal of work remains to be done. Nationalisation may provide the Government with an emergency power, but it is not an industrial strategy. It cannot substitute for commercially viable businesses; for competent, market-aware management; and, above all, for sustained private sector investment. I came into the House 50 years ago, and we had experience of state ownership in the 1970s. I must tell the House that that provides no grounds for confidence or complacency. We must not allow what is intended to be temporary public ownership to default into an expensive and permanent arrangement. The long-term future of British steel depends on the United Kingdom once again becoming an attractive and affordable place in which to invest, to produce and to employ people. That requires us to confront the fundamental barriers facing steel and other energy-intensive industries.
Ministers have to address our internationally uncompetitive industrial electricity prices. They must examine the cumulative burden of the emissions trading scheme and the carbon border adjustment mechanism. They must consider the costs imposed by their employment policies as well as the ever-expanding burden of regulation, reporting and compliance. Unless those underlying problems are addressed, nationalisation will merely transfer the consequences of an uncompetitive business environment from private shareholders to the taxpayer; it will not resolve them.
Our objectives must therefore be clear: to secure the private investment that the steel industry desperately needs to preserve strategic domestic steel-making capacity and skilled employment, but also to minimise the exposure to the taxpayer. We welcome the improvements made to the Bill and the assurances placed on the record by the Minister. However, we will continue to scrutinise closely the use of these exceptional powers, the costs that arise from them and the Government’s progress in returning any nationalised undertaking to an investable, competitive and commercially viable future.
Lord Fox (LD)
My Lords, I agree with the Minister that the Bill is an important element in securing the future of the vital steel industry. It is, of course, a first step. There is an awful lot to do.
The Bill leaves your Lordships’ House in a better state than when it arrived. For example, it is now mandatory for overall costs of nationalisation to be taken into consideration by the Secretary of State when assessing the public interest; environmental legacy costs must be fully assessed by the valuer; there will be parliamentary debates and quarterly Written Ministerial Statements; the management of a business that is nationalised will be quizzed by Select Committees, and the steel council will better represent steel users.
Those are all important steps, and many are improvements on parliamentary accountability, which was the mission that we on these Benches set ourselves at the beginning of this debate. I echo the Minister in saying that that could not have been achieved without co-operation and debate.
I thank the Minister, his team and the departmental team for their openness, availability and flexibility. I thank the Minister in the Commons too for the time that he spent. I thank the noble Lords, Lord Sharpe and Lord Hunt, who remained, as ever, amiable debate company as we wended our way through the Bill. Finally, I thank Ulysse Abbate in the Lib Dem Whips’ Office, whose support has been superb.
As I said, the Bill has been materially changed. I hope that the Commons accept our changes and we do not have to see the Bill here again. It is a first step. I wish the Minister well in taking the next steps.
Lord Sentamu (CB)
My Lords, I apologise to the noble Lords, Lord Fox, Lord Hunt and Lord Sharpe. Their amendments were to this Bill and not to the trains Bill. Nevertheless, the point stands. The attendance was no greater than when it was debated in Grand Committee. I apologise and sincerely hope that they realise that I was so involved with both Bills that, in my enthusiasm, I erred. I am sorry.
Lord Leong (Lab)
My Lords, I just want to say a huge thank you to the noble Lords, Lord Hunt and Lord Fox, for their kind words and co-operation during the passage of the Bill.
Civil Service Pensions
(1 week, 1 day ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Finn (Con)
My Lords, I apologise to the House and to the Minister for having to wear these glasses today. I am doing so on medical advice.
Before turning to the questions raised by the Statement, I want to express my deepest sympathy with the civil servants and families caught up in this failure. Many of those affected will have given more than four decades of their lives to public service. They have planned their retirement in good faith and, having left work, may now be entirely reliant on their Civil Service pension to meet ordinary household bills and maintain the standard of living for which they have worked and saved. They should not be forced to borrow, depend on relatives or postpone retirement because the state cannot administer the pension it promised them. The damage done to their finances, health and confidence is unprecedented and entirely unacceptable.
I thank the noble Baroness for giving the House the opportunity to question this important Statement. Our first concern must be the people affected, with more than 6,700 pension quotations still outstanding for past retirement dates and more than 4,100 bereavement cases on which Capita can take action. Behind every figure is a retired public servant, a grieving family or a household left in uncertainty. They must remain at the forefront of the Government’s response.
The Paymaster-General has emphasised that the Capita contract was signed in November 2023 under the previous Government. That is a relevant fact, but it cannot be the end of the matter. The Cabinet Office retained institutional responsibility throughout a two-year transition between Governments, and critical decisions on readiness, data migration, contingency planning and the go-live of the contract on 1 December 2025 were taken after repeated warning signs. The issue is not only who originally signed the contract but whether the Cabinet Office acted as a capable and sceptical contracting authority. On these Benches, our concern is not ideological and we remain agnostic about whether a service is delivered in-house or by a contractor. Either way, the Government must remain an intelligent and accountable customer.
The National Audit Office reported in June 2025 that Capita had already missed three of the six transition milestones that were then due, that the Cabinet Office had withheld £9.6 million of payments and that the service planned for launch had been simplified because important functionality would not be ready. It also found there were no fixed innovation or digitalisation milestones against which the promised benefits could be managed. In October, the Public Accounts Committee warned that there was a clear risk that Capita would not be ready to take over as planned and concluded that the Cabinet Office had not shown that it could effectively manage the outsourced administration of the scheme.
The evidence given to parliamentary committees since the collapse is more troubling still. Senior Cabinet Office officials have acknowledged that they relied heavily on assurances from Capita, that there are lessons to learn and that the department is still not fully confident in the quality of Capita’s management information. Independent technical auditors are now being brought in to test the data, systems and assumptions. That is welcome, but it raises the obvious question: why was that independent specialist verification not completed before the system was permitted to go live?
We welcome the withholding of £9.9 million from Capita and the intervention of the pensions recovery task force, but a recovery task force, however necessary, is a remedy for failed contract management. It is not a substitute for proper assurance before launch. Can the Minister therefore tell the House who authorised the go-live decision, what objective go or no-go criteria were applied, which criteria Capita had failed to meet and whether any requirements were waived? Will the Government publish the relevant readiness assessments, assurance reports and risk decisions, subject only to genuinely necessary commercial redactions?
Capita has now missed both its end-of-April and end-of-June recovery milestones. Scheme members should not be asked to rely on another unverified promise. What firm dates have now been set for clearing the overdue retirement quotations and actionable bereavement cases? Have those dates been independently stress-tested by people with the technical and operational expertise to verify that they are deliverable?
There are also wider questions about supplier management across government. Will Capita be referred to the Debarment Review Service or will it continue to be permitted to compete for public contracts without such a review? Why was Capita selected in February as the preferred bidder for the DWP-led Synergy shared services contract while serious concerns about the pension transition were already evident? What cross-government assessment of Capita’s delivery risk was undertaken before that decision was finalised?
Finally, I welcome the provision for interest where full pension benefits are paid more than one month late and the ability to seek redress for other losses through the complaints process. However, compensation delayed can compound the original harm. What service standards will apply to those complaints? How quickly will consequential losses be assessed and paid? How will the Cabinet Office ensure that Capita, not affected pensioners and not the taxpayer, ultimately bears the cost of this failure?
This is a corporate failure by Capita, but it is also a grave failure of public sector commissioning, assurance and contract oversight. Civil servants who have spent their working lives serving the country were entitled to expect the Cabinet Office to test promises, verify systems and manage risk before transferring a service on which their livelihoods depend. The Government must now resolve the individual cases urgently, compensate those who have suffered loss and demonstrate that the machinery of government has learned the fundamental lesson: outsourcing responsibility does not outsource accountability.
Lord Pack (LD)
My Lords, Capita’s failure to meet its end-of-June deadline following the previous end-of-April missed deadline is obviously extremely disappointing, but this is a story not just of corporate failure, missed KPIs or missed calendar dates but of so many individual cases of heartbreaking distress, especially for those whose loved ones died unexpectedly and who are now left in limbo, in uncertainty and, in many cases, facing financial hardship as well.
To be fair, the Government’s rhetoric on this has been fairly robust not only in reminding us of when the original contract was signed but also, for example, in the Minister saying in the Statement:
“I will continue to apply the most stringent commercial levers”.
I note that, in the discussions in the Select Committees’ joint meeting in the House of Commons last week, there was some discussion of the pros and cons, for example, of sacking Capita outright from this contract. But one of the other stringent commercial levers that could be applied, of course, would be to raise the question whether Capita should be placed on the debarment list, if its failures in this case so significantly undermine our confidence in its ability as a company to deliver on its promises that it would not be appropriate to award it any new future contracts. Such a step might help concentrate minds somewhat when it comes to resolving the current problem.
Of course, adding any company to the debarment list—and I think this would be the first company to be so added—is, I appreciate, not a step to be taken lightly, but the scale of repeated failure in this case is quite striking, as is the scale of repeated broken promises. Capita clearly made commitments on technology and then to meet remedial deadlines that it has not met. Those commitments were not just made off the cuff, casually, at a junior level; as the Cabinet Office’s Permanent Secretary set out in her evidence in the House of Commons last week, these were very serious commitments made at senior level that have not been delivered on. Given this record from Capita, can the Minister tell us: will the Government consider commencing the process to review adding Capita to the debarment list?
I turn to the existing contract and its problems. The Cabinet Office has said—and I think this is very welcome—that it is doubling its capacity to deal with pension complaints, which will increase following these many problems. Of course, the Pensions Ombudsman, a little bit further down the track, could expect a surge of complaints working its way through the system as well. Although there have been comments and commitments about how Capita is paying some of the costs of dealing with this mess, I do not think it has been made clear yet, and I hope the Minister can therefore clarify, whether Capita will pay for the extra costs that the Cabinet Office, and in due course the Pensions Ombudsman, will incur for dealing with the complaints arising from this mess.
Given the dependency on Capita for getting the McCloud remedy cases resolved, and indeed the extra pressure of legal deadlines in those cases, what extra steps are the Government now taking, given Capita’s failure to deliver on that end-of-June deadline and the obvious doubts that therefore arise about its ability to deliver what it has promised in other key areas? That question also applies to Capita’s recently won synergy contract.
Finally, to return to the main pensions fiasco, the Minister in the Commons said the Government are imminently expecting a new update and a new set of promises from Capita. Given that we will shortly go into recess, can the Minister also update us on what the Government’s intentions are to ensure that Parliament is fully updated on those new plans before recess commences?
The Parliamentary Secretary, Cabinet Office (Baroness Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent) (Lab)
My Lords, I echo the words of the noble Baroness, Lady Finn, and the noble Lord, Lord Pack, and pay tribute to our fantastic public servants. Many Members of your Lordships’ House have worked extremely closely with members of our Civil Service. They deserve, at the very least, the security and dignity of a decent pension, which is their entitlement, and their deferred salary, rather than what they are currently experiencing. We are talking about people who have dedicated their careers to our public services. It should be non-negotiable that they deserve a pension service that is reliable, efficient and secure. We are, after all, discussing their deferred salary, and too many experiences have simply been appalling. When the standards they deserve are not upheld, the Government will not hesitate to act decisively to protect their interests.
The failure of Capita to meet its critical operational recovery milestones follows a complete non-delivery of promised automated technology and artificial intelligence infrastructure. Capita’s senior leadership team gave explicit personal assurances to Ministers and to very senior civil servants ahead of the handover that they were fully capable of managing the workload—yet they were clearly completely unprepared, allowing the system to become overwhelmed and the backlog to peak at a staggering 120,000 unresolved cases.
The operational reality since the transfer to Capita on 1 December has fallen far short of the required standard. As of the end of June, there were still more than 6,700 outstanding retirement quotations for past retirement dates and over 4,100 unresolved bereavement cases on which Capita could and should have taken action. The stories of members and grieving families falling into hardship are distressing and entirely unacceptable. This is why a specialist pensions recovery taskforce was established to take strategic oversight of operations and ensure no one faces financial anxiety alone.
The emergency transitional support loan scheme has been expanded, with over £15.6 million in interest-free funds already issued to more than 2,842 members who need financial support while we very quickly try to fix what is so horribly broken. Without the vital support of the Cabinet Office pensions recovery taskforce and the 140-strong government surge team, the progress that has been achieved would simply not have happened. This intervention was essential to inject immediate operational capability when the system was overwhelmed.
To reassure your Lordships’ House, as both the noble Baroness and the noble Lord have asked, public money will not be used to fund corporate failings. We will claw back every single penny of these surge costs directly from Capita. There is no intention to remove a single member of the team until the service is permanently fixed and fully restored to contractually required standard levels.
The noble Lord, Lord Pack, asked about the Pensions Ombudsman. I believe we will be several months away from that, but we will have a meeting over the summer to look at all the costs concerned. I will ensure that those potential costs are considered as part of any arrangement.
Transitioning to Capita was assessed as the operationally lower risk path to safeguard scheme continuity, given that remaining with the previous provider, MyCSP, had become commercially and operationally unviable. The only alternative proposal demanded astronomical costs and the total removal of all standard service level agreements for the contract—all while the backlog of cases was increasing by 10,000 every month while MyCSP was in charge. Crucially, ahead of a handover, explicit personal assurances were secured directly from Capita’s chief executive that they possessed the necessary operational capacity to manage the transferred workload successfully.
This is remarkable, considering that ahead of the transition the chief executive of Capita even promised that technology improvements would create a flagship use case for the largest AI-enabled pension scheme in the country. It is now clear that the non-delivery of technology has been a fundamental part of Capita’s inability to deliver. Because those guarantees have been broken, milestone payments totalling £9.9 million have been withheld. We have instructed Capita to provide a full rectification plan by 14 July— tomorrow—and every right is reserved to take further formal action, including potential litigation or direct control step-in remedies.
As both the noble Baroness and the noble Lord highlighted, Capita has missed both its end of April and end of June milestones to return service to standard, contractually required levels. These were milestone deadlines that Capita agreed to; they were not imposed on Capita. It has failed to meet its own deadlines. Its current working assumption is to systematically clear the remaining past retirement quotes and actionable bereavement backlogs throughout July and August. To provide robust oversight on the ground, we are immediately deploying independent technical auditors to review data integrity, alongside a remedial adviser, appointed at Capita’s sole expense, to force daily rectification.
On Synergy, while individual public sector deals such as the DWP Synergy contract are governed under separate legal regulations, this crisis highlights the limitations of outsourcing. Under the new public interest test, introduced on 17 June, outsourcing by default will end, and this pension scheme remains a prime candidate to be brought permanently back in-house.
The noble Baroness and the noble Lord asked me two specific questions on debarment and the Procurement Act 2023. Noble Lords will appreciate that we are in the middle of a contractual dispute, so we are following each element of our contract. I therefore cannot comment in detail on next steps regarding any contract, but all strategic suppliers remain under constant review. We will not hesitate to use our powers under the Procurement Act to investigate and, where appropriate and proportionate, exclude poorly performing suppliers from future procurements.
The noble Lord, Lord Pack, raised the implementation of the McCloud remedy. This is a complex programme requiring revised statements for approximately 74,000 pensioners and 21,000 deferred members. We are working hard with Capita to aim to keep to our target of issuing the majority of revised option statements during 2027, and we are applying rigorous commercial pressure to ensure that these public servants receive the correct pension adjustments they are owed.
I take this opportunity to confirm to Members of your Lordships’ House that current recipients of the pension scheme have not been affected by this appalling contractual failure; the problems lie with people who are seeking to access the scheme. Given how many people are members of this pension scheme, it is important that we do not scare current recipients with what is happening.
In conclusion, as the noble Baroness, Lady Finn, rightly pointed out, every statistic is not a number but a family, a retired civil servant—a human being not receiving their core pension entitlement. This is simply unacceptable. We will continue to use every commercial lever at our disposal to ensure that members receive what they have earned. In October, your Lordships’ House will receive a comprehensive formal update on the definitive findings of the independent audit and the longer-term structural options for the scheme.
Lord Davies of Brixton (Lab)
I thank my noble friend for the Statement. As she knows, I have been asking questions on this issue for most of this year, so I welcome the attention it is now receiving from the ministerial team and the work they are doing. Of course, the issue of outsourcing and the role of Capita will have to be dealt with, but I am sure my noble friend agrees that the priority now is to get the payments to the people who need them.
I attended the Statement in the House of Commons and listened to MPs repeating stories of the problems faced by the recipients, and I went to the Joint Committee meeting for as long as I could bear it. We all know that there are real human problems here. Of course, it is good that interest is being paid on late payments and that loans are being made. The interest rate is Bank of England plus 1%, but that is the rate paid when the Government pay people money. When the Government claim money from people, they charge a higher rate of interest. My view is that, in these circumstances, the higher rate of interest should be payable by Capita. Perhaps my noble friend could look at that matter and reconsider it.
The more important thing is that, in the Commons, the Minister said in reply to a question that
“members will have the opportunity to ask for other losses to be covered as part of the complaints process”.—[Official Report, Commons, 6/7/26; col. 66.]
We are beyond that stage now. These people deserve compensation for the mental stress and anguish that they have suffered, and we should expect Capita to give them cash compensation for the problems it created.
Baroness Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent (Lab)
I thank my noble friend for all his work to raise this and to work so constructively with my colleagues here and at the other end. On the specifics, I heard what he said about the interest payment—that may be a little above my pay grade, but I will raise it with colleagues. I very much appreciate my noble friend’s questions about compensation, but he will appreciate that we are still in the middle of trying to stabilise the pension scheme. I genuinely did not think I would be here saying that; I had hoped that, by this point, we would be well beyond that and Capita would have met its milestone deadlines, but it has not. There are still 429 people waiting on ill health retirement cases, 131 of whom have been waiting for two months, and 618 outstanding death in service cases, with 237 waiting for more than four months, as well as the harrowing stories that we have heard. We need to fix that and then look at what comes next.
Baroness Wheatcroft (CB)
My Lords, this fiasco has made clear that Capita cannot deliver what its chief executive promises. Can the Minister tell the House how many contracts with government Capita still has, whether there is any overall evaluation of how those contracts are performing, and how confident the Government feel, despite her welcome assurance that contracts are regularly evaluated, that Capita is now up to the job of fulfilling those contracts?
Baroness Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent (Lab)
The noble Baroness is right: the reality is that Capita provides contracts across government. In fact, we are its single biggest client, I believe. Capita holds a total of 85 contracts across the public sector: 39 in central government and 46 in the wider public sector. Some 87% of its KPIs—key performance indicators—are rated as good. But the noble Baroness is absolutely right, which is why we are now reviewing Capita’s performance across the government portfolio.
Lord Balfe (Con)
My Lords, I declare an interest: I am a member of this scheme. Let no one say that the British became bad Europeans lately: in 1978, in a last-minute endeavour to put off direct elections, Jim Callaghan persuaded the Council of Ministers that, instead of having a common European pension and salary, MEPs would be paid and pensioned by their member state. That lasted until—believe it or not—2009. Of course, he had not thought it out. When he came back, the then Civil Service Pension Scheme, based in Basingstoke, was told to organise a pension, which it did. After many years, the European Parliament Members’ pension scheme for British Members up to 2004 is run by Capita. It is run as an adjunct to the MPs’ scheme, except that it is contributory but not funded. In other words, the money is not invested. I have been either a manager or a chair of managers of that scheme ever since 1979. I then became chair of the European Parliament’s scheme.
I have found that there has been complete obfuscation between the Civil Service and Capita as to what we can be told. My plea to the Minister is to please ask for greater transparency. I find it completely unacceptable that I can read the obituary of a colleague in the paper and then be told by Capita that it is information protected by GDPR—it cannot tell me who has died, even though I can tell Capita. Will the Minister try to get some greater clarity, so that the present managers—there are only seven of them—can at least find out who their pensioners are, whether they are still alive and any other salient facts? It is just not acceptable.
Baroness Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent (Lab)
I thank the noble Lord. One of the reasons I love being a Member of your Lordships’ House is that every day is a history lesson, including about history that happened before I was born—I say that just to make me feel better. The noble Lord raises an important point about transparency. He will be aware that I am the Minister with responsibility for standards, so how could I do anything other than make sure that my officials meet him to try to get him the answers he is looking for?
Baroness Winterton of Doncaster (Lab)
My Lords, as a previous Pensions Minister, I am aware of how difficult it is to persuade young people in particular to make proper pensions provision. The danger of a scandal such as this, caused by Capita, is that confidence in the pensions system is undermined. Can my noble friend the Minister assure me that government campaigns to make people aware of the importance of proper pensions provision will continue, and in fact be redoubled, perhaps in conjunction with the trade unions, who I am sure she meets on a regular basis?
Baroness Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent (Lab)
I thank my noble friend. She is absolutely right. It is incredibly important that the failure that we are currently discussing and wider concerns about how our pensions operate are not seen as suggesting to younger people, especially, that they should not sign up to pension schemes. It is deferred salary and they are entitled to it; it is part of their overall package.
I was reflecting today with my private office—all of whom make me feel very old, hence my previous comment—on the fact that we are trying to fix their pension scheme. The first thing I did when I started working for my trade union, which is now Unite, was to write a guide for our members to the NHS pension scheme. The unions fulfil an exceptionally important role in making sure that people have access to their full terms and conditions. As for the problems that we are currently experiencing with this scheme, our officials are meeting every week with the FDA, PCS and Prospect to make sure that the workforce is fully engaged.
Lord Butler of Brockwell (CB)
My Lords, I declare an interest as a Civil Service pensioner, though one with the reassurance that existing pensioners are not affected. I welcome that interest is being paid on late payments, and that is compensation for other damage. However, what assurance can the Minister give that the payments that are due will not be delayed by endless processes—legal processes and others—that will stop people getting what they now really deserve and need?
Baroness Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent (Lab)
The noble Lord is absolutely right. There is zero excuse for not getting this money to people as quickly as possible. We have all read about this and had people directly approach us. I appreciate that many former members of the Civil Service will undoubtedly have had colleagues who have just retired approach them about the impact this is having on their lives. We need the money out the door as quickly as possible and the pension scheme stabilised at the earliest opportunity.
Lord Falconer of Thoroton (Lab)
My Lords, the Minister, who has been incredibly helpful in relation to this, has said that £9.9 million so far has been withheld from Capita as a result of this absolutely dreadful scandal. Will the Minister give us an approximate amount of money that Capita has received, gross, from the Government since November 2023, when this contract was entered into? My fear is that £9.9 million withheld is absolutely nothing, and that is why little is happening.
Baroness Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent (Lab)
My noble and learned friend is right. I do not have that information in front of me because this is a combination of government contracts and public service contracts, but while the £9.9 million is a first stepping stone for not meeting the milestones that it promised us, the noble and learned Lord may be interested to look at the profits warnings that Capita issued this week.
Baroness Nichols of Selby (Lab)
My Lords, does the Minister agree that the most important thing is for those people who are waiting to get their pensions now? Everything else, such as the compensation, can be dealt with afterwards. It is about the people who are waiting now. As a public sector worker of almost 43 years, I am fortunately not in the Civil Service Pension Scheme, but am in the local government scheme, and I had my pension within four weeks. Maybe there are some lessons to be learned, which could help the Civil Service, by looking at what other pension schemes do.
Baroness Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent (Lab)
I would never disagree with my noble friend—she scares me on a good day—because she is a fabulous trade union official who has fought her members’ corner for a long time. She is absolutely right. When I have been at the Dispatch Box discussing these issues, I have been asked many times about how we got here, what is happening next and what is going to happen to Capita. Those are all valid questions that need to be answered, but the priority must be to get the money out the door, especially to those who have faced bereavement and ill health retirement. It is the very least we owe them.
Lord Birt (CB)
My Lords, this is plainly an extremely unhappy matter, above all for the civil servants affected, and I do not claim to be an expert on it. Is the fault all Capita’s? Was there not a very troubling two-year handover from the previous administrator and does the Cabinet Office not have to bear some responsibility for managing this transition? Does the Minister accept that, when this is over, there needs to be an independent eye to look at this and to learn the lessons?
Baroness Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent (Lab)
The noble Lord is right. The contract was signed and we received assurances. In response to the NAO report, we met Capita and went through a clear plan. There was a much larger backlog than was anticipated that came over from MyCSP, and the technological failures at that point meant that what we thought was going to happen has not happened, and the promises that were made since then have not been kept. However, the noble Lord raises an important point. That is why the Cabinet Office is now conducting an evidence-led review into how this failure arose, to make sure that all future contracts learn these lessons.
Civil Aviation (Consumer Protection and Regulatory Reform) Bill [HL]
Monday 13th July 2026
(1 week, 1 day ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Civil Aviation (Consumer Protection and Regulatory Reform) Bill [HL] 2026-27 View all Civil Aviation (Consumer Protection and Regulatory Reform) Bill [HL] 2026-27 Debates Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: HL Bill 1–R–I(b) Manuscript Amendment for Report (Supplementary to the Marshalled List) - (13 Jul 2026)
17:52 - Division on Amendment 3 - Ayes: 158 / Noes: 239 - Amendment 3 disagreed.
19:42 - Division on Amendment 33 - Ayes: 142 / Noes: 138 - Amendment 33 agreed.
21:47 - Division on Amendment 65 - Ayes: 41 / Noes: 118 - Amendment 65 disagreed.
Lord Moylan
“Purpose(1) The purpose of this Act is to—(a) promote the international competitiveness of the United Kingdom aviation sector;(b) support economic growth in that sector;(c) protect the rights and interests of consumers of air transport and airport services.(2) The Secretary of State must, in taking any actions under the provisions of this Act, have regard to this purpose.”Member's explanatory statement
This amendment inserts a purpose clause into the Bill requiring the Secretary of State and the CAA to have regard to the promotion of the international competitiveness of the United Kingdom aviation sector and economic growth in that sector.
Lord Moylan (Con)
My Lords, this is what I refer to as, in essence, an administrative Bill, in that it does not make large changes to the way in which civil aviation operates but changes significantly the way in which decisions will be made in future about how civil aviation operates. It does that necessarily because many of the decisions that have been made in the past and until now have been carried out under European Union legislation. Since we happily left the European Union, a substitute for that decision-making must be found.
My concern about this Bill throughout Committee has been that the new system has, in many ways, been a terrible botch. One of the features of it has been that very large powers are being taken away, so to speak, from the European Union and given to the Civil Aviation Authority almost without supervision or ministerial oversight: they are, in other words, being transferred to unelected bureaucrats. It is as if the Government have been completely deaf to what we voted for when we voted to leave the European Union.
I will be fairly brief on Amendments 1 and 3, but a few words of introduction are important in this case. The background to them—and I have to say this frankly— is the catastrophic Government we have suffered from in the last two years. They have been so catastrophic that they have had to depose their own party leader and Prime Minister and go outside Parliament to seek a substitute, in order to reset the Government and try to recover from what has been a complete disaster. In that context, it seems quite wrong that the Government should be seeking our trust to take these powers, with almost no parliamentary scrutiny, to pass many of them to the Civil Aviation Authority with very little ministerial oversight, saying to Parliament, “You can trust us to get it right”. I am afraid the basis of that trust has gone.
That is why we have two amendments in this group, one of which, Amendment 1, seeks to give a purpose to the Bill and sets out what the guiding principles underlying the Bill should be: that competition and the economy are important. I know that Governments generally do not like purpose clauses, and I have to admit that, as I think most noble Lords know, even the Public Bill Office does not like them. However, I have reinforced and buttressed Amendment 1 with Amendment 3, which gives specific guidance to the Government on what they need to take into account when making decisions under Clause 1 to do with passenger protection. They focus very much on the opportunities that aviation gives us for economic growth and on the necessity, to that end, of competition and competitiveness in the sector.
It is astonishing that when one talks to members of the Government and asks, “What about the economy and competitiveness?”, they often look at one as if one were talking about something from Mars. They are all for growth, but when you say that the mechanics of growth involve such things as competitiveness and light-touch regulation, they wonder what you mean. It is as if the only route to growth is the expenditure of public money—money we have now, in fact, run out of.
The Minister has said, and I do not think it is a matter of controversy, that the aviation sector—indeed, like other transport sectors—is an important infrastructural base for economic growth and that we need the capacity to give the country the aviation services it requires. Therefore, requiring the Government to have regard to those factors and to avoid overregulation is reasonable guidance to them in putting this together. It must be said at the outset that the Minister has clearly listened carefully to many of the points made in Committee and has tabled a raft of amendments in response. Many of his amendments could have gone further, but they have come some way in the direction I and many other noble Lords, including the noble Baroness, Lady Grey-Thompson, have been arguing for, so I am grateful to him for that. However, he has not listened on this point, and it is perhaps time that he should. He still has a chance to redeem himself. I must say that if he fails to do so, I am very likely to test the opinion of the House on Amendment 3.
Lord Harper (Con)
My Lords, I will speak briefly in support of my noble friend Lord Moylan’s two amendments. I have some general remarks about them, and two specific points which are questions to the Minister.
The first point, which I will not labour at length since we dealt with it in Committee, is the focus of my noble friend’s Amendment 1: the importance of growing the aviation sector itself and making sure it is competitive. It is important to have that as a focus, because there are those—some inside your Lordships’ House and also those outside—who want to stymie and stifle the aviation sector, which would be a retrograde step. I should have done this at the beginning of my remarks, but at this point I declare my interest, as in the register, as the non-exec chair of RVL Aviation. I did that one or two moments too late but in the nick of time.
My second point is on my noble friend’s Amendment 3, which is about economic growth more widely and therefore links the importance of growing the aviation sector and its role in growing the economy. I want to put this point on the record because I suspect that a lot of the debate will be focused, rightly, on the impact of many rules on passengers. But it is worth remembering the very significant role that aviation plays in trade, and in not just the volume but the value of imports and exports to and from the United Kingdom. This is very significant. It is important to our overall competitiveness, particularly in high-value sectors, that aviation remains strong to promote the wider economy.
I have two specific questions to the Minister. He will remember that in Committee, we had a debate, prompted by an amendment I tabled, on the impact on airports following the revaluation and very significant rises—a multiple factor increase—in business rates. The Minister referenced the fact that a review is ongoing. I want to put on record the importance of this issue in the context of my noble friend’s two amendments, for this reason.
There has been some talk—which I recognise is only speculation at this point—from the man who will be Prime Minister next week that he favours an increase in business rates on what are loosely defined as out-of-town warehouses, large premises, in order to generate revenue for the Government and cut business rates for the high street. I ask the Minister to specifically make it clear that for this purpose—I am not going to go into the wider debate on business rates—airports should not be included in the category of large, out-of-town warehouse sites, and should not be facing a significant increase in business rates in order to pay for reductions on the high street. I ask the Minister to give whatever commitment he is able to at this stage about that, because that would be a retrograde step. The review that is taking place will, I hope, conclude that the very significant rise in business rates that has hit airports is good for neither the sector nor passengers and freight users, because those costs are just loaded on to the users. I hope the Minister can rule that out.
The second area is for me to reflect on the point that my noble friend Lord Moylan has made in both his amendments: the importance of economic growth. The Government have said on a number of occasions that economic growth is their number one priority. The problem with that assertion is that, since the general election, there has been almost no GDP growth per head. The economy has grown a little, but it has not kept pace with the rise in the population, so there has not really been any economic growth.
Baroness Foster of Oxton (Con)
My Lords, I support the comments made by my noble friend Lord Moylan. I do not think that there is a very simple solution. Before we covered all the legislation from the European Union, it was fairly straightforward for many decades in this country, as the CAA as a regulator had sole responsibility for all the technical issues, obviously coming under the auspices of the Government, the Secretary of State and certain experts and committees. We then started to debate and bring in a lot of primary legislation from the EU; that was obviously implemented in all member states, including the United Kingdom.
From when I entered the European Parliament in 1999, all these huge subjects—security, passenger rights, traffic rights, airspace restructuring, mandatory reporting, slots, flight time limitations or anything else related—were all debated by the Committee on Transport and Tourism. It was not a small committee; the committees in the European Parliament are not small. Everything was debated very carefully, with different points of view. Experts were brought in. It would take a couple of years to take through a piece of legislation. It was the same system, where there were at least two or three readings.
That brings me to where we are, because we have a different system. It is clear to me that the CAA is our primary regulator—it is an excellent regulator, in my view. We in the United Kingdom were always seen as one of the paramount countries in terms of regulation for both the maritime and aviation sectors. How is this going to work? On the one hand, we have the Civil Aviation Authority, which is the correct regulator, but, on the other, throughout the Bill there is reference to “the Secretary of State will decide”. Therefore, the Secretary of State decides, but there does not seem to be anything in the middle.
That brings me to the question of how we then bring back very difficult and complex decisions, for example, to the Floor of the House or a Committee. In the European Parliament, when we believed it was a very important issue—such as passenger rights or security—we did not go along with the delegated Acts argument. With delegated Acts, once something was updated, the Commission could then implement those changes without coming back to the Parliament. Therefore, very often, we insisted that, for a number of these subjects, we would have implementing Acts. Therefore, whenever a piece of legislation—for security, passenger rights or slots, for example—needed to come back to be updated, normally within a few years, it would come back to the Parliament and withstand scrutiny by the members of a committee who could call in the required experts.
There is, therefore, a bit of an issue over how we bridge this to ensure that, when we require scrutiny and some of the areas of civil aviation to come into Parliament for more discussion and debate, there is an easy way for that to happen. This is not a criticism of the Civil Aviation Authority; as I have said, it is an excellent authority. I will throw that to our friend, the Minister, who, as he very well knows, I have great regard for, because it needs some clarification.
My final point is on growth. My noble friend covered this issue well already. I do not see anything in the Bill that shows where we can create growth. There seem to be many areas where, as my noble friends said, we want to increase taxation or business rates on the industry. Other Members of this House would like to see the industry restricted, which is not what I would like to see. Again, we need to be bold and forthright. This industry is hugely important to the economy; basically, it is one of the most successful industries that we have ever created in this country, with vectors from around the world from imports and exports, as well as the free movement of people. I would like to hear more from the Minister on how we can achieve growth here, because some of the restrictions that are proposed by others will certainly not lead to the continued success that we would all like to see.
Lord Redwood (Con)
My Lords, this is a very strange Bill; it is a Bill in search of a purpose, which proposes and transfers substantial powers to a regulatory body but which gives us no road map for how those powers are going to be used. In the debates we have had so far and in the amendments we are looking at this afternoon, it is inevitable that there will be amendments to try to give the Bill a purpose, to limit the use of the powers, because their use has not been explained, and to get some better regulation directly into the Bill, given the absence of any suggestion for improvements in the legislation that we have before us. That includes some very good proposals that we will come to later to improve the lot of disabled travellers, for example. I can understand why people want to get something worth while into the Bill, which is otherwise this rather strange transfer of powers, in order to be able to trust this independent body. We know that there is no urgency about this because we know from the impact assessment that there will not be any costs or benefits for the foreseeable future, and that the CAA will be given about a year after the successful passage of the Bill, if it goes through, to contemplate and review.
I support my noble friend because he is trying to give the Bill an overriding purpose, which should be entirely at one with the manifesto, the plans and the stated intentions of both the outgoing and the incoming Prime Minister and the Chancellor of the Exchequer. I think we all agree, across parties, that it would be good if our economy grew faster than it has been growing since the great crash of 2008-09. Surely we can all see that this requires a sector-by-sector response, as well as changes in general economic policy that are not the subject of this debate.
My noble friend is right to try to make growth and competitiveness the twin aims. I suspect that the Minister is very sympathetic, but he will need to get colleagues and others to co-operate in speeding up work to try to ensure that the aviation sector—which is normally a fast-growing, modernising, important sector, particularly in an island country that needs good transport links—is one of the attractive means of increasing our activity and our growth, creating more and better-paid jobs.
This legislation covers issues that could make a very material contribution to that faster growth. It covers the question of airport slots. Will there be more of them, and is there a policy to try to create more capacity? What is the Government’s view on airport expansion? Will there be more expansion of smaller and regional airports to take some of the strain off the main centre in London? What is the plan for London, and when will we have the very large number of slots expanded? It is clearly under great pressure of demand.
Regulations on charging are mentioned but not detailed in this legislation. We have already heard from my noble friend about the possible tax charges on certain types of business premise, but we really need to hear from the Government what the charging policy is going to be for scarce airport space, particularly in London, where we are becoming uncompetitive against Schiphol, Paris, Frankfurt and some of the other continental airports that are our natural competitors. If you become not very price competitive, you start to lose the interlining and air-switching business, which can be handled by a big intersection airport such as Amsterdam just as well as it can be handled by Heathrow. We need a bit more guidance on how these regulations might develop and be included.
I urge the Minister to take off one or two of the veils and give us some idea of how these policies on improved regulation for the cost of use of airports, the amount of airport space, the allocation of slots and the general conduct of air traffic in our country might be deployed. I find it odd that, two years into a Government with a very strong majority and a strong mandate for quite a limited manifesto, they do not seem to have those burning desires, for example, to get our aviation sector really growing quickly. They are not answering the questions about these very basic things. How much airport space? How do you allocate the slots? What is the pricing? How much support do you give to the industry? What will the regulatory impact be on that industry? We all want safety regulation and good regulation so that the customer gets a decent deal, but we do not want so much regulation that it throttles the industry here and an extremely mobile and fast-moving industry can shift its assets the following day to another hub airport somewhere else, taking a lot of the business away.
Baroness Brinton (LD)
My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Moylan, for Amendment 1, but I express concern that it and Amendment 3 are in conflict in their proposed new subsections (1)(c) and (1B)(c). The reason for that was amply explained by the noble Lord, Lord Redwood. He started by saying that this Bill is one in search of a purpose, but went on to say that we are going to improve the lot of disabled people, among other things. I am very grateful that he said that, because proposed new subsection (1B)(c) in Amendment 3 asks the Secretary of State to make it an absolute priority to consider the impact of the regulations on
“the burdens imposed on air transport service providers and airport operators in complying with the regulations”.
Part of the journey of disabled people in buying a ticket, going through various airports and actually flying is that most of the providers would say that all provision for disabled people is a burden. They try to minimise everything they can. Does the Minister agree with me on that? Perhaps the noble Lord, Lord Moylan, also might like to address that when he comments at the end.
Baroness Grender (LD)
My Lords, I turn to the first group of amendments, Amendments 1 and 3 tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Moylan. I thank both Front Benches for having met us over the past few days in the run-up to Report. All the insight, information and conversations have been very much appreciated. I admire the attempt of the noble Lord, Lord Moylan, to insert an overarching economic growth purpose into the heart of the Bill, which I see as a valiant attempt. I hope that he will in turn look kindly on some of my valiant attempts in further groups.
As he rightly says, the Government should be stretching every sinew to pursue growth, as we did in the wake of the economic crash of 2008 and the extremely difficult days of the coalition Government. I had the enormous privilege of being what one might describe as an unelected bureaucrat, sitting in Cabinet meetings and watching those proceedings. Not a week went by when economic growth was not discussed, and that was a good thing.
Technically, unless I have misread it or misunderstood it in Committee, this is primarily a safety and consumer protection framework, with slots and modernisation as part of it. In mandating that the Secretary of State have regard to promoting economic growth when regulating passenger rights under Clause 1, I worry about subordinating the safety and dignity of the travelling public to the commercial margins of what the noble Lord, Lord Harper, described in Committee as a low-margin industry. It is vital to reflect through this Bill, as we talked about in Committee, the low margins of ordinary passengers who must jump through hoop after hoop to get what is by rights their compensation and, in turn, bear the financial consequence and burden. That is what worries me.
Lord Harper (Con)
Before the noble Baroness sits down, can I reference the point that she made about disabled people? The amendment tabled by my noble friend Lord Moylan just says that the Government have to consider the burdens. If you make air travel better for disabled people, you will grow the top line. You will have more people flying and higher revenues. Secondly, the Minister has simply to consider those costs; he may still consider that they are the right thing to do. So I do not think that there is a contradiction in the way that she set out.
Baroness Grender (LD)
I thank the noble Lord. We think that driving for this principle cuts across the stronger consumer rights that we have been talking about all through Committee.
The Minister of State, Department for Transport (Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill) (Lab)
My Lords, before addressing these amendments, I thank all noble Lords for their continued contributions to the Bill. It is clear that we share the common goal of improving the aviation sector. The Government have carefully reflected on the arguments that have been put forward during the Bill’s passage. The amendments in my name respond to that constructive engagement and I hope that they will be welcomed by your Lordships.
I thank the noble Lord, Lord Moylan, for bringing Amendment 1 forward. We discussed in Committee how the Bill will promote economic growth. Having considered the arguments made then and, indeed, the speech made by the noble Lord, Lord Moylan, just now, and that of the noble Lord, Lord Redwood, and others, the Government’s position remains unchanged. I fully recognise the intention behind the amendment, which is to ensure that, alongside consumer protection, we would continue to support a competitive and growing aviation sector. Those are objectives that the Government strongly support. As I set out in Committee, growth and competitiveness are already central to the Government’s aviation agenda. Beyond this Bill, we are also taking forward airspace modernisation, supporting innovation through the Future of Flight programme, embedding a pro-growth approach across regulation and backing airport expansion where it can deliver economic benefits and meet planning and environmental requirements.
The amendment also seeks to protect the rights and interests of air passengers. On that point, the Government have listened carefully to concerns raised during the Bill’s passage and have brought forward amendments requiring the Secretary of State, while exercising the powers in Clause 1, to have due regard to strengthening air passenger rights and to principles relating to dignity, accessibility and support for disabled passengers and those with reduced mobility. We have done so because these considerations are directly relevant to the exercise of those powers.
I agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, that this issue is important and relevant to economic growth. However, I do not consider Amendment 1 necessary. Economic growth, investment and competitiveness are already important considerations in aviation policy and regulation, and these priorities are reflected in the Secretary of State’s engagement with the Civil Aviation Authority. On the authority, I note the view of the noble Baroness, Lady Foster of Oxton, from her extensive experience, that the CAA is an excellent regulator. The noble Baroness will, I hope, note my later amendments on the proposed delegations and controls when we get to that section of the Bill.
More fundamentally, Amendment 1 would require the Secretary of State to give statutory regard to a specific set of objectives when exercising powers under the Bill. Although those objectives are important, they are not the only relevant consideration. As I noted in Committee, this list does not include safety, which is fundamental to aviation and underpins the measures in the Bill. Nor does it capture the full range of factors that may need to be taken into account in particular circumstances. The Government’s view remains that it is better to preserve the flexibility to balance all relevant considerations rather than elevating a limited set of factors in legislation. I think that is also what the noble Baroness, Lady Grender, referred to, and I also note, as she did, that the Civil Aviation Authority is already subject to a statutory growth duty, which requires it to have regard to economic growth in the exercise of its regulatory functions.
Turning to Amendment 3, the Government agree that economic growth is a priority. However, consideration of growth is already embedded across government decision-making. Policy proposals are assessed for their impact on growth and departments are required through options, appraisal and impact assessment processes to demonstrate those effects before decisions are taken. I listened to the noble Lord, Lord Harper, carefully and he referred to the call for evidence about the valuation methodology, which will involve constructive engagement with the aviation industry ahead of the 2029 revaluation. I note his view that airports should not be considered as out-of-town warehouses, and we will see what happens with government in the future about that. For all those reasons, I am unable to support the amendments, and I respectfully ask the noble Lord not to press them.
Lord Moylan (Con)
My Lords, I am disappointed to hear the noble Lord’s response; I would largely be repeating myself if I were to explain in any detail why. I think the point made by the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, has been responded to by my noble friend Lord Harper. I will be second to none in admiring the valiance of the noble Baroness, Lady Grender, in this debate—I am with her entirely in that regard. None the less, I have no embarrassment in saying, even if we are the only party in your Lordships’ House saying it, that we are the party of economic growth. It is about time those words meant something. This amendment seeks to make sure that they do. I will test the opinion of the House at an appropriate moment. For the moment, I beg leave to withdraw Amendment 1.
Baroness Grender
“(1A) Regulations under this section may not reduce the standards of service and protection available to passengers and consumers of airport and air transport services compared to any provision which those regulations replace.”Member's explanatory statement
This amendment ensures that regulations made under this section do not make provision setting out lower passenger and consumer standards than current regulations.
Baroness Grender (LD)
My Lords, I shall speak to Amendment 2 standing in my name. Throughout the passage of this Bill, these Benches have pursued a consistent and, I hope, unwavering approach that passengers must come first. Whether we were debating information rights, delay compensation or the powers conferred on the Secretary of State, our test has always been the same: does this provision leave the passenger better protected or leave the door open to erosion of standards that they currently enjoy?
This amendment is a direct continuation of that approach. It does not seek to load new obligations on to the Government; it simply asks that, when Ministers use the powers that this Bill grants them, they cannot use them to quietly lower the bar. The principle underpinning this amendment is non-regression. Where government takes a power to make new regulations, the existing baseline of protection should not be capable of being diminished through that power.
It is not novel. Section 20 of the Environment Act 2021 already requires a Minister, before the Second Reading of any Bill touching environmental law, to confirm that it will not reduce existing environmental protection; if they cannot, they must say so and explain why. That single duty has kept the floor from moving. Air quality standards inherited from EU law were carried through undiluted and remain in force today. I see no reason why passengers travelling by air should be treated as deserving of any lesser assurance than that already extended to the air they breathe.
This amendment therefore asks nothing exceptional of the Minister. It would not fetter the Government’s ability to modernise, update or respond to changing aviation sector developments, all of which the Bill quite rightly enables. It would provide an assurance in the Bill that modernisation will not become a euphemism for dilution. Passengers who currently benefit from certain consumer protections, certain standards of information and certain rights when things go wrong should be able to trust that those protections form a floor, not a ceiling that can be quietly lowered by statutory instrument, or with little scrutiny or even less public attention. I hope the Minister recognises the modesty of what is being asked here and the strength of precedent behind it.
If the Government are confident, as I am sure they are, that these powers will be used to enhance rather than diminish passenger standards, this amendment would cost them nothing. It would simply put that confidence into the Bill in black and white, so that it rests not on ministerial assurance alone but on the statute itself.
Amendments 8, 10 and 11 in this group, also in my name, address the most basic issues of safeguarding. Amendment 8 requires that airlines and airports provide specific support for those who require assistance from a carer. In doing this, we need to acknowledge that the Minister has moved a long way on the amendments that have been tabled in this area.
Amendments 10 and 11 would ensure that families and those requiring assistance were never separated during their journey. If you book a table at a restaurant, you do not arrive to discover that your child has been put on a different table. I know that there is one bad-actor air company here, but it can get away with it at the moment because there is no restriction. We have also heard far too many heartbreaking stories of passengers with disabilities treated as the lowest priority. It is not a premium or luxury service to have your carer or child with you; it is a statutory baseline that we would like to see included in the Bill.
Amendment 36 seeks to mandate transparency during frequent and exhausting periods of flight delays. It is not enough to rely on patchy guidance. Operators must have a statutory duty to provide timely, accurate and accessible information to ensure that the silence at the gate is replaced by clear communication. I should just explain that this was written while I was waiting at a gate at an airport having witnessed someone who was on crutches being shouted at because he had not managed to take his stuff off the plane when we were all removed from the plane because of an engine failure. It was appalling, and that was two weeks ago.
The Deputy Speaker (Lord Faulkner of Worcester) (Lab)
I should point out to the House that Amendment 25 erroneously appears in two groups—this one and the next. I understand that it should be in the next group.
Baroness Kennedy of Cradley (Lab)
My Lords, in speaking to my Amendment 6, I declare my interest as chief operating officer of Natasha’s Foundation, the UK’s food allergy charity. I thank the noble Baronesses, Lady Grey-Thompson and Lady Brinton, for adding their names to the amendment and the noble Lord, Lord Moylan, for his support on this issue.
As we discussed in Committee, there are far too many barriers to air travel for people with medical conditions, non-visible disabilities and allergy—in particular, food allergy. Amendment 6 asks the Government to recognise this and to ensure that these passengers are covered by the Bill so that they can travel more safely, more easily and with greater confidence. The Government have rightly said that aviation must be accessible to all passengers, and all noble Lords will welcome that.
However important statements of intent are, it is action that matters. Although it is not perfect, that is why I support government Amendment 19, as it should put in place the building blocks for action by the Government that should lead to action by the aviation industry. In supporting it, I want to press my noble friend Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill on four areas. The first is the timeframe for the consultation. I strongly support Amendment 20 from the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, which would remove what I might call the “We are able to drag our feet” caveat—my words, not the noble Baroness’s. The consultation in Amendment 19 does not have to start for a year and could last for years. The caveat risks giving the impression that the Government intend the consultation to take a long time. I am sure that is not the intention. Therefore, can my noble friend Lord Hendy indicate how long the Government expect the consultation to take and commit to a meeting two months after Royal Assent so that officials can update all interested noble Lords on their plans?
Secondly, and I am sure other noble Lords will echo this, can my noble friend outline how the consultation sits alongside the excellent work of the Aviation Accessibility Task and Finish Group chaired by the noble Baroness, Lady Grey-Thompson? That group met for many months and brought together people with disabilities and medical conditions, including allergy, consumer representatives and the airline industry. Its final report made 19 practical recommendations. The implementation of those recommendations must continue at pace. Many do not require legislation. They require clear guidance, effective policy and willingness from the airline industry to deliver that change. To that end, will my noble friend Lord Hendy arrange a meeting for noble Lords with the co-chairs of the Aviation Accessibility Implementation Group to discuss what can be done now, without waiting for legislation, to improve air travel, especially for passengers with allergy?
Thirdly, from recent conversations with officials and other legal professionals, it is clear that the interaction between the Equality Act and aviation-specific regulation is complex. Regulation 1107 covers disability assistance in air travel, while the Equality Act may apply to allergy and other medical conditions that fall outside that regulation. For example, an airline’s allergy policy could potentially amount to indirect disability discrimination or a failure to make reasonable adjustments if it places passengers with allergy at a particular disadvantage without objective justification. The legal position for passengers and airlines needs clarification. I ask my noble friend Lord Hendy to seek that clarification from the relevant Ministers on how the Equality Act applies to air passengers with allergy and other medical conditions. If there are gaps between the two legal frameworks and legislation is needed to provide greater clarity or protection, can my noble friend confirm that this will fall within the scope of the consultation under Amendment 19?
Finally, I thank my noble friend Lord Hendy for writing to the FSA to clarify the application of Natasha’s law to airlines. When a response is received, whatever the answer, further discussion will be inevitable. If the food labelling rules do not apply, we need to understand why and whether there is a gap to close. Again, I hope that will be part of the consultation under Amendment 19. However, my hope is that they apply, and therefore we need to understand how the FSA, the CAA, passengers and allergy charities can help ensure the rules are properly applied. I therefore hope that my noble friend will be willing to convene a meeting with interested noble Lords, the FSA and other relevant organisations on Natasha’s law and airlines.
Amendment 6 is about ensuring that passengers with medical conditions, including allergy, are not invisible within the aviation accessibility framework. I welcome the progress we have made, both inside and outside the Chamber, and the government amendments in this group. I look forward to my noble friend Lord Hendy’s assurances on the four points I have raised.
Baroness Brinton (LD)
My Lords, I am grateful to the Deputy Speaker for pointing out that Amendment 25 appears in both this group and the next. I plan to speak to it in the next group. I had hoped that the Minister, the noble Lord, Lord Hendy, might have spoken to his Amendment 18 and to his Amendment 19, to which I have tabled amendments in the next group, in which the noble Baroness, Lady Grey-Thompson, also has amendments. Since that has not happened, I will speak to my amendments to his amendments in this group, although I may also briefly cross-reference them in the next group. But it would be unfortunate if they were debated completely separately.
I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Kennedy of Cradley, for her contribution, and I absolutely support everything that she said. I have seen the consequences at a Lib Dem party conference event where there had been some nuts, not at that event but in the same room at a previous event, and a person reacted very badly. Clearly, Natasha’s law must be implemented and, if the current regulations do not do that, there must be further regulations to make sure that that happens.
I have one amendment in this group, Amendment 22, which seeks to ensure that a disabled or elderly person who travels with a carer is not separated from their carer while they are receiving assistance at the airport. I echo the points made by my noble friend Lady Grender on the importance of how we treat carers more generally.
Since Committee, this issue was brought home to me particularly a fortnight ago in Heathrow terminal 2, where a very elderly couple were waiting. She was in a wheelchair; he was not. They were both concerned about their journey. They were told by the assistance person, in somewhat terse terms, that the assistance person could not take both of them through together, and so the husband had to go back and make his own way through security on his own. He was not even given the usual option of following behind. His wife looked very distressed by this, and he had to reassure her that he would see her in a few minutes. Such behaviour by the assistance staff was uncalled for. The staff member did not even ask whether the husband was able to go through security on his own; nor did she ask whether the wife was okay with that. Had one of them had memory loss—and I suspect that one of them had—this would have been really distressing and difficult. The staff member saw only a wheelchair and an excess person trying to streamline their journey. That is why Amendment 22 is important.
I noticed something else in the “cripple ghetto” in Heathrow terminal 2—I steal the term used by the noble Baroness, Lady Grey-Thompson, but anyone who goes to the assistance area, which I think is a temporary area, knows exactly what it is like. To talk to people waiting there, people have to talk round corners, which is not very clever. More importantly, there is not one space for a wheelchair; I thought that I had found one, and sat there, and then watched as wheelchairs without people in them were wheeled past me and over my toes on one occasion. It was actually the route for other wheelchairs, not mine.
All of this fits very much with my noble friend Lady Grender’s concerns, in Amendments 8, 10 and 11, about people with care-giving duties being provided a remedy for a particular journey through an airport. As I have said, assistance staff should not make assumptions about the non-physically disabled person travelling as a carer.
The Minister’s Amendments 18 and 19 set out the arrangements for a consultation on the protections that should be in place for people with disabilities, reduced mobility and nut allergies, and who should be doing what. Again, I am very grateful for his response on this between Committee and Report. However, as he knows, I have some very specific concerns about the wording, which I raise in Amendments 20 and 23, which seek to amend his Amendment 19, and Amendment 25, which seeks to amend his Amendment 24.
Amendment 20 proposes to leave out the words in brackets at the end of subsection (1) of the new clause inserted by Amendment 19, which state
“(but the Secretary of State need not complete the process within that period)”.
I think that is a real threat that the whole process might be thrown into the long grass, and I hope that the Minister can reassure me that that is not the case.
Amendment 23 seeks to amend subsection (4)(c) of the new clause to be inserted by Amendment 19, by leaving out the word “or”, which appears at the end of line 26, and replacing it with “and”. Retaining “or” would mean that a Secretary of State could choose either not to consult groups representing disabled passengers or not to consult the individual passengers themselves. It may be that consultation needs to cover the lived experience of individuals as well as hearing from the strengths that are available from disability groups. It would be a shame if that were really “or”; let us hope that “and” is possible.
Baroness Grey-Thompson (CB)
My Lords, I will speak in support of Amendment 6, to which my name is attached, and the amendments in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton. As noble Baroness, Lady Kennedy, said, I chaired the Aviation Accessibility Task and Finish Group
Those who have allergies do not easily fit into the current system of support going through airports. While it is better understood in the outside world, I think that within the aviation industry there is still a very long way to go. This is a case which is literally life and death. As the noble Baroness, Lady Kennedy, said, we have to ensure that people are able to travel safely and easily. I very much look forward to the Minister’s explanation of government Amendment 19. As the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, said, to some extent it crosses into the next group.
Since our last debate, I have been contacted by several people who have been separated at the airport from the people they need around them. There was one instance where a young woman was separated from her family. She can communicate only by an iPad and needs family support to operate it. She was left in an absolutely terrifying situation, where she felt she had all her communication ability taken from her. We cannot continue to let that happen. It simply needs a little bit of empathy, some support and thinking differently about how we do this, because it is about getting people on and off aircraft as easily as possible.
As the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, said, we have to look at lived experience. Organisations will contribute towards the consultation, but we need to listen to some of the absolutely horrendous experiences that disabled people have; they do not complain because it is too difficult to do so—which fits into the next group. We do not get to hear about some of those stories and those cases, until we actually sit in your Lordships’ Chamber. I support the amendments in this group and look forward to the Minister’s response.
Lord Moylan (Con)
My Lords, if the House will indulge me, I will speak now rather than at the end of the debate, because I have amendments in this group and other noble Lords may wish to comment on them after I have spoken to them.
Before I come to those amendments, I will briefly refer to two others. First, I express my support for the amendment tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Kennedy. I am pleased that she seems to have reached an accommodation with the Government.
Secondly, Amendment 71, in the Minister’s name, removes the cap on compensation for loss of wheelchairs. However, it is important to note that, as I understand it, this applies only to domestic flights. The reason it has no international effect is that matters such as compensation are subject to an international agreement administered by the ICAO, which is based in Montreal, and would, I suspect, require all parties, or at least a majority of parties to the treaty, to make that amendment. I want to hear that the Government will make this a priority and a commitment on their part. Even though it might take 20 or 30 years to persuade everyone to change their mind, I want this to be a goal for the Government and for it to be on their agenda at every meeting of the ICAO until, gradually, things are chipped away at and they get somewhere in the course of time. Unless the Government start, they will never get there, so it would be very good to hear the Minister say that he is going to start.
I have three amendments in this group. The noble Baroness, Lady Grender, in saying that she could not support my Amendment 4, somewhat gave the impression that I had invented the target of reducing the costs of regulation on business by 25%. That is the Government’s target. The only purpose of my amendment is to oblige the Government to achieve their own target in the aviation sector. If the Government say they do not want to accept the amendment—I understand that Governments do not like having their hands tied—will they at least say that that is still their target? Will they say that it is the policy of Ministers to make that reduction in the aviation sector, that civil servants in the Department for Transport are under clear instructions to achieve and deliver that reduction in costs, and that the Civil Aviation Authority will have it as a primary objective? If they did, I would regard the purpose of my amendment as having been met. I hope the Minister will say that.
My other two amendments are technical. Amendment 21 would amend Amendment 19, in the Minister’s name, by deleting one word from it. The effect of Amendment 19 is to require consultation. It is a good amendment and I welcome it; it responds to the debate we had in Committee. It requires consultation by the Secretary of State when exercising his powers under Clause 1. However, it goes on to say that this obligation to consult relates only to matters in subsection (3), paragraphs (a) to (e). It is only those matters that arise under the subsection that are the subject of consultation.
Cunningly, I noticed that if you take out “concerning” and replace it with “not excluding” then you would bring the whole of Clause 1 into scope, allowing the Government to consult on other matters that are dealt with by the clause, not simply those mentioned here. That would be an improvement to the Minister’s amendment. It would not in any way damage or wreck the Minister’s amendment but would welcome and try to improve it. My amendment would allow the Government to keep their focus on the five items mentioned in Amendment 19 but would provide the scope and a statutory basis for consulting on the other matters as well. I hope the Minister will be willing to accept it.
My Amendment 26 might be regarded as slightly more controversial. It relates to government Amendment 24 and proposes the deletion of “in particular”. The noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, has an amendment in relation to this government amendment, which she has already spoken to. I will explain what I am trying to achieve. The amendment puts clear blue water between me and what the noble Baroness, Lady Grender, said in her opening remarks. The thrust of her argument is that there should be no regression from standards for consumer protection in the future—bear in mind that this whole argument is about consumer protection. That is a very bad principle.
This new clause effectively introduces what the noble Baroness is looking for, in that it is a non-regression statement on consumer standards. It then says, “In particular … disabled persons”, but it actually covers everybody, because disabled people are picked out only “in particular”. I do not think we should introduce a non-regression standard. It is simply the case that what counts as consumer protection changes over time and things that might be important to consumers now might be less important in the future. If we had non-regression of safety standards, we would still have men with red flags walking in front of motor cars, but things change and things are adapted. What matters to consumers also changes, and sometimes trade-offs are necessary.
The effect of removing “in particular” from the Government’s amendment would be to retain the non-regression clause in respect of disabled people—and having listened now and in Committee to the noble Baronesses, Lady Brinton and Lady Grey-Thompson, I have no hesitation about the rightness of doing that—while removing the effect of a non-regression clause in relation to those who are not disabled.
Although that means that I disagree with the noble Baroness, Lady Grender, that is what political difference is all about. We are in favour of a commercial and flexible approach to aviation, which is, after all, one of the few genuinely private and successful enterprises that we have in this country.
Baroness Foster of Oxton (Con)
My Lords, I have some comments and observations. This is a wide-ranging group, and very varied regulations are part of it. We must be careful not to mix them all together. The former EU regulation 261/2004 was about delays and compensation and regulation 1107/2006 was about passengers with reduced mobility. We appear to be having conversations here where it is all mixed into one, and that is obviously not how we can legislate.
These regulations are already in place, and I was very involved with them as a Member of the European Parliament. We put in place robust regulations over the last 20 years, and they have fared well. In my view, we have been let down not by the regulations themselves but by certain bodies in certain airports that are not being compliant in ensuring that they are fulfilling their obligations. We have heard examples of passengers with reduced mobility in wheelchairs being separated from carers or relatives. That is not allowed—it should not be happening.
I gently remind colleagues who were in Committee the other week that it was not, ironically, the airlines themselves that wanted to put in place the responsibility for passengers with reduced mobility. The European Commission took away the responsibility for passengers with reduced mobility to be looked after by the airlines. That was part of what you got in your ticket. That changed about 20 years ago, when it was put into the hands of the airports. As I said at the time, this will not be reversed now. It is a massive operation.
Lord Redwood (Con)
My Lords, the noble Baroness, Lady Grender, posed an interesting question when she said that she thought that the mixture of amendments in this grouping created a tension and that maybe Amendment 4 was not compatible because it was trying to reduce the administrative and regulatory burden, whereas some of the other amendments were trying to achieve better outcomes, particularly for disabled passengers, by improved regulation. However, I think that these two things are perfectly compatible.
Most of us in this House benefited greatly from learning from the expertise of noble Lords and noble Baronesses with experience of service for disabled passengers, and we would want the regulations to be of the best quality in order to give the best opportunity for good outcomes. However, we have also heard from my noble friend Lady Foster, with her experience of the airline industry, that a lot of the bad cases that have been described are bad practice by a commercial business. They may already be violating existing rules, but they are certainly violating normal standards of good conduct and probably doing damage to the reputation of that business, because not only the disabled people but all their families and friends will be singularly unimpressed by what has occurred. We clearly need a cultural improvement in the case of some commercial airlines, and it may be that some of the proposed improvements in the regulation will help achieve that.
If we look at the whole burden of the cost and complexity of regulation, we can see that that great weight of business and economic regulation, as the CAA and others call it, is exceptionally complicated and is now producing a cost problem for aviation that is using the facilities of United Kingdom airports and trying to build businesses from a United Kingdom hub and headquarters base. That regulation is doing a lot of business damage to our growth and competitiveness and encouraging the growth of alternatives, such as Schiphol. That is what the Minister and his colleagues in other economic departments ought to be most interested in, and it is why I am attracted to my noble friend Lord Moylan’s proposal that the Government should either put their own general target for deregulation into the Bill or at the very least say, in the course of this debate, that aviation is not excluded from what is a perfectly attainable and sensible aim.
For all those noble Lords who think that the EU gets a lot of these things right, the EU is, of course, following exactly the same stated policy: it has come to the conclusion, through a number of reports, that it is massively overregulated and therefore not competitive compared with, say, the United States of America. It too is trying to set itself a target of a 25% reduction in the volume and cost of regulation, because it thinks that would be a good start in trying to restore some of the lost jobs and slower growth that it is undoubtedly incurring as a result of overcomplicated and excessive regulation, in particular business and economic regulation of the kind that afflicts the United Kingdom’s aviation industry. I hope that this House will look favourably upon my noble friend’s proposals and see that they are perfectly compatible with the excellent idea that we need better treatment for disabled passengers.
Lord Harper (Con)
My Lords, I will comment very briefly on my noble friend Lord Moylan’s Amendment 4. There are two parts to it. The first part, as he explained very carefully to the House, is the 25% reduction in administrative costs, which is the Government’s own target. We discussed this in Committee and I asked the Minister if he would set out the progress that the Government have made in achieving that 25% cost reduction in the areas that are the responsibility of his department. Clearly, we are two years into a five-year Parliament, so if the Government were on track, other things being equal, one would expect a 10% reduction in cost or an explanation as to why it was going to be loaded towards the back end of the Parliament. We did not get a lot of information, so I would be grateful if the Minister could tell the House what work is going on in the Department for Transport to track progress in reaching that 25% reduction in administrative costs. What information is currently available and published by the department about hitting that target? As my noble friend Lord Moylan said, if we received a lot of that information it would make the amendment unnecessary.
My second and final point is just to reflect on the point that I made on the earlier group. The wording of my noble friend Lord Moylan’s proposed new subsection (1B) is very sensible. It does not rule out the imposition of costs, but it challenge the Government to make a judgment as to whether the cost increase is disproportionate to the consumer benefit. It absolutely would allow some regulations to be introduced that had a cost but it would require the Government to look at the benefit that those regulations delivered to passengers and assess whether that balance was correct—in other words, whether the benefit to passengers outweighed the costs that were levied on the airlines. That is a good test for the Government. We do not want to have costly regulations which have a big economic burden but do not result in significant benefits to passengers. That is a perfectly sensible point and one which I think addresses the perfectly sensible point that the noble Baroness, Lady Grender, made about making sure that the focus on economics does not lead to a reduction in passenger support.
Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill (Lab)
My Lords, before I address these amendments, I thank noble Lords for their constructive engagement with the Government on passenger rights and accessibility in Committee, in meetings since and in the debate today. In particular, I thank the noble Baronesses, Lady Brinton, Lady Grey-Thompson, Lady Finlay of Llandaff and Lady Foster of Oxton, my noble friends Lady Kennedy of Cradley, Lady Ramsey of Wall Heath and Lady Griffin of Princethorpe, and the noble Lords, Lord Holmes of Richmond and Lord Blencathra. Their contributions have greatly strengthened the Government’s approach to accessibility in the Bill, including the government amendments on this topic.
First, I turn to government Amendments 18, 19, 71 and 72 in my name. These amendments are intended to ensure that the Bill fulfils its potential to strengthen air passenger rights, with particular emphasis on improving protections for disabled and less mobile passengers. Amendment 19 will place a statutory obligation on the Secretary of State to consult on accessibility issues and identify what changes may be needed to existing law. Any necessary reforms could then be made through Clause 1. The consultation will cover issues raised in your Lordships’ House, such as compensation for breaches of assistance duties, protections for passengers with allergies and complaints handling, but it will not be limited to those matters.
The Government will consult disabled passengers and persons with reduced mobility and their representative organisations, alongside airlines, airports, the Civil Aviation Authority, passenger rights advocates and wider stakeholders, as appropriate. This will support a genuinely pan-disability approach grounded in lived experience and expert evidence. We will begin the consultation as soon as possible after Royal Assent, while allowing sufficient time to consider the full range of accessibility issues. It will focus on legislative reform and sit alongside the non-legislative work already undertaken through the Aviation Accessibility Task and Finish Group, chaired by the noble Baroness, Lady Grey-Thompson, to whom the Government are grateful. Amendment 18 is a technical amendment enabling government amendments on accessibility, and Amendments 71 and 72 deal with commencement.
I turn now to Amendment 2, tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Grender. The intention of Clause 1 is to strengthen and enhance air passenger rights, and this aligns with our obligations under the trade and co-operation agreement to achieve a high level of consumer protections. I recognise the noble Baroness’s intention to ensure that this clause is used only to make things better for air passengers. However, such a requirement could limit what the clause is used for, which may ultimately work against passengers’ interests. The Government share her objective of strengthening passenger rights and have tabled amendments to support that aim, including some which will be discussed in the next group.
I turn to Amendment 4, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Moylan. The Government are committed to reducing administrative burdens. The Bill is expected to reduce business costs over time, as set out in the published impact assessment. In Committee, in answer to the noble Lord, Lord Harper, I gave some examples of changes made within the department towards this target. However, it would not be appropriate to place a fixed numerical target in primary legislation, as targets may change over time. It is the Government’s overall target; it is not split by department. But, to be clear, aviation is included. I also reject any notion that these amendments adversely affect efficiency, because they will facilitate disabled people playing a full part in economic life and making their contribution.
I turn to Amendment 6, tabled by my noble friend Lady Kennedy of Cradley and the noble Baronesses, Lady Grey-Thompson and Lady Brinton. The Government are clear that aviation must be accessible to all who wish to travel. Clause 1 has been drafted deliberately broadly to support a pan-impairment approach. It relies on existing legislative definitions that would already capture all the conditions and impairments specified in the noble Baronesses’ amendment. By contrast, a more detailed statutory list risks unintentionally excluding passengers whose impairment or condition is not specifically mentioned.
The Government recognise the importance of adequate protections for passengers with allergies travelling by air. Allergies and wider accessibility issues can be considered through the consultation required by government Amendment 19, which I have already outlined. Persons with allergies must be consulted as part of that process. Any reform shown to be necessary will then be made using Clause 1. I will ensure that noble Lords continue to be engaged as that consultation develops. This consultation will sit alongside the excellent work of the Aviation Accessibility Implementation Group, which is focused on non-legislative work with the industry to improve accessibility across the sector. In answer to my noble friend Lady Kennedy of Cradley, I will be happy to arrange a meeting with the co-chairs of the group to discuss what more could be done in a non-legislative capacity.
Lord Harper (Con)
Before the Minister sits down, can I press him on his point about the Government’s plan to reduce the administrative burden on business by 25%? In Committee, he said that the Department for Transport was working closely with the Department for Business and Trade, which I presume owns this target across government—the Minister is nodding assent. What expectations for delivery has the Department for Business and Trade set out for the Department for Transport? Unless each department is going to deliver something, the Government have no hope of hitting this target. If the Minister is not able to tell me that now, he committed in Committee to write to me with further information, which has not yet happened; I would be perfectly happy if he were to furnish me with that information in writing.
Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill (Lab)
The noble Lord is right: I am pretty sure I did commit to write to him, I am pretty sure I have not yet and I am pretty sure I will do shortly.
Baroness Grender (LD)
My Lords, I will be brief because a whole load of people have arrived for a particular purpose. I thank the noble Lord, Lord Moylan, for mentioning the ICAO and some of the international progress we need to make. I also thank the Minister for giving us a hint that we will hear a bit more about that in the next group, so I am excited to get on to the next bit of business. We have made quite a bit of progress in this group, especially on the government amendments, so I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.
Lord Moylan
“(1A) When making regulations under subsection (1), the Secretary of State must have regard to promoting economic growth.(1B) In complying with subsection (1A), the Secretary of State must in particular consider the impact of the regulations on—(a) the competitiveness of air transport service providers and airport operators, (b) investment in the United Kingdom aviation sector, and(c) the burdens imposed on air transport service providers and airport operators in complying with the regulations.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment requires the Secretary of State to have regard to the desirability of promoting economic growth before making regulations under clause 1, with particular reference to the competitiveness of the aviation sector, investment, and the regulatory burden on businesses.
Lord Moylan (Con)
My Lords, as I indicated earlier, I am not at all satisfied with the Government’s response to my Amendment 3 and I wish to test the opinion of the House.
“(e) establishing minimum standards to provide assistance to disabled persons or persons with reduced mobility, including but not limited to—(i) mandatory accessibility and disability awareness training for all personnel;(ii) requirements for the safe handling, storage and return of mobility aid devices and medical and life-sustaining equipment;(iii) the collection and publication of data regarding the damage, delay or loss of mobility aids devices and medical and life-sustaining equipment;(iv) standardised levels of accessibility for all digital communications, including websites, apps and emails;(v) the implementation of the “One Click” standard to enable straightforward access to key information;”
Baroness Grey-Thompson (CB)
My Lords, in speaking to my Amendments 5 and 9 in this group, I thank the other noble Lords who have signed them. I intend to be brief because there has been some crossover with the last groups. I thank the Minister for his time and availability. He has managed to assuage some of my concerns. My amendments in this group are around appropriate training on how to assist disabled people, the storage and handling of mobility equipment, data gathering and complaints.
To refer back to the previous group, while there may be rules and procedures in place, disabled people still experience way too many difficulties trying to get on or off an aeroplane. It is also too difficult to complain. Quite often, passengers are passed around: when they buy a ticket, they think the contract is with the airline, but when things go wrong it can be a combination of the airline, the airport and the crew that does the handling. If there is one thing I hope for from this, it is for disabled people to stop being patronised when they fly. That would be a big step forward.
It was helpful to listen to the Minister on government Amendment 19 and the consultation. The reality is that disabled people have quite a high expectation, but we have to be realistic. Some of the things that we really need—appropriate compensation if mobility equipment is destroyed or goes missing or is not tied down in planes—relies on international jurisdictions. I ask the Minister to keep that level of pressure up. We could do better—throughout the whole world, actually—in how disabled people are treated. Complaints should not be so complicated, and it should not take so long or be so difficult to get compensation or to get equipment repaired.
From personal experience, I would say that Schiphol and London City are the best airports in the world—other people may have a different experience of that. The voice of disabled people is important and we should be learning from the best, so I will be watching the consultation closely. The industry can and should do better. I look forward to listening to the Minister’s comments on the government amendments in this group. I beg to move.
Baroness Brinton (LD)
My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister and his officials, who have met with us to discuss issues relating to standards to provide assistance to disabled people throughout their journey and why this desperately needs to be remedied formally. I signed Amendment 5, tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Grey-Thompson, which specifies a minimum standard for training and service delivery.
I have spoken at length, not just in Committee and at Second Reading but on other Bills and in other debates, about the different approaches taken to the batteries in a wheelchair when you get to check-in. That is one of the areas on which there really needs to be training. When check-in staff do not understand the difference between lithium batteries, which you can and must carry on yourself, and acid batteries—I have two bus batteries on my chair—then you have got a problem, because you cannot have a sensible conversation. That sort of training is vital. Part of the problem is that the moment you start to very politely question the person who is asking, you are deemed to be a trouble-maker and everything goes downhill from there.
It is part of most disabled travellers’ experience to be told repeatedly that they are wrong. I have absolutely found this, even when I was last at Heathrow, a fortnight ago. Staff just knew better until I produced the IATA regulations and showed them chapter and verse on batteries, at which point they had the grace to apologise— but sometimes, they have not done so. I may be very odd, but I always have a copy of the IATA regulations with me.
Amendment 5 would ensure transparency in service delivery, through
“the collection and publication of data regarding … damage”
done to
“mobility aids … and medical and life-sustaining equipment”.
I pick up on the point I made in Committee, when I laid amendments to formalise an informal arrangement for the UK Government’s role in ICAO, which was mentioned in the previous group. It is absolutely vital that the Montreal agreement is reviewed and that the responsibility for regulations is removed from IATA. I find it mind-numbingly astonishing that the trade association for the aircraft carriers is also responsible for the regulations. In no other area would we allow that to happen. ICAO has a key role. I am sorry that it has felt that it did not need to push to act as anything more than a support group for disgruntled people. It needs to go further. It is vital that the Montreal agreement is reviewed and that responsibility for regulations is taken away from IATA.
Finally, Amendment 25 seeks to amend the Minister’s Amendment 24 in this group on matters to which the Secretary of State must have regard. Lines 5 and 6 of the Minister’s amendment refer to
“the desirability of strengthening the rights of persons who purchase or use air transport services”.
We had this debate before, but I know that the Minister will respond to this amendment. I am really concerned; the word “desirability” is or should be redundant. At worst, it weakens the position of disabled passengers, because it sets disabled rights in the wider context of everyone who purchases or uses transport services. As I said earlier, that is dangerous, and I hope the Minister will really try to remedy this. I am worried that it will create a worse problem than we have now—and what we have now is not good enough.
Baroness Kennedy of Cradley (Lab)
My Lords, I rise briefly to support Amendments 5 and 9, to which I was delighted to add my name.
In truth, we live in an era of rapidly advancing technology, when other industries are bending over backwards to ensure their staff are trained to deliver a high level of quality service with an attitude of respect, and when digital means of communication are being used in abundance to ensure that customers have information that is clear and easily accessible. It is shocking to me that an amendment like this is necessary to ensure that the aviation industry steps up and does what should be standard practice to support disabled people—but it is necessary. The reality is that services for, and the treatment of, disabled people in the aviation industry are woefully inadequate—and they do not have to be. We know the issues and we know what needs to change. We now need to find the legislative framework to deliver that change. I look forward to the Minister’s reply.
Lord Blencathra (Con)
My Lords, I will speak to Amendment 5; it is the only amendment to which I shall speak on Report.
I can tell the House that I have now beaten Frank Gardner’s record for being left on a plane. On 24 June, my flight back from Basel left the city 45 minutes late. We touched down at exactly 9.10 pm at Heathrow. At 9.15 pm the plane came to a stop, the seat-belt signs were switched off and we were parked somewhere out in the sticks. The pilot said that the buses had not arrived yet and would arrive in a few minutes. The first bus arrived 20 minutes later at 9.35 pm. The high-lift wagon to take me and other disabled passengers off did not turn up until 9.50 pm, but it turned up simultaneously with the food wagon. Since the plane was on a turnaround for Budapest, the food wagon was given priority over getting the crippled passengers off. So, at 10.05 pm, I and others were taken off in the high-lift wagon. At 10.12 pm, my wheelchair was loaded. Then we set off on a 15-minute magical mystery tour around various tunnels at Heathrow. At 10.25 pm, I was deposited at a door in terminal 5, and at exactly 10.30 pm I got to passport control. Things then speeded up considerably—but after all that delay, my luggage was still delayed.
That is one example—I have a few more I want to give to the Minister—to show that there are two things in this amendment that are essential: training, and returning the wheelchairs and the bodies to the aircraft door or to where they are supposed to go. I say to my noble friends on the Front Bench: I am not calling for some massive, gold-plated regulatory regime that will bring up costs; I am calling for some of the current law to be enforced and for improvements to be made. Of course, I accept that it will make no difference if we pass some gold-plated regulations here, because the cartel of airline operators that run IATA will simply not adopt it anywhere else in the world.
I will begin with training. I serve on the Council of Europe, and for the past 15 years I have had hundreds of check-ins at countries all over Europe. There has been one occasion only, and it happened last month at Heathrow, where the guy at the BA check-in desk actually had, for the first time ever, the information I supplied at least 48 hours beforehand. Every other time you send the information to airlines—the size of your chair; the weight of the chair; the batteries; blah, blah, blah—when you get to check-in, they do not have it on their computer. Then you get asked questions again and again—and the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, is right that they are about batteries, batteries, batteries. They are of course right to be paranoid about lithium batteries: if you put a lithium battery in the hold, whether in a wheelchair or in your phone, it is highly dangerous. But there are two types: lithium batteries, which are removable, and all the other bolted-on batteries—the lead acid ones, including the sealed lead acid ones, and the sealed non-spillable ones—which are not removable.
So they ask you, “Is it lithium?”, and you say, “No, it’s not”. Then, “Can you remove it?”, and, “Well, no, you only remove lithium batteries; you don’t remove these”. “But surely you could remove it”; “No, you can’t remove it”. Luckily, one’s wife says, after those questions have been asked 20 times, “Keep your temper; stay nice”—and, on most occasions, I have managed to do so. There is no point getting aggressive, because they have not been trained. I say to the Minister: that is the vital thing—for God’s sake, make sure the airlines tell them about the batteries.
Lord Holmes of Richmond (Con)
My Lords, it is a pleasure to follow my noble friend Lord Blencathra, who always tells it very much as it is. I think we should probably all follow the wise entreaties of Lady Blencathra to “Be nice”. As an ex-Chief Whip, my noble friend Lord Blencathra is always nice. I say that with an ex-Chief Whip to my left, an ex-Chief Whip right in front of me and, as far as I know, other ex-Chief Whips dotted around the House. I say that to the Minister as well, with regard to the amendments in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Kennedy of Cradley, bearing in mind her connection to that aforementioned role of the not ex but current Chief Whip.
I support the amendments in this group, and indeed nod to the previous group, and I thank the Minister for his engagement throughout this process, particularly between Committee and Report. There is a lot that cannot be done directly by the UK Government, whichever party that happens to be, because of the international nature of this and the Montreal convention—I will come to that in a bit. However, the Government would not have brought forward their amendments were it not for this Minister—not any Transport Minister but this Minister. I thank him for all the work he has done on the Bill when it comes to accessibility and inclusion, and indeed on Bills in the past—and, I might say, with railway Bills yet to come.
It is clear that many of the provisions will apply domestically. That is obviously a fraction of air travel but it is an important one, and it matters. Ultimately, all this could be got right. We would not need to talk about disabled people, wheelchair users, guide dog owners, passengers with restricted mobility or any of this if there was passenger customer service. All this is just quality passenger customer service, but, because that is not the case, we see illustrations which bite hardest on disabled people. That is problematic not only because there is not the passenger customer experience that should be there but largely because none of this is planned experientially; it is planned operationally. That is never the way to plan anything if you want it to be human and dignified and have all the values that we subscribe to, of fairness, equality and respect.
If things are planned operationally, it is hardly surprising that it often feels like disabled people are being treated like cargo, to be just moved in whatever fashion is determined from one place to another—or, indeed, as the noble Lord, Lord Blencathra, and others have pointed out, to not be moved, missing the flight or being left on the flight long after it has landed and all the passengers have left the plane.
If you plan experientially from the outset, you necessarily bring in all the human dimensions and you bring in inclusive by design—an inclusive culture, led on, which then flows through the whole experience. In addition, if you plan experientially, you do not have all the difficulties that come when one provider—one operator—ceases its part of the deal and another one takes over, or indeed does not, because that passenger experience is planned right from the first moment that any of us even thinks about potentially buying a ticket right through to where we clear customs and baggage and continue our onward journey at that destination airport. If you plan operationally, each operator plans its bit and many things fall down as those operators are not connected together in a seamless, quality passenger experience. So, yes, it is training, information in accessible forms, and thinking about every beat point of that journey, but it should be a journey planned experientially.
The Minister’s amendments go some way and certainly set the right tone, and we need to ensure that that runs through all the consultation and the subsequent regulations. I thank him again and I put one final ask to him: would it not be a good idea for the UK to seek to convene international airlines and all operators involved in air travel in London, bringing them to this city not because we are saying that the UK is the best at this or because we are talking about UK exceptionalism, but to try to start this international dialogue, to move forward with the Montreal convention and to bring other like-minded nations around that table to move things forward? It is good to make a difference in the UK—it is small but significant—but the Government can, and I hope they will, play a leading role among other like-minded nations, using all our convening power and our soft power to make some movement in this area. This has gone on too long and it is unacceptable that, just at the point you step airside, all your rights fly away.
Baroness Hoey (Non-Afl)
My Lords, I support Amendment 5 in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Grey-Thompson.
I travel back and forth every week to and from Belfast. We should also be saying that there are some really excellent people working with disabled people and wheelchairs—I see it every week—and it would be a bit remiss of us if we have the public thinking that we are all saying that it is absolutely terrible. I sometimes see some over-the-top behaviour in terms of how people are treated, quite rightly. We have to recognise that it is not all as bad as perhaps some of the examples, which obviously we could all bring out.
I also wanted to say that it is important that we have minimum standards, because each airline seems to be different. I see that travelling on easyJet and British Airways, and I have to say that easyJet does an excellent job. If it knows in advance, it does extremely well. I would hate to think that those people, many of whom are young people working in their first job—and, yes, training is important—are listening to this and thinking that we are condemning all of them for being heartless and not doing the right thing. Of course, as we know, a lot of it is up to the airlines.
Lord Harper (Con)
My Lords, I raise just one issue, which is the point that the noble Baroness, Lady Kennedy of Cradley, raised on the previous group: the interaction between specific regulations in place for the aviation sector and more wide-ranging legislation, such as the disability elements of the Equality Act. I have a specific question for the Minister to answer when he responds. We are obviously looking at Amendment 5, which the noble Baroness, Lady Grey-Thompson, introduced so well and which would set down some minimum standards. However, such standards will not achieve the outcome we want if they are not enforced. Can the Minister therefore say what the Government’s assessment is of the extent to which the gap is the legislation, standards or regulations, and to what extent it is the degree to which those existing regulations are enforced? If it is the latter, what is the Government’s plan to close that gap between the regulatory standards that are in place and the ones that take effect for passengers and to make the experience that my noble friend Lord Holmes referred to a much better one for disabled passengers?
Baroness Grender (LD)
My Lords, I will be extremely brief. I know that quite a lot of people say that and then do not fulfil it, but I really will. This group of amendments of course has a great deal of support from our Benches. We look forward to hearing what the Minister has to say. In particular, we look forward to hearing something about how, having raised the bar at a UK and domestic level, it is possible to further that. I thank the noble Lord, Lord Holmes, for giving some indication of what that could include, because what comes next is the question of how we can create a gold standard here in the UK and explain it elsewhere at an international level.
Baroness Foster of Oxton (Con)
My Lords, we have raised the issue of enforcement. It may be that amendments are put in place and will, I hope, reinforce the legislation but, unless legislation is enforced—we have strong regulations already in statute—then we are just having a conversation that does not go anywhere. I therefore ask the Department for Transport and the Civil Aviation Authority to really put some pressure on airports to ensure that they are complying now—I emphasise “now”—with the regulations that are laid down to see whether we can at least put to bed these awful experiences that some of our passengers and fellow travellers are subject to.
Lord Moylan (Con)
My Lords, I start by paying tribute briefly to the Minister who, over the last 15 years or so that I have known him, has taken issues about disabled access on transport systems very seriously and made a personal commitment to them. I am delighted to say that the efforts made by noble Lords who suffer disabilities and the arguments that they made in Committee have found a resonance with him and, therefore, he has been able to come forward with amendments. They do not necessarily give everybody what they want—I suppose that is the nature of the way the legislative process works—but, generally speaking, they take this issue forward in practical terms. We support those amendments, as we indeed support the case that has been made by various noble Lords in the course of this debate.
Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill (Lab)
My Lords, I begin with the government amendments in this group and start with Amendment 24, tabled in my name, which establishes duties and principles to guide the future use of Clause 1. It is intended to ensure that the power is used, wherever possible, to strengthen air passenger rights and to address barriers faced by disabled passengers and those with reduced mobility. I thank the noble Baronesses, Lady Grender and Lady Brinton, and the noble Earl, Lord Russell, for their time and expertise to strengthen broader air passenger rights, which has helped lead to this amendment.
The amendment seeks to ensure that all air passengers are treated with dignity and have their individual physical and mental health needs respected, and that those with disabilities or reduced mobility are afforded access to air transport services equal or comparable to that afforded to other passengers. The examples that we have heard, in particular the powerful speech by the noble Lord, Lord Blencathra, set out exactly why we need to do better. I hear the noble Baroness, Lady Hoey, and I am sure that noble Lords agree that there are many individual members of staff who are good. However, we have also continuously heard that there is terrible, and unacceptable, inconsistency. That is clearly too frequent an experience.
I turn next to Amendment 25, tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, which would amend government Amendment 24. I understand the noble Baroness’s concerns, but I reassure her that the use of the word “desirability” does not allow the Secretary of State to shy away from their obligation to have due regard. I want it to be clear that Clause 1 is intended to strengthen and enhance air passenger rights, and that this duty reinforces that. It requires the Secretary of State to have due regard to improving passenger rights every time the power is used. However, the impact of policy changes must always be considered holistically—for example, safety, cost, deliverability and wider impacts. The word “desirability” ensures that the regard to strengthening air passenger rights is properly weighed alongside those other factors, so that the Government can act on the full picture.
The second government amendment in this group removes the compensation cap for damaged or lost mobility aids on domestic UK flights. Many wheelchairs and mobility aids are highly customised, specialist pieces of equipment that can cost many thousands of pounds, well in excess of the current Montreal convention liability limit. Removing the cap for domestic UK flights allows passengers to recover the full cost of repair or replacement. That reduces a barrier to travel, gives passengers confidence and gives carriers a far stronger incentive for careful handling.
I turn to the amendments tabled by noble Lords and begin with the amendment from the noble Baronesses, Lady Grey-Thompson and Lady Brinton, the noble Lord, Lord Blencathra, and my noble friend Lady Kennedy of Cradley, seeking minimum standards for passengers who need assistance. I recognise the intention behind the amendment and the important issues identified by the Aviation Accessibility Task and Finish Group, under the leadership of the noble Baroness, Lady Grey-Thompson. The Government greatly value that work and will ensure that it informs the next stage of policy development. As I noted previously, government Amendment 19 requires a statutory consultation on accessibility issues following Royal Assent. That consultation will consider all the matters raised in this amendment, alongside wider issues affecting disabled passengers and passengers with reduced mobility, with any necessary reforms capable of being taken forward under Clause 1.
On the amendment on complaints procedures, the Government agree that passengers, in particular disabled passengers and passengers with reduced mobility, should have clear and effective mechanisms for raising concerns when standards fall short. However, the detail needs careful consideration. Legislating now risks creating a provision that is either too vague to enforce or too rigid to work well. Government Amendment 19 therefore identifies complaints procedures as a specific area for consultation, with Clause 1 providing powers for any resulting reforms.
The noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, has also tabled an amendment seeking clarity on the timing of the consultation under government Amendment 19. As I said on the last group, we will begin that consultation as soon as possible after Royal Assent. The wording is designed not to delay the process but to ensure that the Secretary of State has sufficient time to consider the full range of accessibility issues properly before reporting on the outcome. As I said on the previous group, we will meet interested noble Lords two months after Royal Assent to show what has been done, what is being done and what will be done under my amendments.
I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, for Amendment 23, which concerns who should be consulted. She is right that the consultation must be informed by those with relevant expertise and lived experience. This Government are committed to the principle of “nothing about us without us”. The clause uses a non-exhaustive list so that the right people can be consulted on the right issues without requiring every listed group to be consulted on every matter. We will draw on expertise—including from the Disabled Persons Transport Advisory Committee—to identify who should be engaged at each stage.
In tabling the government amendments in this and the previous group, we recognise that aviation operates within an international framework of conventions, agreements and regulatory arrangements. There are limits to what any one country can achieve through domestic legislation alone. However, as we have heard, that is not an argument for inaction. Rather, it is an argument for leadership. These amendments are a significant step forward for United Kingdom passengers. We have long been a leader on accessibility and the Government will use their influence internationally to press the higher standards for disabled passengers. Specifically, through our work at the International Civil Aviation Organization and the European Civil Aviation Conference, we will use appropriate fora to champion the UK’s approach to accessibility, promote improvement of standards and seek international alignment.
We will take every opportunity available to raise these important issues at all relevant meetings, starting with those following Royal Assent, such as, but not limited to, the ECAC sub-group on the transport of persons with reduced mobility and the ICAO working group on accessibility in international civil aviation. By strengthening passenger rights at home and placing accessibility at the centre of our approach, the United Kingdom can continue to use its influence internationally and in its engagement with partners across the sector to advocate for higher standards of accessibility worldwide. I note the suggestion from the noble Lord, Lord Holmes of Richmond, to convene an international meeting. I will discuss with the Aviation Minister and the Secretary of State in the other place when we might do that.
The noble Lord, Lord Harper, asked about standards and enforcement. Both are needed—hence the powers in the Bill for enforcement by the Civil Aviation Authority, which cannot currently impose penalties. That is the reason for Clause 2.
Taken together, the government amendments relating to air passenger rights provide a significant and practical step forward for passengers, in particular disabled passengers and passengers with reduced mobility. I therefore hope that the House will support the government amendments in this group and that noble Lords are reassured that the issues raised in their amendments will be addressed through the consultation process and the powers provided by the Bill. On my own position, I echo the words of the noble Baroness, Lady Grey-Thompson, that I wish for everybody else only the experience that I have myself when I travel by air.
Lord Blencathra (Con)
My Lords, I make two very brief points. First, it was neglectful of me—in fact, rude of me—not to thank the Minister for the government amendments, particularly government Amendment 24, which will deliver nearly everything that we have been asking for. I echo the wise words of my noble friends Lord Moylan and Lord Holmes of Richmond in thanking the Minister for all the work that he has been doing to help disabled passengers over the past 10 or 15 years. I am grateful for that.
Secondly, on delays at check-in, what annoys me most is not just the delay I suffer but the delay that the people behind me suffer, and the grumbles, muttering and hateful looks that I get. An able person checking in may take three or four minutes. If I am held up for 15, 20 or 30 minutes, there are 10 people behind me who have formed a hostile opinion of everybody a wheelchair. It is also a horrible feeling that I have held them up. The top priority for me is to speed up that check-in process through training so that we do not hold up the disabled people and antagonise a dozen people behind us.
Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill (Lab)
I thank the noble Lord for his noble thoughts on both points.
Baroness Grey-Thompson (CB)
My Lords, I thank all noble Lords who have taken part in this group. I also thank the officials who worked on the task and finish group and on the Bill.
The reality, as a disabled person, is that you must know all the rules—every single one of them—whether the rules of an airport, an airline or different jurisdictions. Jumping on and off a plane is not so simple. I learned a very long time ago to book my flights with airlines where there is a tight turnaround. There is then a chance that you might get off, since leaving you on costs them quite a lot of money. I also learned never to move from my seat, because they are not allowed to move you without permission. I do not move from my seat until I have line of sight of my own wheelchair, because as soon as you are off the plane, you have lost every bit of power that you have in the system. It is a great shame that the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, has to travel with the IATA rules, which nobody should have to do. However, again, that is the reality of what it is like.
The noble Lord, Lord Holmes, talks about experiential support. We need to look at this slightly differently. If, during the 2012 Paralympics, we could get thousands of disabled people going through one airport, on and off, in a couple of days then we should be able to do it the rest of the time. I know that it increased staff and did lots of other things, but how disabled people were treated at that point was amazing. The noble Baroness, Lady Hoey, is right that there has been a big increase in requests. We need to be smarter about how people are supported. Anyone who is disabled or who has flown has seen people who required support to get on a plane but were able to skip off at the other end. That cannot be the right way to do it. I certainly do not think that charging passengers is the right way to do it, but we must think differently about what end-to-end support looks like.
On batteries, the Minister offered a meeting for interested Peers. The sub-group of the implementation group is working very hard on batteries. It is co-chaired by David Leighton and Tony Jennings. It would be worth setting up a meeting with the interested Peers as part of that. I will closely watch the consultation and the meetings, but I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.
Lord Moylan
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment ensures the CAA will be the sole aviation regulator.
Lord Moylan (Con)
My Lords, I will speak to a number of amendments in this group that are in my name. Nearly all of them are technical in character. None of them would make an enormous difference to the Bill, except perhaps the last one. There is not the slightest prospect of the Minister accepting any of them and I do not intend to divide the House on any of them. Therefore, it would be of assistance to noble Lords if I go through them briefly so that they are aware of the good things that the Government are casting aside and taking no notice of.
Amendments 7 and 12 relate to the Government having decided that the relevant aspects of the aviation sector, in particular consumer protection, will be regulated by two bodies—the Civil Aviation Authority and the Competition and Markets Authority. The Government have no way of ensuring that they work together effectively, or who takes the lead on one rather than the other. None of this is vouchsafed to us, but the Minister will have a sort of balancing power at the top to sort it all out ad hoc. We made the argument in Committee that it would be sensible to have one regulator and that dual enforcement is never a good idea, especially where potential criminal penalties arise. We have tabled these amendments to put an end to it, but the Government are not going to pursue that line.
Amendment 15 raises a cause of concern for the many noble Lords who are worried that the only ideas the Department for Transport has continue to come from the European Union. It would put restrictions and limitations on the ability of the Government to use these powers simply to adopt European legislation and continue to be compliant with European legislation as it changes, which indeed they are expected to do, because I understand that the European Union is reviewing some of these aviation regulation areas at the moment. I was moved to table this because I was shocked when I picked up the final version of the impact assessment that the department prepared to go with the Bill—a document that is at least two inches thick, I would think. One has to get only to page 3 to discover that the Government are saying how wonderful it is that this legislation will give us the powers to continue to align with any changes the European Union makes in the future, because those powers expire this month, so we would not be able to align with the European Union, but now we are going to be able to.
We have to have a Civil Service and a Government who actually realise that we are not part of the European Union, that there is no prospect of our being part of the European Union for a very long time—indeed, if ever; I do not think it will be ever—and that we have to come up with some policies of our own that are good for this country. That is the substance of Amendment 15.
Amendments 16, 17 and 29 address some of the many instances in the Bill where the negative procedure for statutory instruments is preferred over the affirmative procedure. There are also two massive Henry VIII powers in the Bill—I will come to these separately in their appropriate cases. I am not going to press these further at this stage, because to give the Minister the credit that is due to him, he has tabled amendments, which in some cases will move negative procedures over to affirmative procedures. Indeed, in one case, he has actually signed my own amendment having an effect on that. So he has come some way to meet the criticism that I tabled in Committee, so I will not press the fact that he has not come all the way, although I would be delighted if he announced, even at this last moment, that he would change his mind and perhaps accept these amendments.
Amendment 32, finally, perhaps has a little more hope of being adopted—I do not know. Under the current approach of the Bill, the only way that someone subject to a civil aviation decision can appeal against it is to the High Court. The courts are chock-a-block with demands on them at the moment. It seemed sensible to seek to create an intermediate mediation stage where someone aggrieved by a particular decision against them would have the opportunity to have an independent mediator appointed to seek to resolve the issue, and an amendment was tabled to that effect.
In Committee, the Minister was very dismissive of the whole idea and obviously believes that the High Court has nothing much to do and will be able to take these things on and that is the appropriate place. But a lot of money and testosterone can be wasted going to the High Court, when some of these matters can be sorted out better through more of a mediative approach, and that was the purpose of the amendment.
Those are my amendments in this group. As with many of the amendments I tabled in Committee, they are all intended to improve the operation of the Bill and the operation of administrative law. With that, I beg to move.
Lord Grayling (Con)
My Lords, Amendments 13 and 14 are in my name. I declare again my interest as an advisor to AtkinsRéalis in the UK and Ireland.
I have a lot of sympathy with my noble friend on the Front Bench and his comments about various aspects of the Bill; in particular, his comments about the European Union. We should not be looking simply to match the European Union going forward. Indeed, I am very much in favour of having high standards which are not tied to the European Union. Where we can do better—and we should do better—without doing damage to the commercial viability of the UK industry, we should seriously consider taking that kind of step.
While mentioning briefly the international side, in the light of the easyJet takeover proposals, I urge the Minister and his colleagues in the department to use the most muscular approach on this. It would not normally be possible for a UK airline to buy a US one. We need to make sure that the rules and ownership are properly and rigorously enforced. It is urgent to do that.
My two amendments are designed simply to try to put some limitation on the powers that would reside with the Civil Aviation Authority as a result of the Bill. I always envisaged changes upon leaving the European Union as likely to lead to a degree of deregulation and a relaxation of restrictions. The Minister knows that I raised a number of concerns with him in Committee about the extent of the powers to enforce—to enter premises and to impose penalties. These two amendments are designed to put some limitations around the freedoms of the regulator to take enforcement action, so that it does so only in what are genuinely serious situations. I know the Minister is not going to accept these amendments, but I would ask him to give some thought to how this is applied in regulations. Of course, we need a regulator to have the ability to take serious action in a serious situation, but what we do not want is to create a situation where we have undue levels of enforcement on small matters in a way that is overly onerous on the commercial independence and freedom of businesses. We want common sense; these two amendments are designed to apply common sense, and I hope the Minister will be able to take that principle forward.
Finally, I will just comment on my noble friend Lord Young’s amendment, which I am sure he will be speaking to in a moment. Given the impact on the airlines of the failures, when they do happen, in the air traffic control system, I think he makes an important point that is worthy of consideration by the Government.
Lord Young of Cookham (Con)
My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend for that trailer. The reason behind Amendment 65 in my name is what happened on 28 August 2023, when the air traffic system run by NATS failed. There was an independent review which looked into the debacle, and I want to quote very briefly from the report, which said:
“From CAA estimates, over 700,000 passengers were affected by cancellations and delays ascribed to the incident, including approximately 300,000 impacted by flight cancellations, approximately 95,000 by long delays (over three hours) and at least a further 300,000 by shorter delays”.
The review went on to estimate the costs involved:
“Based on the information provided by the airlines most affected by the incident, the Panel has estimated that the costs to airlines were approximately £65m. In addition, substantial costs were incurred by passengers, airports, tour operators, insurers, and others. The Panel was unable to accurately quantify these costs. It is likely that the total cost was in the region of £75m to £100m”.
Noble Lords may be surprised to learn that the company responsible for those losses—NATS—with a turnover of over £1 billion, with profits of over £200 million in each of the last two years, has immunity from those losses. Those losses instead are borne by the airlines, which are tied into a monopoly provider. To my mind, this is a manifest, wholly indefensible position that flies in the face of natural justice, and that is what my amendment seeks to remedy.
Baroness Foster of Oxton (Con)
My Lords, I strongly support the words of my noble friend Lord Young, and will add one small piece of information. While the passengers would not necessarily have compensation for the delays or cancellations in those circumstances, the airlines still have what is called a duty of care. Once an aircraft is delayed, food or refreshments should be provided, and hotel accommodation if the passengers have to remain in the airport overnight. So they sustain that cost, albeit in exceptional circumstances.
Lord McLoughlin (Con)
My Lords, I add my support to the amendment in the name of my noble friend Lord Young. One of the things I find slightly worrying in the letter from the Minister to my noble friend is that he says:
“Were NATS to be made responsible for paying compensation, almost half of the cost would fall to the taxpayer”.
That is a fairly interesting line of defence from the Minister, because we are about to renationalise the railways. Therefore, any cost delays from Delay Repay will fall to the taxpayer. Will we see a policy from the Government that does away with any Delay Repay repayments to the passenger, as those faults would now impact on the taxpayer? That is a very interesting scenario. I wonder why the Government are approaching delays that are caused by an organisation that serves airlines differently from those caused by one that may well in due course serve the rail passenger.
My noble friend Lord Young of Cookham has ably put the case and shown the inconsistency in the Government’s position. Should he test the opinion of the House, I very much hope that we give the Minister that mandate to go back, renegotiate this and come forward with a proper proposal that gives the right compensation to airlines in due course.
Baroness Grender (LD)
I am a little hesitant to start the Front Bench responses before I triple-check that nobody else wants to speak.
I thank the noble Lords, Lord Moylan, Lord Grayling and Lord Young, for raising these important issues. On the theme of parliamentary scrutiny, we on these Benches support the spirit of Amendments 16, 17 and 29 tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Moylan. They seek to mandate the affirmative procedure for regulations, and we attempted to suggest similar amendments in Committee. The Bill delegates vast, unscrutinised powers to the Secretary of State to redefine passenger rights, so it is only right that Parliament retains the ability to debate and approve these changes before they take effect. I have previously mentioned signing a blank cheque that allows for the fundamental alteration of consumer standards via the negative procedure. However, like the noble Lord, Lord Moylan, I also acknowledge that the Minister has changed his position on that and signed one of the amendments from the noble Lord on this issue.
I will not revisit or rehearse my comments in Committee about the need to deliver on the threat of a fatal Motion, which we have got into in the past. Sometimes, the muscular possibility of delivering on that threat is the only way of dealing with these procedures. I fully recognise that both the Conservative Benches and the Labour Benches have a long-standing tradition of not doing that.
We welcome government Amendment 28, which requires the CAA to report annually on its enforcement functions. We see this as a necessary step towards the transparency that we called for in Committee. However, while we welcome the technical corrections in government Amendments 30 and 31 regarding the concurrency arrangements, we remain concerned by the potential for regulatory fragmentation. Probing Amendments 7 and 12 rightly ask why both the CAA and the CMA require overlapping powers. We believe the regulator must have teeth, but those teeth need to be clearly seen and defined. I look forward to hearing the Minister’s response on that.
On Amendment 13 from the noble Lord, Lord Grayling, while we support proportionality, we feel that confining financial penalties only to “systemic failure” risks leaving individual passengers in the lurch. We worry that it might defang the regulator in a way that prioritises industry margins over individual dignity—a common theme that I have already pursued on previous groups.
On Amendment 65 from the noble Lord, Lord Young, I read more on this issue this weekend than on almost anything else to do with the Bill. The only thing I can say is that we on these Benches still have an open mind on this issue. I look forward to hearing the Minister’s response. Normally we would follow the noble Lord through hell-fire, but I have had discussions with Commons colleagues and have read everything I can on this issue. We wait to hear the Minister’s response.
Finally, Amendment 15 would require a statement on international alignment. As we have previously argued, any divergence from EU standards must be used as a lever for enhancement, not a race to the bottom. If we are to move away from established protections, the public deserve a clear technical explanation of why that divergence is in their interest. I look forward to the debates that this has thrown up and to the Minister’s response to these amendments.
Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill (Lab)
My Lords, I will begin with the amendments tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Grayling, on financial penalties and powers of entry. Clause 1 does not create financial penalties or powers of entry; it simply enables such powers to be conferred by future regulations if evidence shows that they are needed. Their scope should be determined when those regulations are made, on the basis of the evidence available at that time. It would not be appropriate to fix a systematic failure test in primary legislation now, particularly as the CAA already addresses breaches causing collective harm, rather than individual disputes.
Powers of entry would require reasonable grounds to suspect a breach and would be used only where less intrusive methods had proved insufficient. Similar powers already exist for other regulators, including the Financial Conduct Authority and the Information Commissioner’s Office but not the Civil Aviation Authority. Appropriate safeguards are essential but are best considered when any regulations are laid.
To help the noble Lord, I was assured, having asked a former chief executive of the Civil Aviation Authority, whom the noble Lord knows well, that these powers will be essential to allow the CAA to effectively use the powers it is being given through the Bill to enforce consumer regulation. It has faced some difficulties with that in the past.
Lord Moylan (Con)
My Lords, I am, of course, overcome with disappointment. The Minister has been disdainful of the many excellent amendments that have been advanced in this debate. I am not proposing to debate them further except to say, first, that he has waved his trump card in the shape of my noble friend Lord Harper at your Lordships’ House. From our point of view, it is rare, almost inconceivably rare, but none the less possible, that my noble friend can have made a mistake. In that context, if my noble friend Lord Young of Cookham chooses to divide the House, as he has intimated he would on this point, we will support him. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment would apply the definitions in clause 1 to my new clauses (Consultation) and (Matters to which Secretary of State must have regard).
“Consultation(1) The Secretary of State must, before the end of the period of 12 months beginning with the day on which this Act is passed, begin the process of consultation under subsection (3) (but the Secretary of State need not complete the process within that period).(2) After completing the process the Secretary of State must publish the Secretary of State’s response to the consultation.(3) Consultation under this subsection is consultation with the persons mentioned in subsection (4) about the provision that should be made by regulations under section 1 concerning—(a) the compensation that should be paid for breaches of requirements to provide assistance to disabled persons and persons with reduced mobility;(b) the measures that should be put in place to protect persons with allergies when using air transport services;(c) the procedures that should be put in place by air transport service providers and airport operators for dealing with complaints;(d) the provision by air transport service providers and airport operators of wheelchairs suitable for use in aircraft;(e) any other matters that appear to the Secretary of State to be of particular importance (4) The persons mentioned in this subsection are—(a) air transport service providers,(b) airport operators,(c) such disabled persons, persons with reduced mobility and persons with allergies who are users or prospective users of air transport services, or such organisations appearing to the Secretary of State to represent such persons, as the Secretary of State considers appropriate, and(d) such other persons as the Secretary of State considers appropriate.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment would require the Secretary of State to consult on the provision that should be made by regulations under clause 1.
“Matters to which Secretary of State must have regard(1) When considering whether and how to exercise the power to make regulations under section 1, the Secretary of State must have due regard to—(a) the desirability of strengthening the rights of persons who purchase or use air transport services, in particular where the persons whose rights would be affected are or include disabled persons or persons with reduced mobility, and(b) the principles set out in subsection (2).(2) The principles are—(a) that all persons travelling by means of air transport services should be treated with dignity and that their individual physical and mental health needs should be respected;(b) that disabled persons and persons with reduced mobility should be afforded access to air transport services that is equal or comparable to that afforded to other persons;(c) that where assistance is required by disabled persons or persons with reduced mobility the assistance provided should meet their needs;(d) that independent journeys by disabled persons and persons with reduced mobility should be facilitated wherever possible.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment would introduce (i) a duty concerning strengthening air passenger rights, and (ii) principles where the Secretary of State is to make consumer protection regulations under clause 1
“Non-international flights: compensation for damage to wheelchairs etc(1) Council Regulation (EC) No 2027/97 of 9 October 1997 on air carrier liability in respect of the carriage of passengers and their baggage by air is amended in accordance with subsections (2) and (3).(2) In Article 3, after paragraph 1 insert—“1A Article 22 of the Montreal Convention applies in relation to carriage by air performed by a UK air carrier within the United Kingdom as if—(a) at the beginning of paragraph 2 there were inserted “Subject to paragraph 2A of this Article”, and(b) after paragraph 2 there were inserted—“2A In the carriage of wheelchairs or other mobility equipment or assistive devices, the liability of the carrier in the case of destruction, loss or damage is unlimited.””(3) In the Annex, in the entry relating to destruction, loss or damage to baggage, after “at fault” insert—“In the case of carriage within the United Kingdom of wheelchairs or other mobility equipment or assistive devices, the liability of the air carrier for destruction, loss or damage is unlimited.”(4) Schedule 1 to The Carriage by Air Acts (Application of Provisions) Order 2004 (S.I. 2004/1899) (application of the Montreal Convention: non-international carriage) is amended in accordance with subsections (5) and (6).(5) In Part 1, after paragraph (4), insert—“(4A) In Article 22.2, at the beginning, there shall be inserted “Subject to paragraph 2A of this Article,”.(4B) After Article 22.2, there shall be inserted—“2A In the carriage of wheelchairs or other mobility equipment or assistive devices, the liability of the carrier in the case of destruction, loss or damage is unlimited.””(6) In Part 2, under the heading “Article 22—Limits of Liability in Relation to Delay, Baggage and Cargo”—(a) at the beginning of paragraph 2 insert “Subject to paragraph 2A of this Article”;(b) after paragraph 2 insert—“2A In the carriage of wheelchairs or other mobility equipment or assistive devices, the liability of the carrier in the case of destruction, loss or damage is unlimited.””Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment would remove the current compensation cap in relation to destroyed, lost or damaged wheelchairs or other aids for non-international flights.
“(2) In section 21 of the Civil Aviation Act 1982 (CAA’s annual report), in subsection (2), after paragraph (b) insert— “(ba) must include a summary of what the CAA has done during that year in the performance of its functions under—(i) Part 3 of the Digital Markets, Competition and Consumers Act 2024 (enforcement of consumer protection law), and(ii) Schedule 5 to the Consumer Rights Act 2015 (investigatory powers etc);”.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment would require the CAA to report each year to the Secretary of State on the performance of its enforcement functions.
(b) another direct enforcement authority (“the relevant direct enforcement authority”) is also capable of exercising its direct enforcement functions in respect of that commercial practice.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment would correct the position on concurrency arrangements between the CMA and other direct enforcement authorities, to ensure that those arrangements operate as intended.
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment would make a consequential amendment required as a result of my other amendment to paragraph 26 of Schedule 1 (concurrency arrangements).
Lord Moylan
“Review of airport drop-off charges(1) The Secretary of State must, within six months of the day on which this Act is passed, conduct and publish a review of the impact of airport drop-off charges on users of airport services in the United Kingdom.(2) The Secretary of State must lay a copy of the review before both Houses of Parliament.(3) In this section, “drop-off charge” means any charge levied by an airport operator on a vehicle entering a terminal forecourt or designated kerbside area for the purpose of setting down one or more passengers.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment requires the Secretary of State to conduct and publish a review of the impact of airport drop-off charges on passengers.
Lord Moylan (Con)
My Lords, I shall endeavour to be brief. Nobody, I think, in your Lordships’ House can fail to have been affected by the growing scandal of rapacious drop-off charges being charged by airports for people who have to arrive—some choose to, but some have to arrive—at the airport by car, sometimes to drop off and sometimes to collect a passenger who might be a relative or a friend. These charges have got higher and higher. They are a burden that people are not expecting. Many passengers, particularly families, older passengers and disabled passengers, do not have a realistic alternative to being dropped off at the terminal, yet the policy direction appears to be to make that more expensive, and the airports are stepping up to it with great enthusiasm.
Only last month, the Department for Transport published A Strategic Vision for Transport to an Expanded Heathrow Airport. That is a non-statutory document to accompany the now-renamed Heathrow Expansion National Policy Statement, which was issued for consultation. The document’s purpose was to give us the Government’s picture, their strategic vision, of what transport would look like at an expanded Heathrow Airport. I have read it. I know very little about what transport is going to look like as a result of reading that document. It is very vague, and it contains no commitments, but there is one thing in it that is absolutely nailed on now even before we have a deliverable plan for Heathrow expansion. That is that there are going to be increased terminal drop-off charges or a fee to access Heathrow-owned roads. At the same time as motorists have been looking for relief from higher costs, including after His Majesty’s Opposition forced the Government to U-turn on their planned fuel duty rise, the Department for Transport is now openly floating higher terminal drop-off charges and road access fees for Heathrow.
This cuts against the Government’s stated concern for disabled passengers. The Government have gone some way, as I said earlier in this Bill, to improve protections for disabled passengers in aviation, but it is no good strengthening rights inside the airport while supporting surface access policies that make it harder and more expensive for disabled passengers or those assisting them to get to the terminal in the first place. Amendment 33 in my name—there is a similar amendment in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Empey, which I am sure he is going to speak to now—simply asks for a review of the impact of airport drop-off charges on airport users. That is the least that we could expect. I beg to move.
Lord Empey (UUP)
My Lords, in support of the arguments advanced by the noble Lord, Lord Moylan, we discussed this in Committee among those of us who regularly use airports. As I recall, this phenomenon of airport drop-off charges started off at £1 not that long ago—in fact, some airports had a basket and the thing opened when you threw in the £1, and that was it—but it is now a significant expense and has moved on to £3 or £5, with some airports charging £8.50 or even more. The way this is going is in one direction.
Now, we understand that businesses have to survive and make money, but, if I may refer the House to the arguments put forward at the beginning of Report today on economic growth, this is not only a business cost but a tax on tourism and an inhibitor. It is becoming a significant issue, when you add in parking charges and so on.
We would all love people to be able to get to airports by public transport, but, very often, public transport is not integrated into airports in the way that we have all seen in other parts of the world. If you go to Schiphol, the trains run through the terminal, but that is not the case for many airports here. Realistically, if you come from a rural area or if a family with kids and a load of stuff are going on holiday, there is little opportunity to save on that cost. The noble Lord, Lord Moylan, has also made the point about disabled passengers, of whom we have spoken significantly, but this is not confined to people with physical disabilities; it is a charge on everybody and, in my opinion, the risk is that it just gets completely out of control.
My amendment has slightly different timescales and so on from that of the noble Lord, Lord Moylan, but that is neither here nor there. The fundamental point is that this revenue stream did not exist a relatively short time ago. It is rapidly increasing and it will continue to increase, either because the airports feel that it is a way of making money or because some people think that a policy that forces people away from the drop-off and on to public transport has its own advantages. However, that applies only in limited cases, and it is certainly not universally spread around the country.
In short, we need to take steps to get this matter under control. It is not a dramatic change in policy, but if we are focusing on economic growth, this is a business cost and is no different, in effect, from any other charge. I sincerely hope that the Minister will reflect and acknowledge that this is an area of activity that is growing and is currently out of control.
Baroness O'Loan (CB)
My Lords, I support the noble Lords, Lord Moylan and Lord Empey, on this issue of parking charges. In Belfast City Airport, which I use every week, there is a £4 charge to drop someone off, but if you are longer than 10 minutes, it rises to more than £20. The alternative is to use the short-stay car park.
I would just like to tell noble Lords what I paid for five visits over 14 days in June: for eight minutes, I paid £12; for 12 minutes, I paid £6.50; for 20 minutes, I paid £7; for 12 minutes, I paid £8; and for 13 minutes, I paid £8. So I wrote to the airport to ask how I was supposed to know what I would have to pay. I had already checked the website, which tells you that it costs £4 to drop someone off, but it does not tell you that you need to do so within 10 minutes. I got an email back from the airport, which said something really quite strange:
“we have introduced flexible drive-up rates in our Short Stay Car Park, meaning prices may vary depending on peak times and availability. These prices are displayed on the boards … Our three on-site car parks provide flexible options”.
I cannot understand what is meant by “flexible drive-up rates” and “prices may vary depending on peak times and availability”. The amount that we are being charged seems to be a figure that is pulled out of a hat.
I do not think that that is satisfactory, and there is a need for regulation on this. Customers coming into the airport—particularly the elderly and the disabled—have a difficulty in managing to get out quickly. Another aspect is that people who have to wait for baggage depend on the availability of baggage handlers to put their baggage on to the carousel in order to allow them to get out to the pick-up point where someone is picking them up. Sometimes you can wait for 10 or 15 minutes, and then you are into big-money charges.
Baroness Hoey (Non-Afl)
My Lords, I add my support to all those who have spoken to the amendments. If we pass one of these amendments, it will send a message and signal that what airports are doing is not right—and it will get worse unless we show that, while we understand that they need to raise money, they should not be able simply to add to the amounts charged.
At many airports now, because people know that they need to get in and out within 10 minutes if they are picking someone up, they wait on the roads outside. At Belfast International Airport, in the evening, the road is absolutely packed with cars parked right along, because, if they go in too soon or if the passenger waiting for luggage is a little late, the money goes up and up. It is just not acceptable. I hope that the Government will accept what are very reasonable amendments from both noble Lords.
Baroness Grender (LD)
My Lords, airport drop-off charges are a constant source of frustration to the travelling public. Although neither amendment is in my name, these Benches will support whichever amendment is taken forward.
These measures are a common-sense attempt to bring transparency to what often feels like a stealth tax at the terminal door. So far on Report, we have not talked about how people are often captured the minute they enter the door of an airport. This is not a choice; people are captured and are given these charges. They cannot instantly withdraw their custom and go to a different airport, because they are pretty much locked in both to the airline and to the airport that they have gone for. They cannot shop around, because all of them are doing it.
It seems to us that it is right to support the amendment. For too long, the rules of the game around these levies have been opaque. It feels similar to the bundling and poor practice that we have seen in ticketing, and it is only right that we shine a light on it. I see it as quite useful that we should at least look at this and try to create a bit more transparency.
Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill (Lab)
I thank the noble Lords, Lord Moylan and Lord Empey, for re-tabling their amendments on airport drop-off charges. I will address them together.
I understand the concerns behind these amendments. Passengers should have clear, accessible information about travel options to and from airports, including drop-off, short-stay parking and free alternatives. The Government expect airports to act transparently and fairly, and reinforces this through regular engagement with the sector. However, these amendments are neither necessary nor proportionate. Most UK airports are privately owned and responsible for managing their roads and parking. Their arrangements are already subject to consumer protection law, competition law and industry standards, with enforcement and redress where practices are misleading, unfair or non-compliant. There are also established mechanisms to review airport drop-off charges where concerns arise.
The CAA has already examined airport surface access, including competition, consumer issues and the transparency of information on options and charges, and found insufficient evidence to justify a competition or consumer law investigation. Private parking operators are expected to comply with the sector’s code of practice, including requirements on clear signage, accessibility, penalty charge notices and appeals. The Government will continue to expect airports and operators to provide clear, accurate and accessible information before passengers travel. I say to the noble Baroness, Lady O’Loan, that if the information at Belfast City Airport is as unclear as she describes, she has a valid complaint.
Drop-off and parking charges support airports’ wider commercial and operational management. They can reduce congestion, improve traffic flow, support surface access strategies and fund passenger facilities, including cleaner transport options. Restricting them in primary legislation risks shifting other costs to passengers and undermining airports’ ability to manage congestion effectively. Almost all airports that charge for terminal drop-off provide free alternatives, such as shuttles. Airports should ensure that these options are clearly communicated in advance so that passengers can make informed choices. For those reasons, while I understand the noble Lords’ concerns, I ask them not to press their amendments.
Lord Empey (UUP)
Before the Minister sits down, he used the phrase competition, but is it not the case that, in the vast majority of cases, we are talking about monopolies? There is nobody to compete with because you have no choice. If you want to go to Heathrow, yes you have Gatwick as an alternative but it is miles away. There is really no competition here.
Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill (Lab)
I am referring to choices in the method of access to the airports, rather than the choice of airport itself.
Lord Moylan (Con)
My Lords, I thought that was a deeply unsatisfactory answer that failed to address the amendment. The Minister said there was no case for restricting these charges in primary legislation. Who has proposed that? Nobody has proposed that. The noble Lord, Lord Empey, and I have asked for a survey, an examination or a report to be done on the effect of these drop-off charges. There is no proposal to restrict them. That was a deeply unsatisfactory answer, so I fear I will insist on testing the opinion of the House on my Amendment 33.
Lord Empey
“Responsibility for air quality standards on planes (1) Within 12 months of the day on which this Act is passed, the Secretary of State must conduct a review to establish responsibility for standards of air quality on civil aviation planes.(2) The review must—(a) make suggestions for which organisation should be responsible for standards of air quality on civil aviation planes, and(b) provide guidance for implementing a strategy for the establishment of standards of air quality on civil aviation planes.”
Lord Empey (UUP)
My Lords, we discussed this in Committee. It affects all of us who use aircraft on a regular basis—and, more importantly, those who fly and crew them, who live in a capsule with artificially filtered and pressurised air. Over the years, we have had examples of oil seals in engines leaking and vapour coming into the cabin, which has largely been down to either design faults or poor maintenance.
I have a close relative who works in the industry and spends his time in a cockpit. We know that, in that compressed environment, the air you breathe in can sometimes be contaminated with mineral oils, since the air is bled from the engines and pressurised, and in some cases heated, before being brought into the cabin. It is true that pilots quite frequently have a separate air supply from that of the passengers, but ultimately it all comes from the same fundamental source. The issue is contamination from these oils; they are there to help the engine, but this has the effect of breaking them down into their components, some of which can be toxic.
I am simply asking for the Secretary of State to
“conduct a review to establish responsibility for standards of air quality on civil aviation planes”.
We are now seeing longer journeys than ever, with people flying in an aircraft for 14, 15 or 16 hours. This issue is extremely important for those who earn a living in these environments and spend vast parts of their lives there. This is not a new phenomenon in industry; we have had it in mines, factories and all sorts of environments. In addition to being a location where passengers are carried, an aircraft is a location where people work. It therefore seems not unreasonable for us to pay significant and serious attention to this and ensure that we guarantee, as far as possible, the health and safety of the people who work in the industry and the rest of us who use it.
This amendment is not an unreasonable thing to ask for; it would not impose any huge burden on the Secretary of State, other than to review. We also need clear lines of responsibility. I hope the Minister can address this, because this amendment is not just about requiring a review of the health implications of long-term exposure to pressurised air. If we want to encourage people to join and use the sector, then they must be satisfied by the health and safety standards.
In proposed new subsection (2)(b), I have asked for the review to
“provide guidance for implementing a strategy for the establishment of standards of air quality on civil aviation planes”.
I think the Minister will find that that is not a burden on his department; it is a perfectly sensible and reasonable thing to do. Aircraft are places where we all spend a lot of time—some of us spend more time in them than others. If you work in one for your career, whether as a pilot or a member of the cabin crew, you are spending most of your working life in that environment, so it is not unreasonable for this to be reviewed and examined by the Secretary of State and that any necessary steps are taken. I beg to move.
Baroness Finlay of Llandaff (CB)
My Lords, I remind the House that I am president of the CO Research Trust. Cabin air quality is a critical issue. I am grateful to my noble friend Lord Empey for the way he introduced this group, and for co-signing my amendment.
My Amendment 37 would create a statutory duty on air operators to install continuous active monitoring for carbon monoxide and volatile organic compounds in the cockpit and passenger cabins, and provide an immediate alert to the crew and direct data reporting to the Civil Aviation Authority. I thank the Minister for meeting me last week and for the very constructive and open discussion we had. I hope he can confirm that the Civil Aviation Authority has the powers to act on cabin air quality and is willing to meet to see how we can best ensure this aspect of passenger and crew safety, as we would then not need to seek to put these powers in this primary legislation.
It has been interesting to go back over some air disaster reports, as the possibility of carbon monoxide and volatile compounds seems not to have been fully considered in some instances, along with questions over the possibility of fumes in the cockpit, even when pilot hyperventilation was noted. As we become increasingly aware of the dangers of low-level carbon monoxide exposure, particularly over prolonged periods, cabin air quality is critically important. I remind the House that HEPA filters deal with viral and similar particles in recycled cabin air but do not capture gases. In any case, carbon monoxide and volatile organic compounds enter the cabin’s air intake directly from the engine turbines—in other words, before the filters deal with recycled air.
In Grand Committee, the Minister referred to the committee on toxicity reporting that normal levels of chemicals found in cabin air are not likely to be harmful. But a fume event is not a normal occurrence, and we have to take a precautionary approach. It is a mechanical failure, for which carbon monoxide is an easily detected indicator of contaminated cabin air. Operators must report and investigate any suspected leaks, but the paradox is that an operator cannot report a suspected leak of carbon monoxide without any monitoring, as the gas is colourless and odourless, which explains why carbon monoxide exposures are undetected and unreported without monitoring.
Baroness Foster of Oxton (Con)
My Lords, I support the comments made by the noble Lord and the noble Baroness about the rigorous way that any airline in this industry monitors the air supply in their aircraft. But we need to give some context on this subject. A number of years ago, there were some instances with the BAe 146 aircraft type. This was well known in the industry, and there appeared to be health issues among pilots who flew on that aircraft for a period of time.
I am former crew, and spent 25 years on aircraft—some of them a lot older than the aircraft these days and less sophisticated, I suspect—but I am not dismissive of the fact that this subject has to be taken seriously, and neither is the aerospace sector. I worked closely with the aerospace sector: I was head of European affairs for the aerospace and defence industries for four years when I was in Brussels, and I had obviously been with British Airways for many years before that, and had dealt with all these issues as an MEP. I take it seriously. However, we must not worry passengers, predominantly, or make crew worried about going to work. The maintenance standards obligations for the airlines are sophisticated, and they have legal requirements to follow them. The timing for aircraft servicing is extremely rigorous and, if an airline was not doing that job, I assure you that it would not have certification for very long.
Although I agree and take on board that this is a serious issue, it needs to be considered in a proportionate way. People will be watching this on BBC Parliament or parliamentlive.tv—if they are not doing something that is more interesting fare—and we do not want to frighten the life out of people who are going on holiday or doing business. There is a gentle conversation to be had about this, notwithstanding the authorities’ responsibility to ensure that flying is safe and that the environment that the crew and cabin crew work in, and for passengers, is as safe as can be.
Baroness Brinton (LD)
My Lords, this group addresses the most profound structural shift in this Bill: the delegation of aviation rule-making to the Civil Aviation Authority. We are pleased to see that Amendment 62 now carries the Minister’s name, alongside that of the noble Lord, Lord Moylan. This is a vital victory for parliamentary scrutiny. The amendment mandates the affirmative procedure for regulations, specifying the limits of the CAA’s new rule-making powers, ensuring that this House retains its right to debate and approve the scope of what is delegated.
We similarly welcome government Amendment 58, which requires ministerial directions to the CAA to be laid before Parliament. For too long, the single guiding mind of the aviation sector has operated one step removed from democratic oversight. However, we must go further to prevent the creation of an all-powerful and potentially unaccountable regulator. We support the spirit of Amendment 57 from the noble Lord, Lord Moylan, which would remove the CAA veto over the Secretary of State’s statement of priorities. It is a constitutional nonsense to suggest that a Minister must secure the agreement of the body they are intended to oversee before setting their strategic objectives.
We support government Amendment 56, which correctly identifies that the Secretary of State must retain responsibilities for matters of public interest, including environmental protection and the needs of disabled passengers.
Regarding technical safety, we offer our strong support for Amendments 34 and 37, from the noble Lord, Lord Empey, and the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay of Llandaff. The monitoring of aircraft cabin air for carbon monoxide and other toxins is not a luxury; it is a fundamental safety requirement. If we are to grant the CAA more agile powers to update safety rules, those powers must be used to address the very real concerns of flight crew and passengers regarding air quality.
Similarly, Amendment 66, from the noble Lord, Lord Empey, regarding the enforcement of flight time limitations, is essential to ensure that operational efficiency never comes at the cost of pilot fatigue or of public safety.
Let us all ensure that, as we delegate these powers, we do not defang the regulator or emasculate Parliament. We must fill this skeletal Bill with the furniture of transparent reporting and mandatory safety reviews. I urge the House to support these measures to ensure that the UK remains a safety-led aviation hub that respects both the expertise of the regulator and the sovereignty of this House.
Lord Moylan (Con)
My Lords, the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay of Llandaff, and the noble Lord, Lord Empey, raised important points that can only arouse the sympathy and interest of all Members of your Lordships’ House. Cabin air quality is crucial to safety. Without committing myself to the wording of either amendment, I do not think that this subject can be allowed to rest today. The Government will have to commit to come back to it in a credible and convincing way.
The noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, is correct in saying that this group is largely about administrative matters related to Clause 8. Although we have tended to focus so far, quite properly, on the consumer protection parts of the Bill, in Clauses 1 and 2, we are now coming to that part of the Bill where the Civil Aviation Authority is authorised to make rules. These rules were previously made either by statutory instrument or by means of European Union legislation. The complaint from the Department for Transport is that it does not have enough time to do the statutory instruments and that it is all too much, so could we not, by statute, give the power to the Civil Aviation Authority to make these rules for it. I am not making that up. That is actually the complaint that has been made: that there are too many statutory instruments, so the department wants to give them to the unelected bureaucrats, regulators and so on—especially as it is not receiving new regulations from the European Union any more, which would be a different matter.
Many of the amendments in this group are about that administrative process and trying to reverse some of the original draft of the Bill, giving these powers without any accountability to the Civil Aviation Authority. I thank the Minister for his letter on this and for engaging in the concerns that were raised in Committee on this point. I also welcome the fact that the Government have tabled amendments to give effect to the recommendations of the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee. In Committee we were clear that the Bill should set out the principles underlying the exceptions to delegated rule-making, and government Amendment 56 now seeks to do that.
Government Amendment 58 addresses an important scrutiny point by requiring directions for the CAA to be laid before Parliament. I am also grateful to the Minister for adding his name to my Amendment 62, which ensures that the Secretary of State’s power to define exceptions to the CAA’s rule-making powers is subject to the affirmative rather than the negative procedure.
I turn to Amendments 59 and 60. If the CAA is to make detailed aviation rules directly, industry must be able to find, understand and rely on the rules in force. The Bill says that the CAA may publish its rules. It really is not good enough to say that it may publish its rules; these amendments simply say that it must. It will not have to publish them in hard copy—they can be published on the internet—but even if the rulebook is very thick, which the noble Lord told us in Committee was the case, it must be possible to publish it and keep it up to date. Otherwise, how can anybody be sure that they are actually keeping the rules?
There is part of Clause 8 that really upsets me, and I am quite upset about it because I think it is a constitutional outrage. It was referred to by the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, and it is on page 12, where new Section 61F is being added to the existing legislation, the Civil Aviation Act 1982. It says, in relation to these new rule-making powers:
“The Secretary of State must issue a document that … sets out the Secretary of State’s priorities and objectives … and … deals with matters relating to the exercise of the functions”.
That is good; I am all in favour of it. The document, by the way, is going to contain guidance. It says quite clearly, in subsection (2), that it will contain guidance on consultation, for example, and
“guidance about how the CAA should interpret and apply the environmental principles”,
and so forth. I imagine that is statutory guidance. But it then goes on to say:
“The Secretary of State … may not issue the document without the agreement of the CAA to the contents of the document”.
I think this is absolutely unprecedented. In Committee, the Minister said it was a new way of working; it certainly is. He said it was more like a contract. I think this is very misleading.
It is perfectly possible for the department, or the Secretary of State, to enter into contractual-type arrangements with the Civil Aviation Authority. I have no objection if they do that. Contractual types of arrangements exist in various parts of public life. It might contain key performance indicators. It might contain all sorts of things; I am not going to attempt to enumerate them. It would say, “This is your task, this is what we expect from you, this is what you are going to do in exchange for the funding” and so on. That is a contract—I understand that—and it is not precluded by this. But overarching all that, there must be a power, always, for an accountable Minister to issue guidance to an arm’s-length body or executive agency, to issue binding statutory guidance, without having to seek its agreement to the contents of the guidance first. Otherwise, where does ministerial accountability come in?
Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill (Lab)
My Lords, I begin with Amendments 34 and 37, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Empey, and the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay of Llandaff. The department takes cabin air quality seriously. Commercial aircraft must already meet certification requirements for ventilation and cabin airflow, and operators must report and investigate suspected toxic cabin air incidents. The CAA’s medical experts review such incidents and can take action where necessary.
The committee on toxicity’s most recent review, in 2024, concluded that reported concentrations of chemical contamination in aircraft cabin air are unlikely to cause adverse health effects in air crew following either acute or long-term exposure. However, I understand the point made by the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay of Llandaff, and she made a strong case when we met. Nevertheless, if necessary, the Civil Aviation Authority could use the new powers in Clause 8 to make further regulations relating to cabin air quality. As discussed with the noble Baroness, I am happy to facilitate a meeting as soon as possible between noble Lords and the Civil Aviation Authority to discuss this matter and existing evidence. Depending on the outcome, I am prepared to meet them myself if that were needed. I hope that this reassures noble Lords and that the noble Lord, Lord Empey, will withdraw Amendment 34.
I turn to the amendment from the noble Lord, Lord Moylan, which would require aviation safety regulations to be made by the Secretary of State rather than the Civil Aviation Authority. This would undermine a core purpose of the Bill and maintain the status quo. As drafted, the Bill will enable the Civil Aviation Authority to make aviation rules more quickly and more efficiently, reducing the current backlog, which has been an issue since we left the European Union and the European Union Aviation Safety Agency.
Previously, that agency’s regulatory changes became law via implementing regulations, and although the existing body of EU law was transcribed into UK law, any additional changes must be made by statutory instrument, which has caused the backlog. Any Government would have run into these problems without the reforms being brought forward in the Bill. It also preserves the Secretary of State’s power to make rules by statutory instrument and to intervene through backstop powers where appropriate.
I turn to amendments giving effect to the recommendations of the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee, which the Government have accepted in full. I am grateful to the committee for its scrutiny and recommendations, which have strengthened the Bill. I also thank the noble Lord, Lord Moylan, for tabling amendments to give effect to this. We support his Amendment 62—he got to that subject first—which would make the reserving power in new Section 61A(7) subject to the affirmative procedure. I hope noble Lords will support it, too.
Government Amendment 56 in my name gives effect to the committee’s recommendation to clarify the principles underlying the exceptions to delegated rule-making. This sets out these principles in the Bill. It would require the Secretary of State to consider matters such as national security, the wider public interest and passengers’ interests, including accessibility, when deciding what should remain reserved to the department. I hope that noble Lords will support this.
Amendment 57 from the noble Lord, Lord Moylan, would remove the requirement for the Civil Aviation Authority to agree the Secretary of State’s priorities and objectives. The Civil Aviation Authority is the UK’s independent aviation safety regulator, and I place real emphasis on that independence from government. As the CAA’s experts will deliver the rule-making programme, the CAA must be satisfied that it is deliverable. Requiring it to implement priorities with which it disagrees would undermine that independence. Where disagreement arises, the Secretary of State can still reserve matters and make regulations herself. I ask the noble Lord not to press the amendment.
Indeed, were there to be a disagreement, Amendment 58 in my name requires any directions issued by the Secretary of State to the CAA under Clause 8 to be laid before Parliament, as well as published. This responds to concerns raised in Grand Committee by the noble Lords, Lord Kirkhope of Harrogate and Lord Barber of Ainsdale, and it will support Parliament’s scrutiny of these powers. I trust that noble Lords will support it.
The noble Lord’s Amendments 59 and 60 would require the Civil Aviation Authority to republish the entire rulebook after every change, however minor. The Civil Aviation Authority already publishes its rulebook online and will keep it updated. Republishing the full, approximately 12,000-page, rulebook for minor changes would be disproportionate and costly. Instead, the Civil Aviation Authority will update individual rules as they change and publish consolidations where appropriate.
The noble Lord’s next amendment would remove the power to make consequential amendments relating to the CAA rules. As safety rule-making moves to the CAA, the Government need a mechanism to keep related legislation consistent with the new framework. This standard power will be used only to enable and facilitate the CAA’s rule-making function. Secondary legislation made under this power will be subject to normal parliamentary scrutiny, including the affirmative procedure where primary legislation is amended.
Finally, the amendment from the noble Lord, Lord Empey, seeks a review of flight time limitations. The CAA already ensures that cabin crew and pilots comply with legal flight time limitations and has enforcement powers to support that role. The CAA is reviewing flight time limitations with stakeholders, so it would be premature to create new provisions before that work concludes. Flight time limitations are in DfT-owned secondary legislation and, if changes were needed, the CAA could propose amendments, or my department could act directly. I hope that this reassures the noble Lord that the matter is already under active review.
Baroness Foster of Oxton (Con)
Before the Minister sits down, on flight time limitations and who takes charge of this, the noble Lord, Lord Tunnicliffe, may remember that prior to 2012 when the flight time limitations were dealt with by the European Union, we came under what was called CAP 371, so the Civil Aviation Authority was always responsible for the flight time limitations for pilots and cabin crew. EU flight time limitations came through the European Parliament and those limitations then were enforced EU-wide. But we are now reverting. In my view, the CAA would take back control of flight time limitations under the normal civil aviation procedures.
Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill (Lab)
I defer absolutely to the noble Baroness’s far superior knowledge. I think what she is referring to is the review that is currently being undertaken.
Lord Empey (UUP)
My Lords, I thank the Minister for the offer of a meeting with the CAA. I see from her head, which is about to nod off her shoulders, that the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay, agrees that this is a good idea, so I thank the Minister for that. It is a helpful contribution.
To the noble Baroness, Lady Foster of Oxton, I say that I would not wish at any point to frighten people away from aircraft. I feel I almost live in one as it is, and we all use them. However, we must remember that, as well as being a conveyance for passengers, an aircraft a workplace, which is the big difference. We have learned all about minute contamination. If we look back at the regulations that were enforced on what was supposed to come out of the nuclear power plant in the north-west of England and the levels of contamination that was allowed initially, which people said did no harm to anybody, we see that that is now down to about a thousandth of that. These things evolve with time, knowledge and so on. Nevertheless, the Minister has made a fair and reasonable offer and that is most helpful. Therefore, I beg leave to withdraw Amendment 34.
Baroness Grender
“(aa) after subsection (6) insert—“(6A) Where the Secretary of State makes a direction under this section, the Secretary of State must first—(a) consult persons likely to be affected by the direction including communities in the vicinity of any airport or airspace affected,(b) undertake an environmental impact assessment in respect of the proposed direction, and(c) undertake a noise impact assessment in respect of the proposed direction.”;”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment would require the Secretary of State to consult affected communities and complete environmental and noise impact assessments before making a direction under section 2 of the Air Traffic Management and Unmanned Aircraft Act 2021. It seeks to ensure that the exercise of the direction-making power is subject to scrutiny and community engagement.
Baroness Grender (LD)
My Lords, Amendment 38 is designed to install necessary statutory guardrails around the new last resort direction powers introduced by Clause 4. We must be clear about the technical shift this clause represents: it amends the Air Traffic Management and Unmanned Aircraft Act 2021 to allow the Secretary of State to compel the implementation of airspace changes, rather than merely their development.
Although we on these oh-so crowded Benches acknowledge that our ground-based navigation systems are antiquated—in effect remaining unchanged since the 1950s—we cannot allow technical modernisation to bypass community consent. For residents and communities such as Richmond, where the Minister resides, these directions are far from operational tweaks; they are powerful levers over airport capacity. A redrawn flight path or a redistributed traffic flow can fundamentally alter the noise and environmental footprint for thousands of people living below.
My amendment would mandate three specific duties before a direction is made: a requirement to consult affected persons and communities, and the completion of full environmental and noise impact assessments. We have received reassurances from the Minister that the Bill is not intended as a vehicle for airport expansion, and we take those assurances in good faith, especially from this Minister. However, as I have argued throughout Committee, good faith is no substitute for legal guarantees. My heart breaks at the thought of it, but no Minister right now can guarantee that they will be in the same post by this time next week. There is also the continuing threat of the very blunt instrument known as the first past the post system, through which a Reform Government with hugely damaging notions on environment and climate issues could come into power. Without these mandatory assessments in the Bill, the public lack a formal mechanism to distinguish between a technical modernisation and a quiet, unscrutinised increase in capacity.
Operational reform must not become a backdoor for expansion at Heathrow or elsewhere that has not been presented to Parliament as a discrete and clear policy choice. We have heard evidence that communities experience significant annoyance and sleep disturbance at lower noise levels than previously assumed. It is therefore essential that any exercise of ministerial power that has the practical effect of facilitating increased capacity is preceded by meaningful transparency. Airspace modernisation should be a resource for the entire nation, not a tool for industry margins. We must ensure that, as we redesign the skies—the principle of which we wholeheartedly support and recognise needs updating—we do not leave communities on the ground in the dark, for want of a better word. I beg to move.
Lord Tunnicliffe (Lab)
My Lords, I will speak to my Amendment 39. We had a very interesting conversation about this issue in Committee, but I will repeat it a little bit. Essentially, aviation is dangerous. There is a phrase that people in flying training always come across, that if God had meant men—and women, of course—to fly, He would have given them wings. And He did not, so flying is an uphill battle.
It is perhaps more accurate to say that flying is potentially dangerous. A failure in aviation safety can become a catastrophe. Very few passenger aircraft take off with fewer than 100 people on board, so any crash kills 100 or more people all in one moment. Simply flying the aircraft, of course, is quite straightforward. But the challenge in aviation is flying the aircraft while taking account of all the other issues—principal among these is weather. Weather in England can occasionally change very dramatically. The other issue is failure.
The essential issue that binds all these things together to make the pilot’s job very difficult is that you cannot park. With virtually any other sort of transport, if something is going wrong, you can stop and sort it out. The key imperative of flying an aeroplane is to make sure you do not become a glider. That really weighs on your soul as it approaches. It is that inability to take the problem away. You have to fly the aeroplane while accepting a weather forecast, which is very marginal. You are then listening for what is going to happen, and you have to think about your fuel. It is about bringing those things together for when you have a failure—an engine failure, for instance.
Pilots are very difficult to describe, but they certainly do not have a brain the size of a planet—they are reasonably ordinary people. How do they cope with this difficult environment? Through procedures and training. I have never flown an aeroplane with an engine on fire. In particular, I have never flown an aeroplane where the engine was on fire just as we took off. But when I was a professional pilot, I had to prove that I could do that twice a year in a simulator. That was just as a mere co-pilot. Training and procedures are what have turned something intrinsically dangerous into something that everybody now assumes is routinely safe.
What we are facing with this airspace reorganisation is really dramatic. The total concept is not to have navigation aids on the ground. The total process is to use GPS to know precisely where the aeroplane is and how high it is. That gives you a whole new set of flexibilities, which are mutually beneficial. Of course, the CAA and the airlines are doing it to achieve greater capacity, through the aeroplanes getting closer together, because you can now pick routes that are closer together and know that the aircraft is going to follow them. It is really very exciting.
The key thing is: who will have to cope with this when it goes wrong? The pilots. They are the ones who are best equipped to do so—not solely them; lots of people are involved, particularly on the technical side and in proving the integrity of the stuff. But the pilots will be at the centre of anything going on. While my amendment does not say “pilots”—it says “safety-critical professionals”, because I am told that it what it has to say—the whole point is that, just as consultation for people on the ground is important, it is important to take on board this group of people during the development of this.
I am reasonably confident that I will not move my amendment because, as many others have said during the passage of the Bill, the Minister has kindly spent time with me and colleagues debating this. Although it could be voted on, I think that before we get to that, the Minister will have said enough to satisfy me, to satisfy the other people who are concerned and to satisfy professional bodies—particularly those for pilots, but I have no doubt that the air traffic controllers will also want, properly, to give their two pennyworth. I believe that his words will be sufficiently helpful that I will not be forced to move the amendment.
Baroness Bray of Coln (Con)
My Lords, I welcome this opportunity to stress the importance of establishing a meaningful consultation with those communities directly affected by the likely expansion of flight paths and airports as a result of the Bill. I hope the Minister will give us an assurance that this important issue is recognised by the Government and can outline what plans they are developing for a genuine process to achieve this.
The amendment from the noble Baroness, Lady Grender, contains some important proposals, and I will add a brief comment specifically about the necessary quality and depth of the consultation process. It should not be a one-off procedure to take place after expansion plans have already largely been settled. Communities need to be engaged from the outset, when options are still genuinely open. To be clear, while the expansion of flight paths is perhaps the main concern, there is also the likelihood that more flight paths will lead to busier airports, attracting more traffic on surrounding roads and greater pressure on local transport and public services. This must also be part of the consultation process.
There will of course be occasions when, having weighed up all the competing considerations, the Government, or the relevant authority, decide that an expansion should proceed despite local objections. That is always a possibility. But those affected communities will still deserve a clear explanation of why their concerns were outweighed by other considerations. This is essential if public confidence in the process is to be maintained. I look forward to hearing what assurance the Minister can give us today.
Lord Grayling (Con)
My Lords, I will speak very briefly. I raised the issue of consultation in Committee. The Minister gave me a very helpful response, but he very clearly said that, in a case where the Government took a decision, that approach would already have been subject to detailed consultation. That was only one particular approach. In a situation where there could be three or four different options for an airport, what is his view on the Government’s job in explaining why they have chosen one of the different options available?
That is where we get down to the basic principle in the amendment from the noble Baroness, Lady Grender: the Government cannot simply take a decision out of the blue without detailed explanation and without some degree of clarification to, and discussion with, the communities affected about why they have taken it out of maybe two or three options. I accept the Minister’s very helpful response to my comments in Committee, but can he now set out for us how the Government will approach a choice between numerous options? What approach will they take to consultation in that situation?
Lord Moylan (Con)
My Lords, some very important points have been made about consultation. I just want to be clear that I understand what points are being made. I believe these amendments are not about airport expansion. On airport expansion, I would say that, especially as it is subject to a process under planning law—namely, the development consent order—there will not be a shortage of consultation as a result of that development consultation order. Certainly, in the case of Heathrow, if it expands, the consultation will take place.
I think that the amendment that the noble Baroness, Lady Grender, put forward is not about expansion but about airspace modernisation. Although I would not want to commit myself to the wording of her amendment in particular, she has a point which the Government need to be quite clear about and they need to reckon what the difficulties are; that is, the reorganisation of flight paths will have winners and losers. It is not simply that flight paths might be moved from one corner, one area or one approach to another; part of the purpose of airspace modernisation is to concentrate flights, so there could be quite a lot of winners but some very bad losers as a result of this. The Government need to take people with them as they do this. There is a strong case for doing it, and we support modernisation, but the Government cannot leave their successor in a position where people have not been given a chance to be brought along.
My Amendment 39A in this group is about charges for air traffic and air navigation services in Clause 6. I drew attention in Committee to the sheer incoherence of the drafting of this clause. The Government have come forward with an amendment which improves it somewhat, but it slightly misses the point—it still leaves it saying something quite incoherent. I offer this only because I like to see properly drafted legislation. There is no politics in this; the Government should be doing their job properly in the first place. Clause 6(3)(c) says:
“Persons may be specified … if the services concerned are available for their use”—
note that phrase—
“or benefit, and it is immaterial whether or not the services are actually used or could be used by … them”.
I understand the part about it being immaterial whether they are used: “It is available for your use, but you did not use it; we’re still going to charge you”. That may be right or wrong, but that is what the law says. That is the situation. How can the services be available for their use, but they could not be used by them? You could still be charged for them even if they could not be used by you. How is that consistent with them being “available”? I do not understand it. I just think it is very poor drafting.
Anyway, I look forward to hearing what the Minister has to say. I am glad he has corrected the other part of it that was incoherent; we are getting somewhere slowly. Maybe he will come forward with some sensible amendments at Third Reading so that the Bill makes sense in some key areas.
Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill (Lab)
My Lords, the next group concerns airspace modernisation, consultation and charging. I begin by thanking the noble Baroness, Lady Grender, for retabling her amendment, and I have also heard the noble Lord, Lord Grayling, and the noble Baroness, Lady Bray, on this matter.
I have considered this carefully, but the Government’s position remains unchanged. The environmental assessment and consultation are, and will remain, fundamental parts of the airspace change process. Nothing in these powers removes or weakens existing requirements for thorough consultation or robust assessment of environmental and noise impacts.
Any procedure or policy the Civil Aviation Authority puts in place, or any decision it makes to change airspace, must be exercised in accordance with the duties set out under Section 70 of the Transport Act 2000. These require the Civil Aviation Authority to take account of the Secretary of State’s guidance on environmental objectives, as well as the interests of any person in relation to the use of airspace.
In practice, sponsors of an airspace change must undertake detailed assessments of potential impacts, including noise exposure and greenhouse gas emissions, and consult meaningfully the affected communities, airspace users and other relevant stakeholders. The CAA then scrutinises these assessments before any proposal can be approved. In response to the noble Lord, Lord Grayling, my understanding is that the CAA will bring forward only one proposal at a time.
Lord Moylan (Con)
Before the Minister sits down, he has again misconceived the point. It is not that you can be charged for something that you do not use. He says that this is a well-established principle. I have already said that it might be rough justice, but if it is what the law says then it is what the law says. What he has to explain is how something can be available—it has to be available before there can be any charge at all—yet be something which the person being charged could not use. What does he understand by “available” in that case, bearing in mind that, unless it is available, there is no charge at all, as that is the first condition?
Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill (Lab)
I think I have explained that to the noble Lord. I certainly feel that I have.
Baroness Grender (LD)
My Lords, I thank noble Lords for participating in this debate. I am sure that we are all keen to move on to the next group. The Minister has been very patient in our meetings and recognises that we will not let go of this issue lightly. We will keep on referencing what we see as this critical need. However, for the moment, I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.
Member's explanatory statement
This amendment would ensure that the amended section 75(7) of the Transport Act 2000 accurately reflects the intended operation of charging arrangements for air traffic and air navigation services.
Lord Kirkhope of Harrogate
“(4A) After section 80 (Secretary of State’s duties) insert—“80A Consideration of growth and sustainability of general aviation in relation to chargesIn exercising functions relating to charges for air traffic and air navigation services, the Secretary of State and the CAA must have regard to—(a) the desirability of promoting the growth and sustainability of general aviation, including its role in introducing individuals to aviation, supporting aviation skills development, and encouraging entry into commercial aviation careers, and(b) the desirability of ensuring that persons carrying out general aviation activities are not subject to charges which are disproportionate to the use made by such persons of air traffic and air navigation services.””Member's explanatory statement
This amendment seeks to ensure that decisions relating to charges for air traffic and air navigation services take account of the importance of general aviation to the sustainability of the wider aviation sector, including its contributions to aviation skills and future workforce development, and that such charges remain proportionate to use.
Lord Kirkhope of Harrogate (Con)
My Lords, we have come to the point in the evening where general aviation wants to put across its case. I will not declare all my interests in aviation, but I fly planes and am an honorary president of BALPA. I am very proud of that and of the fact that I have been flying planes now for over 40 years—with a licence. It is just as well to add that bit on.
Over those 40 years, I have seen how much more onerous the responsibilities and costs have been on those who have participated in general and business aviation in this country and elsewhere. Regulations have in many cases rightly been tightened to guarantee safety. However, the sheer cost of operating aircraft has increased dramatically, as have the costs incurred by those who have established training organisations around the country. The reason for my amendment tonight is clear.
I congratulate the Minister, as others presumably have been doing all evening, on being enormously receptive to the views of myself and others who have been promoting general aviation during this Bill. In my long experience here and in the other place, I can narrow down the number of Ministers who have been as receptive and helpful as he has been to a comparatively small number. He has been very helpful indeed. However, we must test him just that little bit further. Whatever he says in response to my amendment tonight, as the amendment sets out, it is a question of not just the words that we receive here in the deliberations on this Bill but of what happens next. Our wishes are not only that the Government should acknowledge the work being done in general aviation, its successes and its importance, but that the CAA also recognises that and is much more vocal and helpful than it has been in the past.
Many of the pilots who operate today in the commercial world are taught at training organisations on sometimes very small airfields around our country. The value of the contribution of that initial training to the airline business is therefore very difficult to estimate, but undoubtedly many of the people I know who fly commercially started out in training organisations in comparatively small fields around the country. In a way, my amendment is an attempt not only to get a greater acknowledgement on a permanent basis but to look at the economics.
The second part of my amendment asks that there should not be a disproportionate cost to general aviation in relation to air and navigation charges. My noble friend Lord Moylan has just touched on this point in his question to the Minister about the availability of and the charging for these services. My amendment specifically states that there should not be any impediment through
“charges which are disproportionate to the use made … of air traffic”
and navigational services by general aviation. That is quite clear: it is not just a question of availability, but of the actual use. We want to make sure that what has happened so far, which is reasonably satisfactory in that the charges are proportionate to the use, is continued and that there is no extra penalty put on GA and business aviation, to which we owe so much. I beg to move.
Lord Barber of Ainsdale (Lab)
My Lords, I will speak briefly to Amendment 69 in my name. I begin by declaring my interest as the current president of BALPA. This amendment proposes an annual report by the CAA on pilot licence holders. I am grateful for the chance to discuss the issues and the trends lying behind this proposal with my noble friend the Minister.
We know that there are significant numbers of commercial pilots approaching the mandatory retirement age of 65. We have ambitions for real growth in this sector, which could increase the demand for pilots. Yet there are real concerns about the difficulties of potential pilots accessing the necessary training, given the significantly high costs involved, so a careful monitoring of all these issues is justified. This amendment proposes one way of addressing these concerns about trends affecting the whole sector, but I know that the Minister has been thinking about these challenges and I look forward to hearing his thinking on the most appropriate way to respond.
Viscount Goschen (Con)
My Lords, very briefly, I support my noble friend Lord Kirkhope’s Amendment 41. I declare my own interest as the holder of a private pilot’s licence and as the owner and operator of a light aircraft.
I thought my noble friends, both on Report and earlier in Committee, set out very convincingly a compelling case for general aviation. General aviation really is the grass roots and lifeblood of aviation in any country. So much training is done here in the United Kingdom. It is incredibly important that the UK has a strong training sector. It is up against it in terms of cost and regulation to a degree, as well as weather, competition from courses offered in the United States, Europe and Spain, and so forth.
My noble friend is quite right to stress the importance of general aviation. It is not just training; it also encompasses business aviation, aeromedical services, light charter flying, utility operation, helicopters and so forth. It is a vital sector. It is important that we have a strong reservoir of skills, in both ab initio and commercial pilot training, on which the broader commercial aviation sector in this country can be based and which it can take benefit from.
Baroness Foster of Oxton (Con)
My Lords, I support my noble friends Lord Kirkhope and Lord Goschen. This is an extremely important sector. Most people do not know that worldwide GA is actually a larger sector than commercial aviation.
There is a huge amount of hostility to private jets. Very often, when aircraft, aeroplanes and rock stars flying around the world are discussed, people say, “Oh, gosh, they’re doing terrible things to the environment”. Actually, aviation is responsible for 3% of CO2 emissions worldwide and 4% in Europe. It is not dismissive about that. It is hugely important. Sometimes we, as politicians, should be thoughtful about that narrative when we are discussing this important issue because, as my noble friends said, GA is key to so many areas. I just wanted to add that point for information.
Lord Grayling (Con)
My Lords, I will be very brief. One thing that the Government could do for general aviation is to take steps to designate smaller airports that are for general aviation and are important to be retained for general aviation. I am very aware of the pressure to redevelop smaller airfields. There may be a case to support that for a small number of them, but the loss of those which are used extensively by general aviation will do significant damage to the aviation sector as a whole.
Baroness Grender (LD)
My Lords, as the noble Lord, Lord Barber, is aware, I tabled an amendment in Committee similar to his Amendment 69. However, even as I was speaking then, I recognised and understood that there was far greater expertise on this area in the Room. I have not been disappointed on that this evening.
We support Amendment 69 in principle. We cannot ensure safety in a workforce vacuum. As the BALPA briefing identifies, the sector faces a looming retirement cliff due to the mandatory retirement age of 65—House of Lords, please note. This amendment requires an authoritative annual assessment of future workforce requirements, enabling the industry to address supply issues, particularly for commercial pilots, well ahead of time. By requiring these reports on demographic trends, we would ensure that the move towards agile regulation was supported by a transparent understanding of the human capital required. This mirrors best practice elsewhere, as I think I mentioned in Committee—for instance, the Nursing and Midwifery Council has a similar operation—and it provides transparency to the House.
On Amendment 41, in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Kirkhope, we must recognise that general aviation is the front door to the industry. It underpins pilot training and contributes £4 billion to our economy, yet smaller users are too often quietly squeezed out by disproportionate charges. This amendment provides a vital tramline to that. We welcome it and look forward to hearing the Minister’s response.
Lord Moylan (Con)
My Lords, any debate on aviation is enriched by a contribution from my noble friend Lord Kirkhope of Harrogate. I am grateful to him for what he said.
The House benefited too from the speech by the noble Lord, Lord Barber of Ainsdale. I have some slight concerns about his amendment. I appreciate that there may be a crisis in the supply of pilots, but I would be very anxious if the Government were to become involved in workforce planning in this sector. I understand entirely that his amendment does not quite call for that, but the last part of it points in the general direction that the CAA should be taking an active role in this, and that would be a very bad thing. Aviation is a very successful part of our private economy, and it should be for the industry itself to take responsibility for recruiting and training the people it needs in order to operate. That is the first principle.
However, the noble Lord does an important service in bringing to the House’s attention the cliff edge that is allegedly being faced. I look forward to hearing what the Minister has to say.
Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill (Lab)
My Lords, I begin with Amendment 41. I thank the noble Lord, Lord Kirkhope of Harrogate, for this and for his kind remarks. I also heard the noble Viscount, Lord Goschen, and other noble Lords clearly on this subject.
General aviation is an important part of the UK’s aviation industry, covering a wide range of public service, commercial and recreational activities. As the noble Lord remarked, it plays an important role in introducing people to aviation and helping to develop the skills pipeline for future aviation careers.
Clause 6 seeks to provide the CAA with greater flexibility as to who can be charged for air traffic services provided under a licence. This will ensure that, as the UK’s airspace evolves, the costs of providing those services can continue to be recovered fairly and proportionately, in line with the well-established “user pays” principle.
As the noble Lord will be aware, these costs are currently recovered primarily from commercial airlines, while general aviation is largely exempt. Any future changes would be subject to the CAA’s statutory consultation process, with affected parties retaining rights of appeal. The Civil Aviation Authority also has an obligation under the Transport Act 2000 to further the interests of operators and owners of aircraft, including in relation to the availability and cost of licensed air traffic services. This would and does naturally include considering impacts on the sustainability and growth of general aviation. Given those existing safeguards, the established charging process, and the fact that there are currently no plans to introduce new charges for general aviation users, I do not believe the amendment is necessary.
I turn to the amendment from my noble friend Lord Barber of Ainsdale, which would require the CAA to report on anonymised demographic trends among commercial pilot licence-holders. Demographic trends among skilled aviation personnel are a matter of interest to the industry, the Government and the Civil Aviation Authority.
The Civil Aviation Authority already collects demographic information on commercial pilots and other skilled personnel. This supports robust regulatory decision-making, enables the CAA to identify relevant trends and allows it to publish data on licence-holders where it considers that useful. Indeed, the CAA has published annual data on different categories of licensed pilots, including commercial pilots, broken down by age and sex, since 1994.
The proposed requirement to publish such statistics and analysis with a particular frequency could impose additional costs on the CAA. These would have to be met from the CAA’s scheme of charges and thus would be a burden on the aviation sector. For those reasons, I consider the amendment unnecessary and ask my noble friend not to press it.
More broadly, I reassure the noble Lord, as well as my noble friends Lord Barber of Ainsdale and Lord Tunnicliffe, of the importance that the Government place on maintaining a robust pipeline of flight crew, particularly pilots. The department is addressing workforce challenges through targeted programmes, such as Generation Aviation, and through evidence-based assessments of skills needs. The department will shortly commission a skills gap analysis across all aviation professions as a follow-up to analysis that was conducted in 2023. This will consider factors including retirements and sector growth, helping to identify emerging workforce pressures at an early stage.
In response to the noble Lord, Lord Grayling, the Government recognise and value the important role aerodromes play in their local communities. That is why the National Planning Policy Framework ensures that planning authorities consider their economic, leisure, training and emergency service roles when making planning decisions about them.
I thank noble Lords for their engagement on this matter and I trust that, as a result, they feel reassured. I ask the noble Lord to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Kirkhope of Harrogate (Con)
I feel that the matter that I brought through this amendment has been well aired. I am grateful for the contributions of my noble friends Lord Goschen, Lord Grayling and Lady Foster. I am particularly happy that my noble friend Lord Moylan, our spokesman, is satisfied with a very slight chastisement of me. I go away humble, of course, but not humiliated. I am delighted that the Minister has responded in the way he has. I am pleased that the amendment tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Barber, has been discussed, because it is also important in this group. As a result of that, I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.
Lord Grayling
“(a) for the allocation of slots at a new airport; (b) for the allocation of additional capacity created at an existing airport, or at a new airport, where the affected air carriers have failed to reach a voluntary commercial agreement within a reasonable period;(ba) securing the availability of such proportion of the additional capacity created at an existing airport, or at a new airport, as is reasonably necessary to maintain or improve regional air connectivity within the United Kingdom;”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment and two others in the name of Lord Grayling confine the Secretary of State's intervention in airport slot allocation to specified circumstances and permit intervention only where commercial agreement cannot be reached after reasonable efforts and preserves the commercial allocation of existing airport slots while allowing limited provision for regional connectivity from newly created capacity.
Lord Grayling (Con)
My Lords, I will speak to a number of amendments in this group that address the future of the slots regime. I had hoped and expected that, in the wake of the decision to leave the European Union, and as the Government now move to change the legislation on the slots regime, we would be taking a light-touch approach to this. Instead, I regard what the Government are doing as unduly onerous and micromanaging. As evidence, I simply refer to Clause 7(4):
“The regulations may make different provision for different purposes”.
That is not the kind of line in legislation that a Government who do not intend to micromanage the slots regime would ever need to introduce.
What I have sought to do in these amendments is, first, to set out specifically what I think the Government should be doing and where the lines should be drawn. Amendments 42 and 43 in particular focus on the key responsibilities: the allocation of slots at a new airport and the allocation of additional capacity created at an existing airport or at a new airport but only where the affected carriers have failed to reach a commercial agreement themselves. Secondly, since these are private businesses dealing with each other, I hope this is not something where the Government should need to have any involvement. It should be for the airport and the airlines to come up with a plan. Where that is not possible, I absolutely accept that there is a need for refereeing, but the first port of call should be to allow commercial businesses to reach an agreement themselves.
Baroness Foster of Oxton (Con)
My Lords, I support the comments made by my noble friend Lord Grayling. I reiterate, as we had a very good debate in Committee, that, when the slot regulations were going through the European Parliament, even the Commission at that time, which liked to be involved in all sorts of things, acknowledged that it would not be involved in decisions about slots.
Slots are key to the value of any airline company, and they are regulated by the independent airport slots co-ordinator. We do not want to have, and we do not support, political and other influences that might not work to the benefit of the carriers and, subsequently, the passengers. As I mentioned, I therefore support the comments of my noble friend Lord Grayling.
Lord Empey (UUP)
My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Grayling, for his amendments, some of which are entirely complementary to what I want to achieve. I have been battling on this for a long number of years. I fully understand the point made by the noble Baroness, Lady Foster, about the value of an airline and how the slots are worth a lot of money—many millions of pounds, in many cases, depending on the time, and I can only see those values rising in the short term.
It is not that I would want the Minister to use hobnail boots to interfere with the slots regime, but there could be circumstances where—it is not impossible—given that we are in an international market and most of the airlines with slots at, say, Heathrow, are in effect international, the shareholdings of those could change. Let us suppose, for example, that a group such as IAG was purchased by a Middle East consortium; it might seek to maximise its profits from the use of the slots.
Let us take another example: regional airports. It is not a Northern Ireland issue. Let us suppose that that consortium decides, “We don’t need flights from Manchester to Heathrow; we could get rid of those”. Then the question would be: how would people get to the Cabinet? Would they have to take the bus? This is an extreme example, but the point is that a future shareholder could decide either to stop using a regional airport or to reduce the service to the point that it creates economic difficulties for a region. That requires a certain degree of interference by the state, because having inadequate regional connectivity is not simply a commercial matter. It is a matter that can affect regions. It can affect business. It could make regions less competitive, which has an impact on jobs and quality of life.
I got a Private Member’s Bill through this House twice, but we were then part of the European Union and the Minister said, “It’s a European competence; therefore, there is nothing I can do”, so that was that. But now we are in a different situation; we can do something. All I want the Minister to be able to say is that, in extremis, sufficient power exists—or that we will make sure that sufficient power exists—to ensure that the regions are not disadvantaged as a result of slots being removed from them and given to transatlantic or worldwide routes. This is not a difficult problem. Amendment 67 from the noble Lord, Lord Grayling, would give the Secretary of State a power to intervene, taking certain things into account. Therefore, I would have thought that it would be perfectly possible to have consensus on this, because nobody wants to see regions isolated or disadvantaged.
We have an opportunity now; it is within our own power. I accept entirely that we do not want to be messing around with the economics of a particular airline, but there could be circumstances in which the regions are put at risk. I hope the Minister will be able to satisfy me, the noble Lord, Lord Grayling, and others that this is not going to happen, and that he and the Secretary of State will have the powers to intervene if necessary.
Baroness Grender (LD)
My Lords, I turn first to Amendments 42 to 44. Although we understand the desire for commercial certainty, slot allocation is a strategic lever for regional connectivity, as described by the noble Lord, Lord Empey, and for national health. We strongly support his Amendment 46. Hub airports must provide adequate access for regional destinations. Regional routes must not be casualties of best-profit models.
On transparency, we support Amendments 47 and 48, which would mandate formal consultation and parliamentary statements before reforming the slot regime. As we have talked about in the past, Parliament and the public deserve to see evidence regarding impacts on competition and consumers before the rules of the game are fundamentally altered.
Procedurally, we support Amendments 52 and 53. All regulations under new Section 34A should be subject to the affirmative procedure, in our view. We welcome government Amendments 45 and 49, in particular, as referenced by the noble Lord, Lord Grayling, the removal of imprisonment for slot offences, which we see as a vital move toward proportionality. We welcome the Minister’s change on this.
Lord Moylan (Con)
My Lords, I have two amendments in this group, and I am grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Grender, for saying that she would support them. Both would change the making of regulations from the use of the negative procedure to the affirmative procedure. I shall not say anything more about them.
Both my noble friend Lord Grayling and the noble Lord, Lord Empey, have made very important points. I have great sympathy with my noble friend, who is trying to ensure that the Government interfere as little as possible with the allocation of slots. I equally understand, and I do not think there is a tension with, what the noble Lord, Lord Empey, says about the importance of maintaining regional connectivity. In fact, as I recall, not that long ago the Minister was the tsar of regional connectivity and wrote a very important report about it for the Government, so I look forward to hearing what he has to say, drawing on his experience and knowledge of the subject.
Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill (Lab)
My Lords, I am grateful to noble Lords for these amendments and for the thoughtful debate we have had on the slots regime. I will deal with the amendments in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Grayling, before turning to those from the noble Lords, Lord Empey and Lord Moylan.
The amendments in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Grayling, seek to limit intervention on slot allocation to specified circumstances. I certainly understand the intention behind the amendments but we believe that they would unduly constrain the flexibility that the Bill is designed to provide. The airport slots regime operates in a complex and rapidly changing environment, and future circumstances cannot be anticipated. Limiting intervention to a prescribed set of scenarios could impede timely and effective action in the public interest, particularly in exceptional and unforeseen circumstances. The Government therefore consider it preferable to retain a sufficiently flexible regulation-making power, subject to the appropriate parliamentary scrutiny of any regulations made under it.
Amendment 47 would require statutory consultation before any regulations on slots are made. The Government recognise the importance of proper engagement before changes are made to the slots regime. I commit that, where new policy is developed under this power, there will be appropriate consultation, including with industry and, where relevant, communities. However, it would not be appropriate to place an inflexible statutory consultation requirement in the Bill. This power may need to be used in response to urgent disruption in the aviation sector, as we saw during the pandemic. In those circumstances, the Government must be able to act swiftly and proportionately.
Amendment 48 seeks to require consultation, transparency and regard to commercial allocation for the slots regime. The Government do not believe that this amendment is necessary. A core principle of the slot allocation regime is that slots are allocated by an independent co-ordinator. In the UK, this role is carried out by Airport Coordination Ltd. This principle is reflected in global guidelines, which require co-ordinators to act independently so that scarce airport capacity is allocated fairly, neutrally and without bias towards any airline, airport or government. That independence helps prevent conflicts of interest, protects new entrants and maintains confidence in a transparent global system.
Amendment 50 questions whether criminal offences are needed under the slot allocation regime. I do not believe that this amendment is necessary, as the Government have tabled an amendment to remove the power for any amended slots regime to include provision for new criminal offences. However, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Grayling, for prompting a debate on this matter.
I turn to Amendments 45 and 49, tabled in my name. These amendments provide greater clarity and place a clear limit on the regulation-making power. In particular, they remove any ability for future regulations to create new criminal offences. At the same time, they preserve the effective operation of the existing slot allocation regime and make it clear that, where the existing regulations are restated, any offence already contained in those regulations may also be restated. This strikes an appropriate balance. It avoids conferring an unnecessarily broad power to create new criminal offences, while ensuring that restatement of the current regime does not inadvertently remove or undermine existing enforcement mechanisms. The amendments therefore support legal certainty, maintain continuity in the regulation of airport slot allocation and respond proportionately to concerns about the scope of the delegated powers on slots. For these reasons, I hope the noble Lord, Lord Grayling, will not press his amendments, and that he and other noble Lords will support my amendments.
The amendment from the noble Lord, Lord Empey, seeks to require that
“adequate slots at hub airports are allocated to flights from regional airports in the United Kingdom”.
The Government recognise the importance of strong regional connectivity and are committed to ensuring that people and businesses across the country benefit from effective air links, including access to major hub airports. However, the slot allocation regime gives airlines rights to equivalent slots in future seasons where usage requirements are met. This amendment could therefore require the reallocation of slots currently held by incumbent operators, raising legal and practical concerns. Of course, the slot regime applies only where capacity is constrained.
Lord Empey (UUP)
Can I get some clarification on the Minister’s point about Amendment 46? Let us assume that, at this point in time, regional connectivity is adequate, which I believe it is. Therefore, I am not suggesting that existing slots be removed from an existing airline. What I am concerned about is this: if an airline decides to reallocate its slots for international flights, say, to the detriment of the regions, does the Secretary of State have any power to intervene to ensure that regional connectivity is maintained? I am not talking about new capacity or limiting capacity in existing slots. But, in the event that those slots might be reallocated to the detriment of a region, does the Secretary of State have any power to intervene, or are the Government merely a spectator?
Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill (Lab)
The answer to that is that the Secretary of State does not have any power to intervene because, as I said, the core principle of the slot allocation regime is that slots are allocated by an independent co-ordinator. There are suggestions from noble Lords opposite that in fact the Government should have less power here, so I am not sure that I see that the Secretary of State can easily intervene in something that is already allocated fairly neutrally and without bias towards any airline, airport or Government.
Lord Grayling (Con)
My Lords, I will pick up that latter point. The Minister has perhaps misunderstood my points. I set out the four areas where I felt the Government did have a role, and I said that the legislation goes much further than that. I cited the example of proposed new subsection (4), which appears to give the Government the power to do absolutely anything they want in this field. The issue is a Government who want to be able to control everything, and we are saying that there are only a certain number of things they should be involved in.
I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Empey, that regional connectivity is one example. I mentioned the easyJet situation to the Minister. A lot of the commentary has been around the value of that business being much higher by breaking it up, stripping out new plane orders and the rest. As we know, slots at Heathrow have huge value, and you could well imagine a situation where slots that were important within the United Kingdom were auctioned off for another purpose. So, yes, I believe in a more constrained slot regime, or more constrained government involvement in the slot regime, but I am not arguing and I have not argued that the Government should have no involvement in that regime. Regional connectivity is one area where the noble Lord, Lord Empey, has made some good and important points.
However, I can see that the Government are not going to concede on this point tonight. I simply ask the Minister to reflect further ahead of Third Reading, particularly on the regional connectivity point. In the interests of progress this evening, I beg leave to withdraw my Amendment 42.
Member’s explanatory statement
This would clarify that the power to restate the Airports Slot Allocation Regulations 2006 includes power to restate the offences created by the regulations.
Lord Empey
“(2A) The regulations must make provision to ensure adequate slots at hub airports are allocated to flights from regional airports in the United Kingdom.(2B) In subsection (2A)—“hub airport” means an airport used as a transfer point for passengers from one flight to another in order to complete a route;“adequate” means at such a level so as to maintain national air infrastructure and regional economic growth.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment obliges the Secretary of State to regulate so that sufficient access to slots at hub airports such as Heathrow is allocated to flights from regional UK destinations.
Member’s explanatory statement
This would remove the power for regulations under section 34A of the Airports Act 1986 to include provision for criminal offences.
Baroness Grender
“(4A) The Secretary of State may not make regulations under this section that would have the effect of facilitating airport expansion unless the Secretary of State has first—(a) consulted persons likely to be affected by the proposed expansion, including communities in the vicinity of the airport,(b) undertaken an environmental impact assessment of the proposed expansion, and(c) undertaken a noise impact assessment of the proposed expansion.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment would prevent the Secretary of State from making regulations that facilitate airport expansion unless they have first consulted affected communities, completed an environmental impact assessment, and completed a noise impact assessment. It ensures that proper scrutiny and community engagement take place before any expansion can be progressed through secondary legislation.
Baroness Grender (LD)
My Lords, we are on the home stretch, and Amendments 51 and 63 are in my name. Throughout these proceedings, the Minister has offered various reassurances from the Dispatch Box that the Bill is not intended to be a vehicle for airport expansion, either directly or indirectly. We take those words in good faith, particularly from him, but, as I have argued previously, faith is rarely the same as an absolute guarantee. For the communities who live daily with the noise and emissions of a flight path, verbal comfort is an insufficient shield against the vast, unscrutinised delegated powers contained in this legislation.
Amendment 51 addresses the technical reality of Clause 7 regarding airport slots. While the Government maintain that slot co-ordination itself cannot increase capacity, it is undeniable that slots are the strategic levers that manage how expanded capacity is utilised. If the Government proceed with their publicly stated ambition for a third runway at Heathrow by 2035, the regulatory framework we build today will be the one that governs those new movements. We cannot allow the rules of the game for slot allocation to be rewritten by secondary legislation without a statutory requirement for community consultation and mandatory environmental and noise impact assessments. The Minister points to the forthcoming review of the airports national policy statement—ANPS—as the proper venue for such scrutiny, but scrutiny of a statement is a far cry from a legal duty in the Bill. Without these safeguards, a future Minister could quietly facilitate expansion through the back door of delegated slot regulations without ever returning to this House for a discrete policy debate.
Amendment 63 provides the ultimate safety catch. It specifies:
“No power in this Act may be used for the purposes of, or in connection with, the facilitation of airport expansion”.
This is a necessary boundary, because the Bill’s reach is so broad, touching everything from airspace redesign to the CAA’s new rule-making functions. If expansion is truly not the intent of the Bill, the Government should have no hesitation in accepting this new clause that makes the limitation explicit and enforceable. Indeed, it should be welcomed as a useful and helpful contribution.
The residents overflown deserve the certainty that can come only from primary statute. We must ensure that the redesign of our skies and the reform of our airports are anchored in democratic consent and environmental transparency, not left to the administrative discretion of an unelected regulator or the temporary reassurances of a Minister. I therefore look forward to hearing the Minister’s response to these two amendments and I beg to move Amendment 51.
Lord Moylan (Con)
My Lords, the noble Baroness makes some important points, and I look forward to hearing what the Minister has to say in reply.
Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill (Lab)
My Lords, I thank the noble Baronesses, Lady Grender and Lady Jones of Moulsecoomb, for their amendments on airport expansion. I addressed the relationship between the Bill and airport expansion in Grand Committee. Having considered the arguments put forward then, the Government’s position remains unchanged.
This Bill is concerned with aviation consumer protection and the aviation regulatory framework; it is not a Bill about airport expansion. The measures in the Bill are needed regardless of whether any airport expansion proposal comes forward and regardless of the outcome of any such proposal. The Government are supportive of airport expansion where it can deliver economic and connectivity benefits and meet the relevant environmental and planning requirements. However, decisions on airport expansion are taken through separate planning processes, not through this Bill.
Indeed, during Committee, the Government published the draft Heathrow expansion national policy statement for consultation. This underlines the fact that airport expansion proposals are considered through dedicated planning processes, with their own consultation, scrutiny and parliamentary oversight. The Bill does not alter those processes or predetermine their outcome.
The Government are concerned about the practical effect of Amendment 63. Its scope is not limited to Heathrow or to any specific airport expansion proposal. By preventing powers being used “in connection with” the facilitation of expansion, it could create uncertainty around routine regulatory functions that are not themselves about approving airport expansion. For example, slots regulation does not create airport capacity; it manages capacity once it has been approved through the planning process. However, the amendment could potentially call into question the use of such powers where they relate to approved airport expansion.
Regarding the consultation requirements on slots regulations put forward in Amendment 51, the Government are committed to meaningful community consultation and robust environmental and noise assessment before any airport expansion proceeds. These requirements are already addressed through the statutory planning process.
As I have said, slot regulations do not determine whether airport expansion takes place. The Bill simply ensures that, where necessary, slot regulations can be updated to make effective use of new capacity at co-ordinated airports. The amendment would therefore add little, as consultation and assessment on airport expansion already take place through the planning system before slot allocation becomes relevant. I therefore ask the noble Baroness to withdraw her amendment.
Baroness Grender (LD)
My Lords, I thank the Minister for his infinite patience on this issue and for being accessible at all times for discussions on it. I wish to associate myself with all the other comments that we have heard this evening, and I thank the Minister for some of the movement that we have had, particularly in other areas and in earlier parts of the debate. My reason for saying this now is that I do not intend to speak on the next couple of groups, so this is an opportunity for me to say thank you to the Minister and his officials for having been so accessible throughout the process.
I understand the Minister’s objections to this. It will not astonish him to hear that, as with Amendment 46, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Empey, it is possible that we will return to this. I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.
“61EA Considerations for exercise of power under section 61A(7)(1) When considering whether and how to exercise the power to make regulations under section 61A(7) the Secretary of State must, in particular, consider whether the Secretary of State should retain responsibility for the following—(a) anything that would significantly affect the public interest, including in particular the public interest in protecting national security, promoting economic growth, protecting the environment and ensuring the efficient operation of the civil air transport industry of the United Kingdom;(b) anything that would involve matters of public policy, or legal issues, of general importance;(c) anything that would involve the imposition of requirements on the CAA in relation to the exercise of its functions;(d) anything that would involve the imposition of significant and unexpected financial burdens on any person;(e) anything that would directly affect the interests of passengers using air transport services, in particular where the passengers whose interests would be affected are or include disabled persons or persons with reduced mobility; (f) anything that would involve changes to other legislation that cannot be made by regulations under section 61J.(2) In this section “disabled persons” means persons with a disability within the meaning given by section 6 of the Equality Act 2010.”Member's explanatory statement
This amendment would set out matters to consider when making regulations under section 61A(7) of the Civil Aviation Act 1982, addressing a concern raised by the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee in their report on the Bill.
Member's explanatory statement
This amendment would require directions under section 61G, and variations or revocations of them, to be laid before Parliament as well as being published.
Lord Moylan
Member's explanatory statement
This amendment changes the power in section 61A(7) of the Civil Aviation Act 1982 to an affirmative procedure, in the light of the recommendations from the DPPRC.
Lord Young of Cookham
“Compensation reimbursement scheme for airlinesAfter section 9 of the Transport Act 2000 (power to exclude services from effect of section 8) insert—“9A Reimbursement of passenger compensation payments(1) A licence holder must establish and maintain a scheme for the reimbursement of the costs incurred by airlines in paying compensation to passengers in consequence of a qualifying disruption.(2) For the purposes of this section, a “qualifying disruption” means a cancellation caused by the fault or failure of the licence holder.””
Lord Young of Cookham (Con)
My Lords, I will be brief. I am grateful to all those who supported Amendment 65 several hours ago. I am grateful to the Minister for replying and I recognise that his hands were tied. My noble friend Lord Moylan said that the Minister played his trump card by quoting my noble friend Lord Harper, a former Secretary of State, in his defence. I do not know if you can overtrump three times, but three former Secretaries of State took a different view from my noble friend Lord Harper so I would argue that was indeed overtrumped.
The Minister produced three arguments in defence. First, he said safety was pre-eminent and that was why NATS should not be fined. Safety is pre-eminent. It is pre-eminent for the National Health Service, rail, water and power—all those utilities are subject to penalties if they underperform, so there is no conceivable reason for exempting NATS from the same regime. Secondly, the Minister said that any fines on NATS would result in higher charges for the airlines. I could not have been clearer in my speech that any fines should come out of NATS’ profits and not be added to the base for charging for the airlines. The biggest fine it could have had so far was £63 million and its profits for the last two years were £200 million.
Thirdly, the Minister said that my amendment was not appropriate. The Liberal Democrats indicated that they were going to listen to the Minister before deciding what to do. I hope they share my disappointment at the Minister’s reply and that such Lib Dems who may be still in the House will support my amendment. I beg leave to test the opinion of the House.
The Deputy Speaker (Baroness Morris of Bolton) (Con)
My Lords, the next amendment is long but it has been circulated. Normally, everything is read out for a manuscript amendment but, with the leave of the House, if it is moved, it will not be read out in full.
Amendment 69A
Lord Berkeley
“Report: access to the EGNOSWithin three months of the day on which this Act is passed, the Secretary of State must publish a report setting out— (a) plans to improve regulatory capability for Instrument Flight Procedures including UK access to the European Geostationary Navigation Overlay Service (EGNOS), and(b) a timeline for switching on the EGNOS in the UK by the end of 2026.”
Lord Berkeley (Lab)
My Lords, I apologise for this manuscript amendment; something went wrong with the Public Bill Office. I shall be very brief at this time of night. I just want to emphasise that we have been talking about general aviation for much of the day. There have been some really useful comments from the noble Lord, Lord Kirkhope, my noble friend Lord Barber and the noble Viscount, Lord Goschen, and some good answers from the Minister, for which I am very grateful. However, general aviation still needs one thing that has not been mentioned so far: the global navigation satellite system, which enables people to train and do whatever they need to do in places of bad visibility.
My reason for tabling this amendment was that I received, at the end of last week, an interesting paper from the Royal Aeronautical Society called GNSS Services Supporting Civil Aviation in the UK. It is eight pages long—noble Lords will be glad that I am not going to read it all out. It gives the history of the GNSS from when we left Europe, and therefore left EGNOS, to where we are now.
Basically, it says that since then the Cabinet Office and a lot of other departments have been looking at alternative systems to EGNOS, one of which was Inmarsat, which I have visited. The House of Commons Select Committee took evidence on the UK space strategy and UK satellite infrastructure. It said:
“We urge the government to publish a National PNT Strategy and set out what ground and space-based components will be used”.
Nothing much seems to have happened, and the conclusion of this paper is that we have lost 15 years’ development by not going ahead with EGNOS.
EGNOS is still there. I am told that it can be reinstated very cheaply—somewhere between £30 million and £40 million—whereas the alternative, according to this paper, could be somewhere between seven and 10 years away. We really need this for training pilots and other people involved in navigating when the visibility is bad. It is not just for people having joy rides; it is for business, passengers and training, so why not do it? That is why I put this amendment down, in the unlikely hope that my noble friend the Minister will say yes. I hope it gives food for thought and I shall send him this paper so that he can study it in more detail. I beg to move.
Baroness Foster of Oxton (Con)
My Lords, I support this amendment from the noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, co-signed by the noble Lord, Lord Davies of Gower. We have had discussions on this over the last couple of years.
When I was a member of the European Parliament, I was a rapporteur on GNSS—global navigation satellite systems. That was key when we were looking at how we were covering airspace and airports, et cetera. Switching off EGNOS when we left the European Union affected somewhere in the region of 27 airfields around the United Kingdom, including areas such as the Highlands and Islands, and the Scilly Isles, not just where fixed-wing aircraft go but where helicopters fly in. Therefore, it has reduced the landing limits—for landing and take-off—and the operational aspect, not just for passengers but when they are taking in goods or freight. It is an extremely important issue.
Under the last Government and this one, we have not got very far on this. I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, that we need to seriously look at this and reintroduce something like EGNOS, because it is important for the United Kingdom. To have done this and then just left it has not been helpful at all. I certainly support what the noble Lord said and I hope that the Minister will seriously look at this again, because we need to reinstate this system.
Lord Moylan (Con)
My Lords, I have listened carefully to the debate. We do not support the amendment.
Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill (Lab)
I thank my noble friend Lord Berkeley and the noble Lord, Lord Davies of Gower, for this amendment. The Government are actively reviewing the case for access to the European geostationary navigation overlay service, or EGNOS. This includes engagement with organisations that have been affected by the loss of the service, as well as those who could benefit from it in the future. I noted in Committee the importance of the service to connectivity; for example, for outlying islands and throughout all seasons of the year.
The output of the current work is expected later this year, but any move to rejoin EGNOS would in any case require agreement with the European Union. It would not be appropriate to pre-empt that review by accepting this amendment. For these reasons, I am unable to accept it. I hope that my noble friend will withdraw it.
Lord Berkeley (Lab)
My Lords, I am very grateful for that short debate and for my noble friend’s response. I did not expect anything else, but he will get a copy of this paper and I hope—indeed, I am sure—that he will be true to his word and follow it through and that we will have one or two more debates on it in the future.
Lord Moylan
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment deletes a Henry VIII Clause.
Lord Moylan (Con)
My Lords, very briefly, or perhaps at length, Amendment 70 would remove a Henry VIII power that allows the Government to rewrite primary legislation. It would do so on the grounds that the Government—or the department—have said in their memorandum to the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee that they have identified all the legislation that is affected by this Bill. Therefore, they do not need a Henry VIII power to make amendments to Bills that may yet appear, because they have already identified all the Bills. Indeed, I must say, they have not just identified them but made the corresponding adjustments to ensure that this Bill is in conformity with existing legislation, or that amendments are made to it through this process.
The power is entirely redundant. It is also offensive in general to your Lordships’ House that Henry VIII powers should exist. The Minister has been so good about accepting, at least in part, many of my suggestions in Committee and today on Report. However, it would be the cherry on the cake and would seal his reputation with all Benches in this House if just at this last minute, before we conclude, he were to rise to his feet and simply say that he accepts the amendment. I beg to move.
Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill (Lab)
How disappointed the noble Lord, Lord Moylan, is going to be. Without Clause 10, any amendment to existing legislation which is consequential to this Bill, however minor or technical, would require further primary legislation. That would be an unnecessary and disproportionate use of parliamentary time and that of your Lordships’ House. This clause is needed to ensure that the statute book appropriately reflects the changes made by this Bill and to avoid any potential inconsistencies following the Bill’s enactment.
Powers of this nature are a well-established feature of legislation. They ensure that the statute book continues to operate coherently once Parliament has enacted new legislation. This clause is drafted no more broadly than is necessary. I reassure the noble Lord, Lord Moylan, that the clause is both necessary and appropriately limited. It cannot be used to make substantive policy changes or revisit decisions taken by Parliament in the Bill. Where it is used to amend or repeal primary legislation, regulations are subject to the affirmative procedure, ensuring scrutiny by both Houses. For those reasons, the Government remain satisfied that Clause 10 strikes the right balance between ensuring a functioning statute book and providing appropriate parliamentary oversight where primary legislation is affected. I therefore invite the noble Lord to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Moylan (Con)
My Lords, you can always tell whether the Minister is speaking in his own voice or merely as a tool of departmental officials. I will leave it to noble Lords to decide which category that speech fell into. For the moment at least, I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment would provide for the consultation requirement, duty and principles relating to regulations under clause 1 to come into force on Royal Assent.
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment would provide for the removal of the limit on damage to wheelchairs etc on non-international flights to come into force 2 months after Royal Assent.