Lords Chamber

Tuesday 2nd June 2026

(began 1 week, 1 day ago)

Share Debate
Watch Live
Skip to latest contribution
This debate has concluded
14:35
14:37
14:38
None Portrait Oral questions: Discussions with the USA on the political and security situation in Bosnia and Herzegovina Lord Peach (Crossbench)
-

>> My Lords, we are working closely with the United States, including through the Peace Implementation Council and the United Nations
14:38
14:38
14:39
14:40
14:41
14:41
14:42
14:42
14:43
14:43
14:44
14:44
14:44
14:45
14:45
14:46
14:46
14:47
None Portrait Oral questions: Reviewing NHS policy of ending automatic mammogram invitations for women over 70 Lord Palmer of Childs Hill (Liberal Democrat)
-

>> I beg leave to ask the question standing in my name on the Order Paper. >> My Lord, an important research

**** Possible New Speaker ****

My Lord, an important research study, age X is investigating the effects of routine breast screening
14:47
14:47
14:48
14:49
14:50
14:51
14:51
14:52
14:53
14:54
14:54
14:55
14:55
14:56
14:57
14:58
None Portrait Oral questions: Inconsistent decision-making for victims under the Windrush Compensation Scheme Baroness Benjamin (Liberal Democrat)
-

Third Oral Question Baroness Benjamin. Order Paper.
14:58
14:58
14:59
15:00
15:01
15:01
15:02
15:03
15:03
15:04
15:05
15:05
15:05
15:06
15:06
15:07
15:07
15:08
15:08
15:09
15:10
15:11
15:12
15:12
15:14
15:14
15:15
15:16
15:16
15:17
15:18
15:19
Baroness Blake of Leeds Portrait Baroness Blake of Leeds (Labour)
-
-
Well, my noble friend is absolutely right. That inequality, as we've said earlier, runs throughout this debate. And that's the reason why I highlighted the fact that there isn't a consistent messaging going out through GPS for men who come forward and discuss to discuss their health needs with them. And there needs to be far more work done. But the evidence from the committee very clearly stated that the risk of harm from unnecessary treatment is, is, is high.

This is exactly the sort of work that has been looked into, but that is their very clear recommendation in terms of the evidence around the progression of the disease. How many who are diagnosed will then go on to have a life threatening condition has to be at the forefront of, of, of the evidence and the further research

**** Possible New Speaker ****

that's been done. Private notice question on the UK, India Free Trade Agreement.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

UK, India Free Trade Agreement. Lord Sharpe of Epsom my Lords, I beg leave to ask a question of which I have given private notice. which I have given private notice. The question is as follows. To ask His Majesty's Government what assessment they have made of reports that the United Kingdom's reports that the United Kingdom's proposed steel import restrictions may jeopardise the implementation of the UK India Free Trade of the UK India Free Trade Agreement and what steps they are taking to protect British exporters, consumers, investment and the benefits secured under that agreement.
15:20
None Portrait Private Notice Question: Impact of steel import restrictions on the UK-India Free Trade Agreement
-

Yay, yay! My Lords, the.
15:20
15:21
15:22
15:23
15:23
15:24
15:24
15:24
15:25
15:25
15:26
15:26
15:27
15:27
15:28
15:28
15:29
15:29
15:30
15:31
15:32
15:32
15:32
Baroness Finn Portrait Baroness Finn (Conservative)
-
-
the core of this story is not merely a failure of process. It is a failure of judgement. It is the a failure of judgement. It is the Prime Minister's failure, and it shows a callous disregard for the victims of one of the most victims of one of the most notorious sex offenders of modern times. In truth, we have learnt little that is surprising from what little that is surprising from what is actually in these documents. It is no surprise that Lord Mandelson displayed contempt for the Prime displayed contempt for the Prime Minister, for Cabinet, government, for officials and advisors alike, despite his public utterances.

He described number ten as beleaguered and bereft, said it needed a complete revamp and claimed that senior people in Downing Street did not know what the Prime Minister wanted. Indeed, that most of them did not think the Prime Minister knew what he wanted. Of equal concern is that clearly, Ministers spent a lot of time discussing party politics with a supposedly politically impartial official. Can the noble Baroness, the Minister, confirm failure to uphold the impartiality of the civil service is in contravention of the ministerial code? My Lords, what is most revealing is not what the documents contain, it is what they do not contain.

Nowhere is their candid written submission, whether from officials or political advisers, saying, Prime Minister, this appointment is unwise. This candidate candidate carries unacceptable reputational risk. This office demands a higher standard. We have not been shown a written decision from the Prime Minister or the Foreign Secretary authorising the appointment on the merits. Instead, we are given peripheral documents, process risk, choreography, vetting, announcement handling. One chain says simply that a political appointment has been agreed. The Cabinet secretary later recalls that earlier advice explained the Prime Minister's right to make this sort of appointment, and the process for doing so, but did not give specific advice on candidates.

So for all the Prime Minister's talk of leadership, the record before us suggests that not one person serving him felt able or willing to advise him candidly in writing that this appointment was folly. That is a remarkable indictment of the culture at the centre of government. My Lords, it is also deeply ironic. This is a Prime Minister who has staked much of his moral authority on the Hillsborough law and a statutory duty of candour. He has said that such a duty is needed so that the truth is not optional and cover ups are impossible.

He has said the law would change the balance of power so that the state can never hide from the people it should serve. Those are admirable sentiments. They arise from hard and bitter experience. Hillsborough infected blood, Covid, all where families were forced to fight the state not only for justice but for records, evidence and truth. Perhaps the one person in government who did in private, take the duty of candour seriously was Pat McFadden, who told Lord Mandelson every meeting I have is who we can tax in order to pay benefits to others.

They are asking the wrong questions. What a shame that he felt that duty did not extend to the electorate. Does the noble Baroness, the Minister, appreciate how surreal it is for a government to preach candour in public office, while in relation to one of the gravest scandals in British diplomatic history, it appears assiduously to have avoided creating clear records of advice and decision. Candour is not merely what Ministers say at a despatch box after the event. Candour is what advisers write down when the powerful are about to make a grave mistake.

And there is a further problem. The government acknowledges that material has been withheld so as not to prejudice an ongoing Metropolitan Police investigation, and says further publication may follow. But where is the schedule? How many relevant documents have been withheld? What categories do they fall into? Who authored them? What dates do they cover? What broad subjects do they concern? So I ask the noble Baroness to undertake that the government will provide the House with a clear account of what has been withheld and why.

Finally, my Lords, responsibility cannot be outsourced to officials, advisers or process. The responsibility lies with the Prime Minister. If further confirmation would need it needed of Lord Mandelson's total unsuitability, it is found in the extraordinary discovery that after his appointment had been publicly announced, he still planned to participate in UBS Greater China Conference in Shanghai in his global capacity and that he would be paid for it. Officials further recorded that he asked to start on the FCDO payroll in order to facilitate that private engagement.

This was a man with no proper regard for propriety, ethics or the dignity of public office, and he has been driven from office and from public life. The remaining question is how long the Prime Minister who appointed him can credibly remain.
15:37
Lord Pack Portrait Lord Pack (Liberal Democrat)
-
-
My Lords, I think when discussing such matters, we should discussing such matters, we should always start with remembering and honouring the bravery of the women and girls who came forward to tell and girls who came forward to tell the truth, revealing the grim reality of the behaviour they and others had been subject to. Their commitment to truth stands in stark contrast, sadly, with Peter Mandelson's decision to withhold key information from the papers we're discussing today. But turning to what we do have and starting on a positive note, the government's welcome new guidance on direct ministerial appointments, published alongside the Humble Address.

And it's very welcome that they now say, quote, where security vetting procedures are necessary, these should be undertaken and completed before an appointment is confirmed and announced. Having raised before the rather bizarre back to front nature of appointing somebody first and only then checking if they're suitable, I think that is a very welcome change and is something that should be acknowledged. On a positive, possibly less positive note the terms of reference for the vetting review I see have also been published alongside this tranche of documents.

Now, I've previously expressed concerns about how the results of Peter Mandelson's vetting were reported to others through a daisy chain of verbal briefings such that, in the end, the Prime Minister was hearing the outcome of the vetting process third hand without sight of the relevant outcome documents. And whatever we think about the judgements made in that process, that is clearly a very brittle process, prone to error and lack of accountability. And so can the noble Lady, the Minister, confirm that the vetting review will include not just how vetting is done, which is clearly within scope, but also how its results are reported to others, including looking at the merits of replacing that culture of verbal briefings with a clear, documented paper trail, and then moving to a definitely not positive vote note.

I'm afraid the messages from inside government that we now can see show a very clear, widespread embedding of the culture of government by WhatsApp. Now, I previously asked about the promised review of the Cabinet Office's guidance on the use of WhatsApp, which still on gov.uk states at the bottom quotes. This guidance will be reviewed on or before 31st of December 2025. Now, last month, when I queried when the review will be completed, the noble Lady, the Minister told me, quote, I expect it to be before your Lordships House imminently for us to discuss the detail.

But yesterday in the House of Commons, the Minister, Darren Jones, told the House simply that the terms of reference for the review will be published. Quotes very shortly. So we've gone from a promised review before the 31st of December 2025 to an expectation last month that details were imminent. So yesterday, I hope that the terms of the review will be published very shortly. It seems each time, as time is passing, we are getting further and further away from the completion of the review.

So what assurances can the noble Lady, the Minister, give us about the government's commitment to sorting this issue and ensuring this review is actually fully completed, and promptly turning to the papers themselves, I have four questions running through much of the correspondence. Is the idea from officials that membership of the House of Lords exempts you from vetting requirements? In many circumstances. It's a repeatedly expressed belief now, given the limited nature of the checks that are made on those of us who have the privilege of joining this House, and given that those checks in many cases have been carried out several decades previously, could the noble Lady, the Minister, confirm the government's position? On what occasions and for what posts would someone who otherwise has to be vetted be exempted from vetting by virtue of being a member of this House? Second, there is the email from a civil servant, Peter Mandelson, on the 21st of January last year, volume one, page 77, regarding the vetting team's request for names of his foreign contacts.

The email said, quote, I suggest you send over the handful of names you mentioned, even though you don't consider them close contacts. That will reassure the vetting team. You've been comprehensive, even if it's all quite artificial. Now, that apparent coaching on how to mislead the vetting team with extraneous information is clearly concerning. So could the noble Lady, the Minister, tell us, when did the government become aware of such exchanges, and what action has been taken to ensure there isn't similar such coaching or advice proffered in future? Thirdly, there is the curious email from Elisa Terry to Peter Mandelson and Morgan McSweeney on the 13th of February last year, which is volume one, page 386, which says, quote, Olly has been clear about the need to delete all traffic on this.

Why would a senior civil servant be telling those two people to delete all the records of something? And then finally, a matter of detail, but I think it's a useful one to clear up regarding volume three, page 128, which appears appears to show Lord Livermore arranging a meeting with a paid lobbyist. Yet the Treasury's list of declared such meetings doesn't have any matching entry. So did that meeting take place? And if so, who attended it? And what's the reason for that meeting not appearing in the register? I appreciate, obviously, the noble Lady, the Minister may not be able to give detailed answers to all of those points now, but I hope she'll be able to commit, at least to writing to me, because I think clarity and transparency is crucial as part of not just the government, but the whole political system's reaction to the scandal that we've been facing.
15:43
Baroness Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent Portrait Baroness Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent, The Parliamentary Secretary, Cabinet Office (Labour)
-
-
My Lords, firstly. >> I'd like to thank both the noble Baroness Griffin and the noble Lord Lord Pack for their contributions today. I will, as ever, endeavour today. I will, as ever, endeavour to answer all of the questions, but we'll reflect on Hansard and write on any issues I have missed. Before I do, however, I think it is important for all of us to reflect again on the impact this debate will have yet again on the victims of Jeffrey Epstein. Noble Lord across your Lordships' House will be aware of the truly horrific crimes he committed against countless women and girls.

And as we discuss these issues again today, it is for the victims of a horrendous sexual predator who we must remember. Moving on to the substance and process of the government's compliance with the I. S for clarity and accountability. Noble Lords would have seen that the publication includes a summary of the methodology, which explains how government officials undertook the disclosure process. To clarify, because I think it will be helpful for your members of your Lordships House on redactions in line with the motion.

Over 300 individual documents were referred under a process agreed between the government and the Intelligence Security Committee. The government is grateful to the committee for their engagement in this process, and I am, of course, especially grateful to my noble friend Lord Beamish for his stewardship of the I. S and his management of this significant additional workload. Further limited redactions have been made outside of the EIS process in respect of information that relates to junior officials names, contact details, the personal or commercially sensitive data of third parties not relevant to the motion and, where relevant, legal professional privilege The Cabinet Office Humble Address team who have taken the decisions on non ISC redactions has taken advice from an independent KC, including reviewing the methodological approach, followed by officials and acting on that to inform their work.

These additional targeted redactions made outside of the ISC process have been made in line with precedent built on the conventions of the Freedom of Information Act. The ministerial code and resolution resolutions on ministerial accountability passed by both houses in 1997. As my hon. Friend the Chief Secretary to the Prime Minister stated yesterday. On recommendation of the IC and we thank them for such a constructive suggestion. The chair of the Public Administration and Constitutional Affairs Committee, Mr. Simon Hoare MP, has reviewed our approach to third party redactions and confirmed that we have applied the methodology set out in the document and that the redactions are sensible, reasonable and proportionate.

As noble Lords will be aware, the Metropolitan Police Service has asked us to withhold some material in scope of the motion, which they consider could be prejudicial to their ongoing criminal investigation or any subsequent prosecution. To ensure parliamentary oversight, the government also shared this information with the chair of the Public Administration and Constitutional Affairs Committee in order to provide additional accountability of the government's actions, and the government is very grateful to Mr. Hoare for his participation in that exercise. Our goal is to ensure that we neither prejudice or undermine any police investigations, as all members of your Lordships House would expect.

Such information would be published at the conclusion of the investigation, or at a point when it would no longer be prejudicial to the police investigation to do so, and therefore I am limited in what I can and will say. My Lords, I'd also like to touch briefly on the material relating to Peter Manson's national security vetting process, the vetting process summary and recommendation that was put to the UK security vetting to by to the Foreign Office has been shared with the ISC to agree redactions so that it can be published when we are able to do so.

What hasn't been shared is the highly sensitive personal data that formed the basis of the vetting process. My Lords, if those participating in the vetting process cannot trust that the information they feed into the process is confidential, it will harm the integrity of the whole system, undermining the very basis of our national security vetting system and in turn, our national security. We cannot and will not do that. I note that the chair of the ISC, my noble friend Lord Beamish, confirmed last night that he agrees with the government that the larger vetting detail should not be shouldn't be released to the committee, even though it is covered by the Humble Address.

I'm grateful to my noble friend for saying so. Moving to the specific points that have raised noble Baroness, Lady Fin touched on compliance with the ministerial code. Noble Lords will understand that I am not the judge of the Ministerial code. That is the role of the Prime Minister taking advice from his independent adviser as needed. As set out in the code, Ministers are personally responsible for deciding how to act and conduct themselves in light of the code, and for justifying their actions to Parliament and the public.

Noble Baroness lady also touched on the future duty of candour law. She also raised the scandals that have led to us requiring a law. My Lords, we have discussed in your Lordships' House many times whether it has been the horrors of the infected blood scandal of horizon, of Windrush, of Hillsborough, of the Manchester Arena. There is a reason why we need to change the law. If we cannot convince people to be candid, then in order to change culture, we will need to change the law.

I'd like to reassure the noble Baroness, Lady Fin, that in terms of the Shanghai speaking engagement that she referenced, Peter Manson did not participate in the speaking engagement. I understand the noble Lord Lord Pack turning to the noble Lord Lord Pack, in terms of the direct ministerial guidance and change in vetting. He raises a very important point, as he did last time, about how that's communicated. I will have to go back to officials to see if it's included in the if it can be included in the terms of reference, because the process is well underway.

The noble Lord is aware that my colleague, the Chief Secretary to the Prime Minister, was called up on the fact that it's slightly delayed, although slightly ambitious timing. So it depends on your view, but I will see what I can do about verbal briefings. But I'll write to the noble Lord. On the issue of the NCCC review, I expect very shortly, imminently, to be back in front of your Lordships House with both the terms of reference and who is undertaking that review.

It has not. We are not not doing it. We absolutely are. As my noble friend in the other place said, my hon. Friend in the other place said, but I will have to come back to him there, which I'm just going to have to come back to him. With regard to the fit and proper person test, I think the noble Lord would have read with interest, as I did, about what we're allowed to know as members of your Lordships' House and what we're not allowed to know.

Noble Lords will be aware that there are a small number of exceptions and exemptions from standard vetting requirements in place. Sir Adrian Fulford is considering the relevant policies as part of his review. International security vetting. His high level recommendations will be published shortly, and we will act swiftly on his recommendations. There is a general exemption from national security vetting for parliamentarians. This has been a general rule for many years, and I think many members of your Lordships' House would have experienced briefings because of it.

And that includes, in this instance and in others, those briefings that can also be made on Privy Council terms. So there. Hence the discussion. I would like to. Suggest to noble Lords. They actually look at the timestamps for that, how that discussion was done, because that was a one day discussion, several messages, but a one day discussion. And then a decision was made. The noble Lord Lord Pack also asked me about Lord Livermore and the transparency declaration. I understand this was a personal meeting that took place away from government property.

The only participants were Lord Livermore and Peter Mandelson. No one else from Global Council joined in the end, and as this was a meeting in a personal capacity, it was not recorded as an official meeting. My Lords, the. The documents before you amounts one of the largest government publications ever laid before, the House officials work tirelessly to ensure our compliance with the wishes of the other place and over a £1 million has been spent. The scale is not dissimilar to the requirements of a public inquiry, and I want to thank my officials for their extraordinary effort since the beginning of February.

But the last word should not be about process or political intrigue. But to remember who has been failed, our thoughts must remain with the victims of Epstein today and every day.
15:52
15:53
15:53
15:55
Baroness Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent Portrait Baroness Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent, The Parliamentary Secretary, Cabinet Office (Labour)
-
-
Yeah. >> I want to thank my noble friend for the work that he's done and for my other noble friend and other colleagues in your Lordships' House, colleagues in your Lordships' House, as well as in the other places, has been an extraordinary volume of work. And for many people, not least members of the committee and their officials. And we're very grateful to them for it. With regard to the four points that he raised, if I take them in turn, he's absolutely right.

One of the benefits and positives, there has to be a positive in everything that happens, and one of the positives is that we will now review each of these areas to fix what is not working, the first of which is the use of WhatsApp with regards to the use of non non-corporate communication channels. We really need a better phrase for it than n triple C's, but I'm sure we'll come up with one. There is. There will be a review in terms of record keeping, I'd like to assure your Lordships House that the Cabinet Secretary has this week written to all the heads of Department departments, in other words, to every other permanent Secretary to remind them of their responsibilities.

And we're reviewing the guidance that's issued to private offices going forward. And with regards to the low level platforms and security information enabled. Absolutely. Right. And those two will be taken in train. I realise, as I referenced, that, that one of the questions asked by the noble Lord Lord Pack was about why some material should be deleted. I have I am not sure of the detail because I have not seen some of the security elements behind it, but I would suggest that maybe because that information shouldn't have been on that level of platform.
15:56
15:57
15:58
15:58
15:59
16:00
16:00
16:02
16:03
16:04
16:04
16:05
16:07
16:07
16:08
16:09
16:10
16:10
16:11
16:11
16:14
16:14
Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill Portrait Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill, Minister of State (Department for Transport) (Labour)
-
-
alone, UK airports handled 2.1 million commercial flights and nearly 300 million passengers. This nearly 300 million passengers. This highlights both the scale of the sector and the need for effective regulation. The Bill before your Lordships House will reinforce consumer protections, support economic growth and aviation infrastructure and enable improved infrastructure and enable improved safety standards. In doing so will help ensure that the UK remains an help ensure that the UK remains an attractive and competitive aviation hub for years to come. I am sure noble Lords will wish to consider the case for this Bill.

The sector has changed profoundly in recent years. Rapid technological advances, new aircraft capabilities and the emergence of new airspace. Users such as drones, have have created complexity for which the current framework was not designed. At the same time, the UK has lost certain powers to update regulation following EU exit. The sector has also faced external shocks, such as the recent instability in the Middle East and the unprecedented disruption of the Covid 19 pandemic. To manage this, we need a framework flexible enough to respond to volatility, embrace innovation and prioritise passengers.

This is that that is the purpose of this bill. My Lords, consumer protection is the. I'm sorry, my Lords. The Bill takes an important step to strengthen consumer protection for passengers. Although the sector serves millions well, when things do go wrong, some may face uncertainty and delay in securing redress. The Bill introduces a power to strengthen air passenger rights through secondary legislation, ensuring that they keep pace with case law, international standards and a changing landscape. This will allow government to tackle the issues that matter most to passengers delays and cancellations, baggage loss or damage, injury or death, protections for disabled and less mobile passengers, and redress mechanisms for individuals.

My Lords, I am acutely aware of the difficulties that disabled passengers can encounter when flying, including poor and inappropriate service, long waiting times and damaged or lost mobility aids. I have heard concerns expressed by noble Lords from all sides of the House on challenges that they have faced themselves and when travelling with family and friends. The noble Baroness Grey-Thompson led the department's My Department's Aviation Accessibility Task and Finish Group to identify ways to improve the travel experience of disabled passengers.

Without legislation. That this bill will provide government with the powers to strengthen legal protections where necessary, to ensure that the system works for all passengers, including those who require assistance. Crucially, the bill also strengthens enforcement. Unlike other regulators, the Civil Aviation Authority currently relies on court action to protect consumer rights. This is slow and resource intensive. Intensive. The bill will give the CAA direct consumer enforcement powers, aligning it with the Competition and Markets Authority that will allow earlier and more effective intervention, quicker redress and greater passenger confidence.

My Lords, the Bill also supports the modernisation of UK airspace. The UK has some of the busiest and most complex airspace in the world, yet much of its design dates back to the 1950s. Modernisation is therefore essential to maintain and improve safety, reliability and efficiency, as well as reducing emissions and noise for communities. Without it, it's estimated that by 2040, as many as 1 in 5 flights could face significant disruption, the government has established the UK Airspace Design Service to deliver the most complex airspace changes, beginning with London, and the bill complements that work by strengthening the Secretary of State's existing powers of direction, enabling her, where necessary, to direct those involved in airspace change to implement approved designs.

This provides a more robust power of last resort, ensuring that modernisation can proceed effectively. The Bill broadens who may be charged for the provision of air traffic and air navigation services. This will ensure the cost of providing better air services, including funding. The Airspace Design Service can continue to be recovered fairly as new types of airspace service users emerge on slot reform. The bill also enables a more agile and resilient approach to airport slot regulation, a framework that has remained largely unchanged since the early 1990s.

Effective slot allocation is essential not only in terms of in times of disruption, but also to maintain capacity, connectivity and competitiveness. The government must be able to respond swiftly and proportionately when demand changes or operational pressures arise. The bill therefore introduces a delegated power to amend slot regulation when needed, replacing powers lost after EU exit. Recent experience has shown why that matters. The pandemic demonstrated how quickly aviation operations can be disrupted, and more recently and more recent, instability in the Middle East has reinforced how quickly external events can impact aviation, resulting in the need for an urgent Statutory Instrument to be brought before this House in the next few days, using powers that will no longer be available after the 23rd of June.

The bill, therefore, provides a much needed mechanism for updating slot rules when circumstances require it in the future. Finally, my Lords, the Bill strengthens the aviation safety framework. The UK has an excellent record on aviation safety, and these measures will help ensure that it's maintained. However, since EU exit, all changes to safety regulations, mostly highly technical and routine updates must be delivered through Statutory Instruments. This process is time consuming, resource intensive and duplicative. It's unsuitable for an international, fast moving sector like aviation, where global safety standards evolve continuously.

As a result, the UK is falling behind on its international obligations, which could impact the safety of the sector. The Bill aims to make safety rule making faster and more efficient by delegating technical, aviation, safety and operational standards to the Civil Aviation Authority. This will create a more responsive and agile framework, helping to ensure that safety requirements keep pace with international standards and the changing landscape. We recognise that noble Lords and members in the other place will want to ensure appropriate ministerial and parliamentary oversight of this delegation.

The Bill includes strong measures precisely to ensure this, the Secretary of State will set objectives and priorities for the Civil Aviation Authority, which will be laid before Parliament, including a forward look of rule making tasks. The Secretary of State will be able to direct or even override, if necessary, the CAA exercise of its rule making functions using our existing powers. The bill also includes binding requirements on the Civil Aviation Authority to consult and notify affected parties, including Ministers, and a duty to report to Parliament on the exercise of this delegated power.

My Lords, this approach gives Parliament a more holistic forward and backward view on aviation safety rule making. Compared to the fragmented and piecemeal view it has in the current system. It also enables much needed consolidation of the existing fragmented sources of law, which would otherwise be impractical. This will make compliance for industry simpler, simpler and enhance safety. Alongside this, the bill addresses an important gap in enforcement. It restores powers lost after the EU exit to amend and create aviation safety related criminal offences where necessary.

Without this, some safety rules cannot be fully enforced, making them harder to update and less effective in practice. Taken together, these measures will support a clearer, more effective regulatory framework, preserving the UK's high safety standards, aligning better with international practice and sustaining public confidence in the safety of our aviation system. In closing, I know many Lords will be interested in how this bill interacts with the government's support for a third runway at Heathrow. I should be clear the bill is designed to support the entire aviation sector, regardless of any decisions on expansion.

Those were the particular interest in Heathrow. We'll have an opportunity to scrutinise proposed changes to the Airports National Policy Statement later this year. Before I conclude, I should note that this bill is an important waypoint, not the end of the runway for aviation reform. Following, sorry. Following Royal Assent, further regulations will set out the detail for industry and allow for further scrutiny by your Lordships and members. In the other place, the Bill's application is UK wide as aviation is a reserved matter, but some of the clauses touch on transferred matters in Northern Ireland and the government is therefore seeking a legislative consent motion from the Northern Ireland Assembly.

My Lords, this Bill is a measured and practical piece of legislation. It updates the legislative framework governing civil aviation in a way that's proportionate, targeted, targeted and grounded in the needs of a modern sector while remaining consistent with the high standards this House would rightly expect. I hope noble Lords will recognise the value of these reforms and feel able to support the bill's passage

**** Possible New Speaker ****

today. I beg to move. The question is that this bill be now read a second time.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

be now read a second time. My Lords, before I start my remarks, can I draw attention to my remarks, can I draw attention to my declaration in the Register of Interests? As the non-executive chair of Rvl aviation, and the chair of Rvl aviation, and the Minister, I hope, will be pleased to know that I, for one, broadly support the Bill. Although there
16:23
Lord Harper Portrait Lord Harper (Conservative)
-
-
support the Bill. Although there are some areas where I have some questions and some concerns now where I do agree with him, and he set this out very clearly in his letter to two peers, was about the importance of the sector and how important civil aviation is for the UK, particularly given our global interests and the number of jobs it supports and its importance to the economy, and indeed, its importance to economic growth. I completely agree with that.

He also set out in that letter the fact that there's an awful lot of change, and we are global leaders in some of the development of some new technologies and therefore some of the regulation around those technologies. And I know when I was leading the department, we gave very clear direction to the CAA about engaging with industry to make sure that we could lead the world in developing some of that regulation. Let me set out we'll go through a number of areas of the bill and set out where I agree and where I have some questions for the Minister on airspace modernisation.

I strongly support what the government is trying to do there. It was an area I was involved with when I was Secretary of State. It has a lot of benefits in terms of improving efficiency for airlines, reducing costs, reducing carbon emissions and making use of very congested airspace, particularly in the London area, more efficiently. What I am struggling with, though, is exactly what benefit the power that's in the bill is going to generate in practice in the the EC memorandum, the department made it clear that it was a last resort measure.

No directions actually have been made. They have been threatened on some occasions, and it went out of its way in that memorandum to emphasise how limited a power it would be in the explanatory notes to the Bill, it specifically said that the use of the clause might be helpful, particularly in delivering airspace modernisation in the London part of of airspace. So I think it would be helpful when the Minister winds up the debate, if he could just set out just some specific, at least a specific example where this new statutory power for the Secretary of State would actually have a practical benefit in delivering airspace modernisation.

The only other thing I just wanted to flag, and I don't think this is a genuine concern, but it would be helpful for the Minister to put people's minds at rest when there are changes to airspace in terms of flight paths going to airports, there are, of course, concerns, perfectly reasonable concerns raised by residents who live near those airports. And I just wanted to have the minister's confirmation that the Secretary of State having this power to direct change will not change any of the existing rights that exist in terms of people having to be consulted and having the opportunity to set out their concerns.

Now, I accept it's maybe perfectly reasonable in some cases for decisions to be taken that some residents won't like, because they're actually in the interests of the country. But there should be a proper process. And I just want to check that there's nothing in the bill that will change that process and weaken the rights for individuals. On the ability of the government to legislate using secondary legislation for consumer powers. I just wanted to get a sense of what the government's thinking is here.

And, Tess, one of the specific things in the impact assessment. So it's worth just saying that, generally speaking, the aviation sector has actually very good. And there is one exception, which I'll draw on in a minute. And the Minister referred to it generally has very high levels of customer satisfaction. I think, in the latest CAA consumer survey, I think it had something like 88% satisfaction levels, which is is an all time high. So generally there isn't a problem to fix. Now, the Minister rightly drew attention to the very specific issue, which I suspect there are at least two noble Lords here this afternoon who are going to touch on, which is about how the industry deals with disabled passengers and those who need extra support.

And this is one of the questions I have about the CAA's enforcement powers. There are already there is already legislation in the Equality Act which was carried forward from the Disability Discrimination Act about

**** Possible New Speaker ****

the steps that all businesses, Including airlines, have to take all the reasonable adjustments they all the reasonable adjustments they have to make to deliver services for disabled passengers. My for disabled passengers. My question is, the enforcement powers that the Minister is planning to give to the CAA, will that mean that the CAA can use legislative that the CAA can use legislative powers in the Equality Act, that it insists that airlines have to make those reasonable adjustments? Is it able to use that legislation and enforce those rights that already exists? So they're not new legal obligations? But I think there are many people that feel airlines don't deliver on those to the extent that we would expect.

Is that part of the enforcement suite that the government is thinking of? Because actually, if there are existing laws that aren't being properly enforced, my preference would be to properly enforce existing laws, not invent new laws which may well in themselves not well be properly enforced. It's also worth, I think, which is one of the issues I have with the government taking powers to legislate with secondary legislation, is that the aviation sector generally not true of every single individual company, but generally is a relatively low margin business.

And every time you legislate to improve consumer rights, those come at a cost. And you have to balance the the rights that you're delivering and the consumer experience against the cost that you're putting on an industry which overall does not make a huge margin. And there's clearly a high bar. If you're making those changes with primary legislation, there's a lower bar. If you're making them with secondary legislation. And I just wanted to test whether the government has any specific plans in mind at this stage, that it might well be using that secondary legislation for.

The reason why I raise it is because if you look at the impact assessment, it's a very hefty tome. Government's a lot of hefty tomes. Published this week on page three. It specifically talks about the EU currently considering updates to regulation 261, which governs passenger rights during flight disruptions. And it says if the government doesn't have the power to amend legislation, the UK cannot promptly mirror or respond to these changes. Now, I think that illustrates a mindset which is not helpful if the government thinks that there are gaps in consumer protection legislation for British passengers, then it should make those changes because they're the right thing to do in themselves.

Make the argument for them, make the changes. What it shouldn't be doing is blindly following and responding to things that the EU is doing. If the EU is doing things that are sensible and we think are sensible, then we absolutely should do them, but we should do them anyway. If the EU does things that aren't sensible, I see absolutely no reason why we should follow it. The whole point about leaving the European Union was that we could then make decisions for ourselves. If we think things are sensible, then we should do them and we shouldn't worry about whether the EU is doing them.

And if they're not sensible, we shouldn't do them. And I'm afraid the impact assessment, I think, betrays the fact that I think what the government is going to do, if it gets these secondary legislative powers, is just mirror and do exactly what the EU is doing, whether it's sensible or not. And I hope the Minister can put my mind at rest on that. On airport slots, the Minister is right. The current ability for the government to use the power of secondary legislation to amend those expires in later this month.

We've already seen some examples, both during the pandemic and more recently, where the government's had to make very sensible and necessary changes that both the last government and this one. And that power, I think, is a very sensible one to have. The question I have is the extent to which those powers can be used for wider slot reform. Slots are a very significant economic interest for the sector as a whole, and making dramatic changes. There are very extensive and I think should only be done using primary legislation.

Now, we consulted on slot reform. When I was in the department. The department hasn't yet responded to that consultation, and I think it would be helpful if the government could just set out where it's got to on that and when it plans on responding to the consultation on slot reform, and if it were to do any significant slot reform, what it thinks it would need to do in terms of consultation and engaging with the industry, and whether these powers would be the appropriate ones to use in those circumstances.

Just briefly, two more points on the CAA. The CAA is, as many will know, a gold standard industry regulator, which is respected around the world as having very high standards for aviation regulation, and indeed it also does regulation of our space launch capability. And so I'm very comfortable with them continuing to play that role as a regulator. And the bit I'm less comfortable about is whether they should indeed be setting the rules as well as enforcing them.

And I, I personally don't think there's anything wrong with the current system where Ministers set those rules. Part of the problem is, in the past, those rules were set by the European Union, and ironically, when the European Union was doing it, Ministers were engaged in the Council of Ministers in setting some of those rules. But also in Parliament we have a number had a number of scrutiny mechanisms where both Houses of Parliament could look at those rules in detail. And what isn't clear, at least it wasn't clear to me from the Bill.

The explanatory notes is if the CAA is making regulations, it is. What is the role of this House and the House of Commons in scrutinising those regulations? Personally, my my starting position is I would prefer the regulations were made by Ministers who are accountable to both Houses of Parliament, and then the CAA gets on and enforces those regulations. And of course, Ministers will be informed by the CAA's expertise in drafting the regulations. But I think Ministers should be the ones responsible for setting the rules.

And then the CAA should be responsible for enforcing them and putting them into practice. And so I'm I'm that's the bit of the bill, I think, where I'm less comfortable. And then my final point is just on the point the Minister mentioned on Heathrow, he will be very well aware. The CAA has effectively conceded that the existing economic model for regulating Heathrow is not a fit for purpose, and he will be aware that it is consulting in its documents.

EP 3251 on a range of options for the future for regulating the economic regulatory model for Heathrow. That consultation closes on the 15th of this month. So my question to the Minister is there are a range of options in that consultation. Does the CAA have the power to implement all of the options that are in that document, including, for example, the ability to have competition between different terminals at Heathrow? If it does have the power to do that, great.

If it doesn't currently have the power to do that. Is the Minister open to using this legislation to make sure the CAA does have that power, so that when it has concluded the consultation and and reached a decision, Ministers have reached a decision about the way the economic model or Heathrow's economic model is regulated, that they'll have the ability to deliver it. So a few questions and a few concerns, but overall, I think the bill helps strengthen the aviation sector.

It's an important one for the United Kingdom, and I look forward to listening to the minister's detailed answers when he winds up the debate.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

My Lord, I thank the noble Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill for introducing the bill and for the briefings that he and his team have kindly provided to members of the kindly provided to members of the House. We approach this bill with an open mind and with a clear desire for greater clarity and certainty. Its relative short length masks the complexity of the length masks the complexity of the systems it seeks to update and reform, as well as the significance, as well as the significance of the mechanisms chosen to implement those changes.

On the face of it, this bill seeks to strengthen consumer protections, support economic growth and infrastructure,
16:38
Earl Russell Portrait Earl Russell (Liberal Democrat)
-
-
and modernise and enhance aviation safety. Those, of course, are all laudable aims. However, the policy laudable aims. However, the policy space this bill occupies is both crowded and contested, and the interaction between its different elements requires great scrutiny. Airspace modernisation is long overdue, but it may also facilitate increased capacity and potentially increased capacity and potentially airport expansion. Likewise, the stronger consumer protections are clearly needed, but we must be confident that the measures proposed will work as intended. In practice, the Bill provides a framework rather than a finished product.

It establishes significant, detailed, delegated powers and relies heavily on secondary legislation, placing key decisions one step removed from parliamentary scrutiny. For these reasons, we will seek further clarity and assurances across three principal areas. First, the relationship between airspace modernisation, airport expansion and our environmental commitments. Secondly, the delivery of improved and effective consumer protections. And thirdly, the scope and use of delegated powers within the bill. Turning first to airspace modernisation and slot allocation, the aviation sector remains a vital and growing part of the UK economy.

IT support jobs, enables trade and logistics, connects US to global markets and underpins both inbound tourism and outbound travel, according to the latest Civil Aviation Authority data, more than 61 million passengers travelled through UK airports in the first quarter of this year alone, a record high driven by short haul European flights. And, My Lords, those flights, many of them could and should be taken by rail, which is far better in terms of our carbon outputs. Yet this growth also presents a clear challenge.

The Climate Change Committee's 2025 progress report to Parliament makes clear that while overall UK emissions are declining, aviation now contributes a greater share of total emissions than the electricity supply sector. It also warns that continued growth in aviation in aviation emissions could place our future climate targets at risk. While we are clear in our opposition to further airport expansion in the South East, the government has publicly indicated support for expansion, including a third runway at Heathrow.

That policy context inevitably shapes how this bill is read and understood. Aviation remains one of the most difficult sectors in which to reduce emissions, while emerging technologies, including sustainable aviation fuels, are welcome and necessary. They do have inherent limitations and they are emerging technologies. The Climate Change Committee has been equally clear that should technology progress fall short, the government may need to consider demand management measures to remain on track to net zero. Against this backdrop, I welcome the Minister's clear statement that this bill is not intended to enable airport expansion, either directly or indirectly, and we are grateful for that.

On these benches, we recognise the need to modernise our airspace. The UK has some of the most contested skies in the world, and our airspace management systems have not been fundamentally updated since the 1950s. They remain largely structured around the ground based navigation systems that is increasingly outdated. Modernisation, if done well, offers real benefits, improved efficiency, enhanced passenger safety, reduce noise for affected communities and lower emissions throughout through more direct and optimised flight paths. We therefore support the complex but necessary work, including the proposal to establish a UK airspace design service to oversee its delivery.

However, while we understand the government's desire for powers to direct this work, including in relation to slot allocation and scheduling, it would be remiss of us not to seek clear assurances about how these powers will be used in practice. In particular, we are concerned to ensure that these powers cannot be used deliberately or inadvertently as a back door to increased airport capacity or expansion without appropriate scrutiny. In that context, I ask the Minister to reaffirm that decisions taken under these powers will continue to be informed by the independent advice of the Climate Change Committee, and that win.

I also welcome greater clarity on the relationship between airspace modernisation, slot allocation and any future increase in overall capacity or passenger numbers. So I ask the Minister, what point does operational reform become in effect, expansion, and how will Parliament be able to distinguish clearly between the two? Furthermore, what safeguards exist to ensure that even if the present government does not intend to use these powers to facilitate expansion, a further government could not do so without proper oversight.

We will seek to work constructively with Ministers to establish appropriate guardrails, including stronger requirements for monitoring, reporting and transparency in relation to the National policy, airport statements, the environmental impacts and the effect on our local communities from noise. Turning briefly to consumer rights, we agree that the current system is not functioning as it should. We also recognise that many of these powers are coming to an end and need to be reformed. Further delays from from delays and cancellations to lost luggage and overbookings passengers too often experience poor outcomes and inconsistent enforcement.

It is essential that passengers can rely on robust protections and that the regulation the regulators have the tools needed to ensure swift and readily compliance. The fact that the Civil Aviation Authority has, in some cases, had to resort to the courts to enforce basic consumer protections points to systemic weaknesses. We therefore broadly welcome the strengthening of the CAA's powers and bringing them in line with other consumer rights. However, the bill also provides for potential divergence from retained EU law in this area at a time when the European Union sorry, excuse me, at a time when the European Union is itself updating passenger protections, and when the government has indicated a broader desire for alignment in certain areas, we will be seeking clarity that the intention here is one of convergence rather than divergence.

We. We also strongly support measures to improve the experience of passengers, particularly those with mobility impairments, impairments who continue to face significant and unacceptable barriers when travelling, particularly in relation to travelling with their mobility aids. really need a broad reform. We would like to see a statutory passenger charter placed on the face of the bill to ensure that high standards are not only articulated, but are embedded in practice and on the face of the bill. Finally, on delegated powers, we will consider carefully the forthcoming report of the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee.

Given the breadth and significance of the powers proposed. It is essential that appropriate safeguards, limits and mechanisms for parliamentary oversight are in place, and I welcome that again. The comments that the noble Lord, the Minister has made in his opening remarks on this. But I think there's more that needs to be done here, and there will be need for amendments in this space. My Lords, while we broadly are supportive of the aims of this Bill, we will look constructively to ensure that it aligns with our environmental obligations, delivers tangible benefits for our communities, and provides meaningful, effective and enduring consumer protections.

declare.
16:47
Baroness Grey-Thompson Portrait Baroness Grey-Thompson (Crossbench)
-
-
My interest as the chair of the Aviation Accessibility Task and Aviation Accessibility Task and Finish Group, and we produced, in July 2025 an independent report. I July 2025 an independent report. I would like to thank the team at the Department of Transport, the members of the group and also the industry were very open about how we can improve travel for disabled people, but what we found was there was not one airline or one airport that universally gets it right, even most of the time.

And the 19 key recommendations that were made were done in the context of no legislative time. But I hope that we now have a chance to impact what we do for disabled people. So after much consideration, the Task and finish group looked at five themes training, passenger information and communications, non-visible impairments, mobility aid design and handling, tailored services and delivery. And what became clear through that is there is a lack of data. It's really hard to know how many disabled people fly annually, and it's dependent on the definition, but it could be around 1.5% of all passengers.

And the library notes on this bill was also very helpful. That said, the satisfaction rate for disabled people was only 82%. There's also a lack of data of when things go wrong. It's hard to know who to contact, who to complain to, how to resolve issues, and actually even who has responsibility. And recognising that the industry has many moving parts. This bill does present a significant opportunity to do something very different for disabled people. My Lords, we also know that there has been a significant increase in demand for assistance.

We saw many airports and airlines trying to do the right thing, but the nature of the requests are very variable and recognise that what most people probably need is not defined assistance, but wayfinding or help with bags. So we need to think creatively how that customer journey is carried out. Even looking at airport design or even gate allocation. Through the work, we heard anecdotal evidence that the lanyard scheme has not always been used properly. Stag dos arriving at the airport requesting lanyards, which is not behind the spirit of the scheme and as I've seen it, people using an aisle chair to get on board and then seem to walk off at the other end.

Now I am conscious there can be fluctuating conditions, but not having the right assistant puts huge pressure on an already strained system, and one size doesn't fit all. A number of visually impaired people got in touch to tell me that when they fly, they're continuously told that they need to sit in a wheelchair and push through the airport because that's easier for the staff, rather than doing it a way that works for the disabled person. And a significant number of people wrote to me to say that various influencers have filmed airports showing ways to cheat the system, which not only encourages people to think about creative ways to get through the airport, but actually has resulted in quite an increase in negative comments made towards disabled people who have a genuine need.

My Lords, what also came through was that there needs to be more streamlined method of booking assistance. This is very different to the railway industry, where you could potentially catch a later train or a later bus, but there's a real challenge in managing expectation, but also providing reasonable assistance and assistance in a reasonable time. And also then be really clear about sorting out when mistakes are made. We also found out that a lot of the information was joined up. So on a personal level, I never look at an airport website, but I recognise that at one point I was a very frequent flyer and have travelled through most UK airports.

But the actual challenge of booking assistance is too varied and for some airlines, it relies on the disabled person knowing a very vague assistance code or when you get to the airport being asked all those questions again. So it proves that the system is not working as well as it could. And while recognising that we have an issue with international jurisdictions and we can only control some part of the journey, I'd also like to to look at how we could probably potentially influence wider.

A lot of emails came to me about equipment being broken and some cases destroyed. By the way, it wasn't secured properly during the journey. And one thing that this bill is not going to be able to sort, I don't think, but had a huge number of emails on it, was about passengers who travel with allergies. Recently, I've had a number of emails from people who use colostomy or ileostomy bags and how they're treated, and each person has recognised that security is a really important part and checks need to be made.

But one person who wrote to me recently who flies a lot said the only way they're able to manage going through security is having to take their colostomy bag off just as they go through security, covering it up with tissues and tape, and then putting it back on when they go through the other side. My Lords, that just doesn't feel appropriate at all. I broadly welcome the increased powers of the CAA, but like the noble Lord Lord Harper would like to understand what is the best route to actually securing better treatment for disabled people.

And most emails that I still receive are about being left on a plane or broken or missing equipment. We've all heard of the numerous tales of Frank Gardner when he's been flying. He's had incidents where his wheelchair has been incorrectly tagged, staff were unable to locate it, and he's had a couple of very high profile cases. In May 2022, when it had happened numerous times, he said, the disabled passengers appeared to be treated as the lowest priority. Sophie Morgan, likewise very well known disability rights campaigner, suffered a terrible experiences with damage to her chairs.

But my Lords, most disabled people don't have that platform. Athena Stevens, her chair, is worth £25,000. It was irreparably damaged while travelling and left her unable to travel independently. She estimated the overall impact on her life and business reached 700 £0 due to additional care having to travel differently with transport and lost work, but only limited compensation was made available. My Ann Zieve the case in Canada. The chair was worth $30,000 again was severely damaged and this became widely known because, again, there was a lack of understanding of what a wheelchair means.

It's not just a suitcase. It's not something that's necessarily very easy to replace. My Lords, I've had many experiences over the years. One memorable time flying from Geneva through Charles de Gaulle to Birmingham. When it became clear my chair was not there, I was asked by a member of staff had I ever tried to walk, would I like to try to walk? No. Can't walk. The airline tried then to return two sleeping bags to me and argue with me. That was my lost property, even though they were clearly tagged from a different airport and another name.

My day chair was found several weeks later in Dublin and it came back to me in two pieces. It literally been cut in half, and it was suggested that I might like to try and duct tape it back together, which didn't work. So I do wonder how much the airline industry is spending on repair and replace. Another incident I had when I was an athlete flying with my racing chair. I always found it better to travel my chair and box because they could see what it was.

It was travelling with a very cheap pair of wheels. They got damaged. The airline immediately jumped to replacing them and trying to offer me a very expensive pair of wheels, and I was able to say I need a spoke key in 20 minutes. So I do think there needs to be some proper assessment of damage and ensuring that the level of liability is commensurate with the need of the equipment, and we have to recognise equipment is also changing. More people are using scooters than ever before, especially those with fluctuating conditions.

They're much easier to travel with than electric chair. Many noble Lords will say that I have a battery attachment that I use on my chair to get out and about around London. I've never tried to fly with it, but we do have to explore the challenges of flying with much of this equipment, especially around safety issues, and I know the ongoing work of the Task and Finish Group. Implementation group is looking at this because actually, when a disabled person gets all the way to the gate and then finds, again, recognising there are safety issues with this, they're not allowed to fly.

It causes a significant number of issues. So, my Lords, I do think we need more data on the number of people who fly, what they require, where it goes wrong. Also looking at wheelchair mobility, equipment protection, I'd be very interested to see if we could look at actually trying to accurately report and public report the number of wheelchairs and mobility aids that are damaged, delayed or lost each year. Also, how we can improve the enforcement accessibility failures we did in the task and finish group.

Talk about specific penalties for repeated accessibility failures. That wasn't possible at the time, but I think it might be now. And we should also be looking at the complaints process to ensure that it runs quickly and smoothly and is not leaving disabled people in situations where their complaints have timed out for no fault of their own. Also, be interested whether we could look at a wider disability impact assessment, which would require the CAA to publish Disability Impact assessment before implementing significant new regulations.

And of course, finally, airport assistance standards. So the quality assistance Italy is not so variable across the UK. So how we could establish minimum standards, passenger assistance, reasonable waiting time, staff training, communication support, boarding and disembarkation procedures. My Lords, I also think it would be very useful to have an update from the implementation group of the work they've been doing since July last year, which I think would help all noble Lords in terms of what we're trying to do.

This bill, currently, everything's just a little bit too ad hoc. It's quite difficult to travel as a disabled person. We should be able to make that better. And I do look forward to working with Minister

**** Possible New Speaker ****

and his team to improve this bill. My Lords. Tomorrow morning. The Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee. Which I have.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Which I have. The honour of chairing, will be meeting to consider, among other things, the Civil Aviation Bill. things, the Civil Aviation Bill. It's not impossible to imagine that the committee will have something to say about the delegated powers to say about the delegated powers proposed in the Bill, but my speech today, however, gives me the opportunity to contribute to the policy substance of the bill, which I'm very supportive of, and I'm delighted to be able to take advantage of this opportunity, because it's a bill which has the potential to make a real difference to people's lives.

It's a pleasure and somewhat humbling to follow the noble Baroness, Lady Grey Thompson, at Thompson, with her enormous
16:59
Baroness Ramsey of Wall Heath Portrait Baroness Ramsey of Wall Heath (Labour)
-
-
expertise and, of course, powerful eloquence, which it's been a great eloquence, which it's been a great pleasure to hear so many times on disability issues in this chamber. disability issues in this chamber. I want to talk, though, today about people like my mother, Anne, who sadly died in her 90th year back in 2018, and people like her. Let me 2018, and people like her. Let me explain what I mean. My mother was born into poverty in 1928, and there was certainly no prospect of her travelling abroad, let alone by aeroplane when she was growing up or as a young woman, or indeed when I was growing up.

But things changed, and in her 50s and 60s she thought she should try and make up for lost time. And then why not carry on into her 70s and 80s? Of course, as we get older, travelling gets more complicated. But she loved getting around, whether by bus. And on that, my noble friend, the Minister will no doubt be pleased to hear that she absolutely loved the P4 bus from Brixton to Lewisham shopping centre, well into her 80s and by train or automobile.

But today, coming back to today's subject by plane. So when she was in her late 70s and wanted to visit the country of her father's birth, we flew together to Dublin. By now, her legs weren't strong enough for her to climb the steps up into the plane from the runway like everybody else, but the airline made perfectly good arrangements for a lift. I'm not quite sure what the machinery's called, but to take her to the up to the plane in London and back down again in Dublin.

It was happy news. And on the back of this success, my mother knew that she'd be able to come with me and her brand new granddaughter to a weekend in Rome and to visit the Vatican, which had been her lifelong. A lifelong lifetime's ambition. The flight out was fine, and the Vatican really came up trumps with the people who worked there, seeing her family, shepherding her into the, seeing her frailty, shepherding her into the staff only lift secretly to get her smoothly from floor to floor.

But on returning to Gatwick, she was stuck on the plane. No lift for a very, very, very long time. Now travelling is tiring for us all. We get hungry, we get thirsty and we get very tired. But to be left stranded after everyone else has long gone because you need help getting off the plane into the terminal building and into a wheelchair just isn't and wasn't good enough. And she couldn't face having to go to that experience again.

And the only way to guarantee that was to simply stop flying on aeroplanes. So she did. And that was that. Her energy and drive for travel was undimmed. And so we did take a very smoothly to Brussels and to Paris by Eurostar, as well as I may have already said, she carried on enjoying the bus trip to Lewisham, but no more flights because of the way she was treated at that time. On our return from Rome and the Vatican, you can imagine how I cheered Frank Gardner, as referenced by the noble Lady earlier, the BBC security correspondent on when, four years ago, amongst other things, he called out the UK's main airports for the way they too often treat wheel bound, wheelchair bound passengers like him.

After being left stranded at Gatwick himself a few years after my mother, his job meant he had no choice but to keep flying, and that this was his fifth time stranded in four years, waiting, as he put it, in an empty aircraft long after all the other passengers have been offloaded. He went on to say this is nothing short of discriminatory, and Britain's premier airports should be ashamed of the way their disabled passengers have repeatedly been treated as a low priority.

Here. Here I think we say, Mr. Gardner continued. The remedy is simple invest in enough equipment and staff to do the job, pay them properly, sort out the comms so airports know when to expect a passenger with needs and get on top of the planning and rostering for the allocation of equipment and the teams that operate it. This isn't rocket science, it just comes back down to better planning and sufficient investment. Disabled passengers are not demanding special VIP treatment.

They just expect the same level of service as the rest of society. It really isn't a big ask. Lord Hardie, the head of policy at Disability Rights UK, said huge thanks to Frank Gardner for speaking out about this issue. For every disabled person that tells their story about being left on the plane, there are hundreds more of us that don't. The level of neglect and disregard of disabled airline passengers is truly appalling. A high number of disabled people experiencing poor service led the Civil Aviation Authority to write to airports, threatening to take action if passenger assistance for disabled airline customers didn't improve.

The situation is obviously not getting better, he said, and the Equality Act is being breached on a regular basis, end of quote. So today, on behalf of people from all walks of life, whether like my mother wanting to follow her dreams or Frank Gardner flying for work or anyone else, whatever their circumstances, I wholeheartedly and surely we can all support legislation which will put an end to the excuses, ensuring that the CAA has the powers that will put

**** Possible New Speaker ****

this right here. My Lords, I welcome the the

**** Possible New Speaker ****

My Lords, I welcome the the three main aims of this legislation, well set out by the Minister. The well set out by the Minister. The government is right that the aviation industry has been growing reasonably well and could make a reasonably well and could make a bigger contribution to growth and prosperity in our country. The prosperity in our country. The government is right that safety is a vital priority, which all parties in this House would unite behind, and they are right to realise that as technologies change, as aeroplanes evolve and as our
17:05
Lord Redwood Portrait Lord Redwood (Conservative)
-
-
airspace becomes ever more congested, it is necessary for a government to accept that prime government to accept that prime safety responsibility and to ask are the rules still correct? Is the guidance still correct? Are the guidance still correct? Are the regulatory authorities doing their job in carrying out their tasks of job in carrying out their tasks of enforcing safety? And of course, we also all want to see good also all want to see good conditions for passengers. And that has to be a balance, because if you go too far in regulating in favour of super service, then the price can go up too much.

So government has to form a judgement over what is an appropriate minimum level of service quality to require, so that no one is left in a bad way, particularly true of disabled people, as we've been hearing. But they have to be careful not to overdo the standards, and then it prices people out of the market and it becomes a middle class indulgence. Where I have more doubts about the bill is when it comes to the detail, looking at the 316 page impact assessment, I found that pretty heavy going.

I don't know whether other colleagues bothered or whether they didn't get to the exciting conclusion at the end. I must have missed the exciting conclusion at the end, and I found it was very repetitious. I found it was very generalised. I found it was very high level, and it was clearly a piece of work done by officials who were given an impossible task, because what they were meant to do was to work out what regulatory changes were going to be made, and ask the usual questions of an impact assessment.

What are the costs of these regulatory changes and what will be the benefits of carrying them through? Because there will be some things you have to do because they're safety, but there are lots of other things where you have to make a judgement about the trade offs. Are the costs too high or are the benefits exciting enough to go for it? And what is remarkable about this impact assessment is that it concludes there is just a small net loss as a result of the legislation.

They are envisaging just a few million pounds for a multi-billion pound industry. So this is well within the margin of error. And when you try and find out why the figures are so small, there are practically no benefits identified because really, this bill is going to ensure that nothing happens for quite a long time. It is arranging the regulatory furniture, but it is not actually changing what is going to apply to airlines and passengers anytime soon. It has delay built into it at every opportunity, so that we read in the impact assessment that it may take a year for us and the other place to get the legislation through and get it finally into effect.

But then apparently it would take another year before the government comes up with actual changes to use the very large powers that this legislation will give to Ministers and to regulators without further reference to Parliament. So we are being asked to sign a blank cheque. But Ministers themselves at the moment have no idea who they will want to make the check or checks out to, let alone how much they may be on them. So I think the House does need to understand that this is what I would call official legislation.

This is not a burning desire of a Minister who knows his subject very well to make changes which are soon going to make a difference to aviation and to economic growth in this country. This is inverted commas, good management type official legislation saying we may need these powers. We may need to copy a whole load of EU regulations that have already passed, or more likely, are going to come out soon. And so let's have these powers and let's make sure that there most of these things can be done either by regulatory body without any reference to Parliament or by Statutory Instrument with minimum debate, so that we don't need to trouble people about it.

And I do think the House, when it proceeds to investigate the legislation, will want a bit more from the Ministers about how they would use these very considerable powers. And I would say to Ministers, you know, I'd like a bit more urgency because the the impact assessment really says nothing is going to happen. It says before 3 to 5 years have elapsed because of the year legislating the year, thinking about how to use the powers and then the powers coming into effect.

So in other words, Labour peers should think about this. This legislation is basically saying cannot make any improvement to aviation or provide any extra growth in the lifetime of this Parliament. And that, I would have thought was a bit disappointing. I'm a bit more ambitious than the government. I find myself saying there are things that could be done now on a shorter timetable, which could make life better for the aviation sector and its passengers and its users. Now let's take the the prime one of growth.

That's my main concern. I've always said how much I admire the fact that the government wants to be a growth government, but I've been a bit critical about how many of the things it does actually achieve. The opposite here is one where it's not actually going to achieve the opposite. It's just not going to achieve anything. According to the papers before us, where more could happen. Now the Minister says that we will have an opportunity in due course to discuss the expansion of Heathrow.

Well, Heathrow is the dominant airport of the UK aviation sector, and the success and growth of Heathrow will be a very dominant factor in how well this sector does. And delaying a debate seems a little odd, because surely this should be the prime concern of the government at the moment. And when I look at the plans, the government, I believe, has backed the plan, which takes the longest and is the dearest. It goes to the plan where it needs to move the M25, which adds more than 20 billion to the total cost, and I suspect we'll add quite a lot of delay to the whole thing, as well as the actual cost of building the additional runway, whereas there's a rival scheme, considerably less cost to a tighter timetable where the runway would fit on to the existing land, extending more eastwards so that you don't have to rebuild the M25.

Now, maybe the government's right. I'd be interested to hear their their case, but we would need reassurances. I think that the M25 during all those difficult works would itself not be disrupted, because if you look at the important transport infrastructure in this country, the M25 is one of the most important pieces of infrastructure we have put in saving all those journeys through London and allowing so much commerce and passenger traffic to flow around, around the city relatively quickly on a good day.

And we don't really need a big disruption of that. As someone who some years ago did have, as my main business career, offering financial advice to governments around the world, I had to fly quite a lot rather more than I wanted to, really in those days. And as a travelling businessman, earning revenue for my firm and for the country as a whole and selling overseas services, what mattered was timeliness and accessibility. And I was interested in total journey time from my house to the office.

I was going to advise. And quite often the there was disproportionate time, trouble and delay in getting from my house some 35 miles from the airport to Heathrow, to actually get on the plane. That might even have been on time. And so I do think Ministers looking at growth of airports and accessibility to airports have got to consider surface transportation. There have been improvements in recent years to get better rail access to Heathrow. It took a very long time for those of us who wanted that to break through with the authorities, to get it happen, that that now has happened with both an extensive tube option and a link to the old Great Western Main Line.

But we need to make sure that road access also works, that those who wish to use the airport. It would be useful if the Minister could give us an update on Gatwick second very large airport in the London area, with a plan to have a much cheaper and much faster progress to many more passenger movements, with the idea of having a a constant use second runway which does it does require shifting the existing relief runway a little bit.

So there is quite a bit of cost, but that was meant to be coming along before the end of this decade, and that would be very interesting to know on an update whether that's going to happen. And the relevance to this bill is that, of course, as those airport expansions happen, many more slots will become available. And I do think we owe it to those who are thinking of venturing very large sums of money to expand Gatwick and to expand Heathrow, to know what the rules of the game will be when they come to place those slots and look to see how they're going to remunerate the large sum of money.

In the case of Gatwick and the absolutely colossal sum of money, even in the original budgets in the case of Heathrow and Heathrow, with all that additional risk from complexity that could could result in needing to remunerate even more capital than is currently envisaged. But my final point is that whilst I welcome the the three main aims of the government and think this legislation could be improved by telling us in detail how they can do things that will improve all those things, is that I think we do need more on the environmental impact on surrounding communities living close to airports, and I speak as someone who used to represent a constituency that was some 35 miles or so out of London to the west, and there were problems with with Heathrow noise.

But there are solutions, and this is something which could be woven into this legislation or into general government policy. A new generation of planes should be considerably less noisy. It is possible to construct flight paths that are less intrusive, and it's certainly possible to increase to increase the angle of ascent and descent, which reduces the magnitude of the affected area by by the noise nuisance itself. And the more that can be done to encourage quieter aviation, the better.

But there are also other environmental issues relating to surface transport, which I've just gently sketched in relation to Heathrow and M25. But there are similar issues for other airports. My final point is that whilst of necessity, if you're interested in UK economic growth, you clearly concentrate on how you develop Heathrow and Gatwick. The giant, two regional airports airports well outside London, can also be extremely important to economic prosperity and to commerce. And so I would welcome more thoughts on how they can promote themselves with a good network of routes that don't require interchanging in London or in Schiphol, as happened so often at the moment.

For people flying from northern and western airports. I do urge the government to look at again why this is all taking so long, why there is no sense of urgency, and why there isn't a much clearer refrain in this that here we can go for growth. One of the great triumphs of the UK economy over the last decade has been the big surge, successful surge in the export of services and services, above all, need really good aviation links in the way I briefly described from our past personal anecdote.

So I urge the Minister to see himself as a growth

**** Possible New Speaker ****

champion and to say to his colleagues in government, we can do better than this. My Lords.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

My Lords. I wish to speak specifically to the measures contained within this Bill to support airspace Bill to support airspace modernisation and aimed at delegating aviation safety and operations rule making to the CAA. operations rule making to the CAA. First, I'd like to thank the Department for transport Staff who took the time to brief me ahead of took the time to brief me ahead of today's debate. My Lords, I train to fly well in the Royal Air Force
17:18
Baroness Antrobus Portrait Baroness Antrobus (Labour)
-
-
in the early 1990s. Full disclosure I failed at the end of tactical I failed at the end of tactical weapons training. So although I have several hundred hours of flying under my belt, my latter flying under my belt, my latter career in the RAF until I left 15 years later was as a flight operations officer. Still perhaps operations officer. Still perhaps even more so, intimately involved in the business of aviation and in the business of aviation and airspace. It was such a long time ago then that we navigated by map and compass, even in a fast jet of 500 miles an hour, we had no GPS.

We corrected for wind based on the much less advanced weather forecasts of the day and some dead reckoning. We set our watches each morning with a hack at morning met brief based on the speaking clock. I think most members are just about old enough to remember that. Come to that. Our record briefs on Russian military equipment for that was still our focus then were delivered via slides in a rotary carousel projector. Again, I think members might remember those. Our cockpits had more in common with the 1950s than they did with the glass cockpits and flight decks of today.

Today's modern aircraft, both civilian and military, are in a different world entirely. They could just about fly themselves with a pilot themselves, except most are not yet ready to do so. Most people want a pilot in charge of their commercial flight to the Mediterranean for some summer sun. But though passenger carrying planes are likely to remain crude for a while yet, the potential and the technology to move freight around in the skies above our heads in uncrewed aircraft is advancing all the time.

Right now. Amazon is trialling drone delivery during delivery in Darlington. I knew I was going to stumble on that, delivering packages less than £5 in weight within a seven and a half mile radius of the distribution centre. The Civil Aviation Authority is working to safely integrate drones flying beyond visual line of sight in UK airspace. Through this type of trial, the authority has also authorised air operations to deliver blood and to trial uncrewed police helicopters. We already have a military uncrewed aircraft, the MQ nine Bravo protector, flying in UK airspace from RAF Waddington in Lincolnshire.

Imagine a time when freight could move not above our garden roofs and fences in small drones, but at much higher altitudes, taking lorries off our roads and into the skies. I want that time to come sooner rather than later and of course, safely. But unlike the enormous leaps in technological capability since I first pulled on a flying suit, UK airspace remains largely unchanged since that time. In fact, as some of my local Lords have already said since the 1950s, this is unsustainable and not good for our economy, the environment or the aviation industry.

Both civil and military commercial flights alone have increased 12 fold since then, so I welcome the new powers to enact change to update our airspace. There's so much potential in new and emerging technologies such as uncrewed aircraft, but the UK has to be able to move with ahead even of the times to make the most of amazing opportunities for growth and ensure we're competitive in this industry. The 2023 airspace modernisation strategy talked of a core principle the safe integration of all users.

That is ambitious, and I welcome this bill in supporting that ambition. I also welcome its attention intention to give the CAA greater flexibility in determining who pays for air traffic and air navigation services. At the moment, that's airlines and aircraft operators, but the scope to extend that is only fair in this changing environment. I also support the delegation of certain operational rule making to the CAA to ensure a more responsive process. Currently, the legislative framework for aviation safety rules is, as the government has stated, extensive, complex and cumbersome.

Obviously, this change should always have aviation safety at its heart. I welcome the contributions of fellow noble Lords and other parts of the Bill on which they are infinitely better qualified to contribute. I will not trespass on their territory, but listen with interest to their valuable and informative perspectives. And I'd say finally returning to where I started with military aviation, that it's imperative that we remember that this civil aviation bill is not just about civil aviation. Military capability relies on airspace, air traffic services, and on the CAA military aircraft need to train and exercise.

Defence industry needs to experiment with and assure new capabilities. These are all vital activities in the defence of this nation that need air, airspace to operate and succeed. Also, some of our defence capabilities air capabilities are military owned but civil registered such as the envoy command support, air transport aircraft and the Voyager Air to air refuelling and passenger aircraft. So when we proceed to debate this civil aviation bill, we must remember that we're also discussing military aircraft capability and development.

And with that, the defence and security of the UK. And does my noble friend the Minister, agree that airspace is a resource? It is part of our critical national national infrastructure, even if it's invisible to most of us who aren't airspace nerds. And it's vital that we update it to meet the needs of today and tomorrow.
17:24
Lord Davies of Gower Portrait Lord Davies of Gower (Conservative)
-
-
And. >> My Lords, it's a pleasure to follow the noble Baroness Brady Antrobus. And I begin by declaring Antrobus. And I begin by declaring my membership of the all party Group on aviation and indeed, as an aviator who contributes greatly every year to the CAA. Let me say at the outset, I broadly support the objectives of this bill and the noble Lord. The Minister has referred to the essentials of this Bill in his opening speech. These, of course, were subject of the communication of the 20th of April 2026 from the DfT to the chair of the CAA, outlining the Dft's expectations and priorities for the next period.

They include, of course, growth and innovation, economic regulation of aviation, airspace modernisation, decarbonisation of aviation and modernising. The CAA's focus on aviation, passenger and freight customers so as to put the consumer first and of course, efficiency, effectiveness and resilience. And I'll return to those in a while. But I first want to identify a glaring omission in the bill. It's it's conspicuous by its absence, and no reference whatsoever has been made in the Dft's priorities to general aviation, not one mention in the whole of the Bill to what is.

For many in the industry, the front door to their career, whether they be aircrew or ground crew. Now, my Lords, why should we be concerned that there is no mention of general aviation in the Bill? This is a section of the industry that contributes some £4 billion to the UK economy and support some 40,000 jobs. Now this may be seen as a small slice of UK's aviation. 50 to £100 billion of GDP footprint, but it underpins things like pilot training, emergency services and business connectivity.

Since 2018, general aviation has faced pressures from lower disposable incomes, rising costs and economic uncertainty, and this has reduced activity across recreational flying training and private ownership. My Lord, since Covid, GA activity has failed to recover. CAA own data reveals 40% reduction in all GA activities, and I understand the CAA only issued some 1300 private pilot licences last year, so I would expect the DFT to be extremely concerned, instead of which I understand the Department has disbanded the GA section within DFT.

Perhaps the Minister could confirm and comment on that as GA supports job skills and pilot training pathways, proportionate regulation and avoiding unnecessary burdens are important to maintaining confidence and investment. So given the circumstances the GA find themselves in, I am extremely concerned that the government's enhanced consumer protection measures do not create unintended burdens for smaller airports, aerodromes and GA operators. And I ask the Minister, what assurances can he give in relation to that? The noble or the Minister may well be wondering why there should be concern.

Well, put simply, aircrew such as pilots do not magically appear fresh out of an Easyjet or British Airways trained box. They are a result of people starting at the very bottom of the ladder through gliding, progressing through the private pilot's license and many added on many add on qualifications, instrument ratings and a mountain of exams needed to gain a commercial pilot's licence. The so-called improver route. All of this is achieved at grassroot level by small flying clubs and

**** Possible New Speaker ****

schools and A small grass airfield at enormous cost to the individual and enormous cost to the individual and risk to small businesses. With the fluctuating costs of fuel and newly imposed employment taxes. And in imposed employment taxes. And in terms of airspace, whilst accepting that the basic design has not changed in 70 years despite technological advantages. And I note that the government's policy paper is keen to single out the paper is keen to single out the safe integration of drones, and this is to be welcomed as lower airspace is where congestion, particularly with general aviation, does and will continue to occur.

But I want to ask the Minister what safeguards are in place to ensure that airspace reform decisions remain transparent, evidence based and fairly balanced. Commercial, environmental and wider aviation user interests. And, my Lords, the government seeks to expand the CAA's enforcement powers. So what mechanisms will ensure accountability, proportionality and appropriate parliamentary oversight of those powers? I am keen to learn from the Minister. How does the DFT propose to safeguard these changes for non airline operators now, my Lords, this debate would not be complete without mention of the European Geostationary Navigation Overlay System, commonly known and referred to as Egnos, the satellite based augmentation system that improves the precision and integrity of global positioning systems, in particular the Egnos safety of life.

Note that safety of life service, which is used in safety critical applications such as in the aviation sector. Back in June 2022, the All-party group General Aviation Group asked Oxera, the Oxford based economics and finance consultancy, to assess the business case for a temporary reinstatement of Egnos, and I'll quote from their excellent report. They point out that prior to leaving the European Union, the UK civil aviation sector invested heavily into satellite based approaches because of the significant safety and reliability advantages that satellite based approaches offer compared to traditional approaches.

That is, non-precision navigational aids. And despite these investments, the UK is currently the only state in the G20 without usable access to a precise satellite based navigation system, whereas other countries are increasingly moving towards relying on precision satellite based approaches. So what does this mean in reality? My Lordship has really serious consequences. It means that remote areas of the United Kingdom, which rely on small regional airlines such as Loganair, for example, in Scotland, are unable to operate in inclement weather conditions.

I note that the noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, who was due to participate in this debate today, has been stranded on the Isles of Scilly for a number of days, which is fogbound and as a result result of non-participation in Egnos. The likelihood of aircraft operating into the island is remote in such conditions and in relation to aircrew training, in addition to the lack of instrument approach, training slots, the whole of the UK professional flight training industry cannot deliver for UK based students the full range of performance based navigation training, which is reliant upon satellite based signals.

Worse still, all these GPS supported approaches are only 2D lateral non precision. 3D precision requires the safety of life service to enable the airport to provide this. So training aircraft across the channel to places like Jersey and other European countries where a full suite of approaches are available as they benefit still from the egnos signal in space. This is a major revenue and talent loss to the UK aviation sector. Similarly, air traffic control offices cannot do more than train in simulation for 3D approaches.

And lastly, the All-party group for air ambulances, which I am also a member, is pushing government hard across a range of topics, and as we speak, there is a reception to launch a report called The Case for safeguarding 24 over seven on site hospital helipads. A big part of their lobbying is again the lack of heli heli pointing space procedures for hospitals, which is edness reliant. So the loss of egnos access weakens aviation safety and NHS trauma care goals without reinstatement.

Increasing air ambulance mission cancellations put these strategies and patient outcomes at risk. So perhaps the Minister could tell us what the government has in mind in relation to Egnos. Well, I implore the Minister to again consider reinstating Egnos membership as a matter of urgency and, above all, to give due consideration to general aviation when prioritising its goals and directions to the CAA which are at present. I fear it clearly is not.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

My Lords. This Bill. Recognises a simple reality.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Recognises a simple reality. Aviation has changed significantly over the recent decades, as many over the recent decades, as many noble Lords have mentioned, and our regulatory framework must continue regulatory framework must continue to evolve alongside it. The United Kingdom depends on a modern, efficient and well-regulated aviation sector. Aviation is more than just about aircrafts and
17:33
Baroness Dacres of Lewisham Portrait Baroness Dacres of Lewisham (Labour)
-
-
airports. It's about connecting people and jobs, businesses to people and jobs, businesses to market and communities to opportunities. It supports trade, opportunities. It supports trade, tourism, investment and economic growth. It also plays a vital role in connecting the nation and in connecting the nation and regions of the United Kingdom, helping to bring people, businesses and communities together while and communities together while connecting every part of our country to the wider world. For that reason, I welcome this bill and its focus on regulatory reform and modernisation in a sector characterised by international competition and rapid technological change.

Standing still is not an option. Good regulation should not be seen as a barrier to growth. On the contrary, effective regulation provides the clarity, confidence and stability that enables industries to invest and innovate. A clear and modern framework allows operators to plan for the future, while ensuring that consumers and travellers remain properly protected. For many people, air travel is associated with some of life's most treasured and important moments. It may be that long awaited family getaway, or an opportunity to spend time with loved ones, an important business trip, or the chance to pursue new opportunities.

But when things go wrong, whether through delays, cancellations, or poor communication, the impact can be both significant and deeply disappointing. That is why this framework that governs the aviation sector matters. Passengers rightly expect services that are safe, reliable and responsive. Businesses require clarity to in order to invest and grow. Regulators must be able to abide by and to respond to the changes. The challenge for this bill is to strike the right balance between those objectives.

My Lords, modernisation should not be viewed simply as a technical exercise. Whether we are discussing airspace reforms, airport slots allocations and regulatory frameworks, the objective must be to create a system that is more efficient, more accountable and better able to support growth while improving the experience of passengers. Transport connectivity is not the end, an end to itself. It is what enables people to access jobs, education, investment and opportunity. Aviation also plays an important role in supporting connectivity, access.

The nation and regions of the United Kingdom depends on. For many communities, air travel is not simply a convenience, but an important link to employment, businesses, opportunities, public services and family networks. While much attention is often given to international aviation, we should not overlook the importance of domestic connectivity. Aviation helps to strengthen economic economies and social ties across the country and supports the movement of people, skills and investment between regions. As we consider the future of this sector, it is important that those wider connectivity benefits should also be recognised.

I particularly welcome the provision relating to airspace modernisation and the future role of the Civil Aviation Authority. Much of our airspace infrastructure was designed, as has been mentioned, in a very different era. These reforms present an opportunity to make better use of technology, reduce unnecessary delays, improve resilience and make it more efficient, and increase the increasingly increasing the use of constrained airspace. They will also help to ensure that the United Kingdom is equipped to interrogate emerging aviation technologies safely and effectively, while maintaining our position at the forefront of a rapidly evolving sector.

The pace of technological change in aviation is accelerating, as many have not. Local laws have already mentioned. New technologies offer opportunities to improve our efficiency, resilience and safety, but they also challenge regulators to ensure that the rules evolve alongside innovation. The United Kingdom has a proud history of aviation leadership. If we are to maintain this position, our regulatory framework must be capable of responding to change at pace that reflects developments within the sector, while maintaining the confidence of passengers and operators alike.

Equally, ensuring that airport slots are allocated and managed effectively can help maximise capacity, improve connectivity and make the best use of existing infrastructure. Supporting economic activity across the country and placing us in a strong position to consider any future airport expansions that may be required to ensure the United Kingdom remains internationally competitive. Of course, modern infrastructure and modern aviation system also require modern regulation. The provision relating to the Civil Aviation Authority are central to achieving that objective.

Aviation is rapidly, rapidly evolving as a sector shaped by new technologies, changing passenger expectations and emerging operational challenges. A regulator that is able to respond more quickly and effectively to those changes is better placed to support innovation, maintain high standards and protect consumers. We cannot keep coming back to primary legislation to make changes as and when things are evolving. That simply isn't quick enough. It's not responsive enough, and it's just not agile. Greater rule making powers have the potential to create this more agile and responsive regulatory framework, reducing, as I said, the need for primary legislation.

This can help with greater certainty for industry, enable faster adoption of new technologies, and ensure regulation keeps pace with development in aviation, rather than lagging behind them. Regulation that arrives years later after innovation risks holding back progress rather than supporting it. It is important that future regulation remains proportionate to support innovation and competitiveness, and avoids imposing unnecessary burdens while continuing to maintain high standards for which the UK aviation is renowned for. There is also a really important competitive dimension.

Aviation operates in a global marketplace, and the United Kingdom benefits when it is seen as an attractive place to invest, innovate and do business. A regulatory framework that can respond efficiently to change will help ensure that our aviation sector remains internationally competitive. Supporting growth, investment and jobs while maintaining high standards for safety and consumer protection for which, as I have said, the UK is known for. This is in many respects an enabling bill. Its long term impact will depend not only on the powers it creates, but also on those powers and how they are exercised in the years ahead.

At the same time, effective regulation requires public confidence. As the bill progresses, I would welcome further clarification from the Minister on how accountability and parliamentary oversight will operate alongside any expanded regulatory powers granted to the Civil Aviation Authority. It is important that greater flexibility for the regulator is matched by appropriate transparency and scrutiny, so that confidence is maintained among parliament, industry and the travelling public. My Lords, I would like to touch briefly on accessibility when we discuss accessibility.

We rightly think about physically physical access and support for passengers with mobility impairments. We should also recognise the experience of neurodivergent passengers and those who may face sensory, cognitive and digital barriers. For many passengers with sensory, cognitive or neurodivergent needs, airports and air travel can present unique challenges. Busy terminals, rapidly changing information, unfamiliar environments, and sensory overload can create barriers that are often overlooked. A truly accessible aviation system should enable people to travel independently where they wish to do so, while having the confidence that supports and will be available when needed.

Independence and support should not be seen as a competing concept. A modern transport system should provide both. For many passengers, accessible travel is not simply about completing a journey, it's about accessing employment, education, family connections and wider opportunities. Accessible travel is also about dignity, confidence and independence. The ability to travel without unnecessary barriers can be can have a profound impact on an individual's quality of life. For some, it can mean accessing employment. For others, it can mean pursuing education, maintaining those family relationships, or simply seeing a different part of the world that they want to experience and learn more about.

As we consider further regulations and guidance, I hope that accessibility continues to be viewed through its this broader lens I've mentioned the objective should not merely be to remove obstacles when they arise, but to. To design systems and services that are inclusive from the outset. That approach benefits everyone. Clear information, intuitive systems, and well-designed services improves the passenger experience for all travellers, not only those who require additional support. As we update and improve the aviation system, we should remember that progress is not solely about technology, it's about people.

A truly modern aviation sector is one that works for all passengers, including those with physical disabilities, sensory needs and neurodivergent conditions, ensuring that advances in efficiency are matched by advances in accessibility. I've been encouraged by the work already taking place across parts of the aviation sector to improve awareness and support as the bill progresses. I hope that these will be opportunities to explore how best practice can be encouraged and embedded across the sector. Through my work in local government and transport leadership across London, I have seen first hand that successful transport systems are those that earn public trust, adapt to change and work for everyone who relies on them.

This bill provides an important opportunity to create a regulatory framework that supports innovation, growth and international competitiveness while ensuring passengers remain at the centre of aviation policy. If we get this balance right, we will not only strengthen consumer confidence but help to ensure that the United Kingdom remains a leading aviation nation in an increasingly competitive world with a sector that is innovative, innovative, accessible and fit for the future. For those reasons, I welcome this bill, and I look forward to further scrutiny as it progresses through this House.
17:46
Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb Portrait Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb (Green Party)
-
-
Yeah. >> Yeah. >> My Lords, I surprisingly perhaps welcome the government's attempt to strengthen airline passengers strengthen airline passengers rights, especially with the worries about aviation fuel due to Israel and Trump launching a disastrous and illegal war on Iran. I'm happy to support the Civil Aviation Authority being given additional enforcement powers to ensure that airlines comply with consumer laws. However, I'm not so keen on legislation that makes it easier to expand airports, especially if that increases the noise and pollution for people living in the immediate area or along the flight path is extremely bad for human health and well-being.

Now, as a green, I'm well aware that a lot of what I say in your Lordships' House is not supported by anyone else around me and. And that my views on the environment, on climate change and on the disastrous path we're taking as humans is at best contentious. And at worst, it's plain wrong. But I, I, I'm just staggered by the lack of ecological awareness amongst members of your Lordships' House. It defeats me that you cannot understand the science, that you cannot see what is in front of you, and that you still support things like airport expansion.

When we know it's bad for the planet. I exclude the noble Lord Earl Russell from this, obviously, and some of his some of his colleagues. I mean, luckily there are people outside, many scientists, you know, people like that, people who know what they're talking about, but better than I am. Who can actually say that we are headed for disastrous circumstances if we don't take climate change seriously. And this whole bill is just ludicrous in terms of the future of of people and planet.

I have, in fact, mostly lost hope that this government cares about people and planet. It's lost all claim to be a green government with its attacks on nature in Britain and with its decisions to expand aviation. The go ahead for the expansion of London City Airport, Luton, Gatwick and Stansted means an extra 51 million passengers per annum. If the government adds Heathrow to that total, it's an extra 65 million. Now the noble Lord, the Minister, in his opening remarks said oh, aviation is a cornerstone of our economy or some such, and I would say it's a cornerstone of climate collapse.

And if we can't see that, I'd be happy to have 1 to 1 sessions with any peer who would like to discuss this further, because, quite honestly, I'm in despair at the lack of awareness about what our future could be. As I said, luckily there are people outside, for example, professor Bill Rutherford of Imperial College London said the only way you can make aviation any more sustainable is to do less of it. All of those extra flights result in either extra emissions or in extra farmland taken up growing jet fuel, and that means rising food prices and more public subsidy.

The Sustainable Aviation Fuel Bill was appallingly named. There is no such thing as sustainable aviation fuel. That was infuriating as well. It's just greenwash that will leave future governments needing to do the hard work of behaviour change in order to achieve net zero targets. I mean, actually, I'm not a supporter of net zero. It's a ridiculous aim. We should be going for less than zero. We should be cutting back completely. Net zero is unrealistic. It's real zero that we need. Unless the climate crisis is crisis is accelerating.

And this bill would have been a chance to do something about that. Rather than promoting aviation, we need to cut back the first step towards stopping more flights, leading to accelerating climate change is to deal with private jets. The rich are paying a lot of money for the privilege of wrecking our planet, and the government needs to tell them it's no longer acceptable. Being rich doesn't excuse you from your responsibilities as global citizens. Flying off the weekend, perhaps every weekend has consequences.

The ice is melting, the seas are rising, flash floods and storms are becoming more powerful. Heat waves and droughts are going to hit farming very, very hard. Our food supplies will be under threat. Change is happening now, not decades in the future. And that means we have to act now as well. So private jets should be the first thing that this government targets to cut back on. And this bill is the obvious opportunity to do that. Next to the frequent flyers, the government should be raising the aviation tax on people who take two or more flights a year.

Frequent flying is something that well-off people do, and we can discourage them by reflecting the true environmental cost in the amount that frequent frequent flyers pay. Business flights have already changed since Covid made a shift towards online working, and that trend must be given another shove. Finally, we are experiencing another record breaking year for temperatures in this country and across the globe. The next decade will see yet more record breaking years and the decade after that, the decisions being made by this government on aviation will add to the disaster that the younger generation will have to live and struggle with.

I ask you to stop and rethink. I don't just mean the government. I mean every single member of this House who has supported the whole idea of aviation. Stop and think for the future for your children, your grandchildren actually stop and think what you are doing. You are

**** Possible New Speaker ****

destroying their future. My Lords. First of all. I'll try.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I'll try. And cheer you all up. A little bit because that is not actually, I. Think, what was. Reflected by.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Reflected by. Our former speaker. First of all, I'd like to declare my interest as I'd like to declare my interest as an adviser for the drone delivery group. I'm also a vice chairman of the all party group on Aviation and Aerospace and Further interest. I spent the first 25 years of my life.
17:53
Baroness Foster of Oxton Portrait Baroness Foster of Oxton (Conservative)
-
-
Working for British Airways as a very young, very young stewardess. Following that, the following 15 I was in the European Parliament and dealing with all the primary legislation that covered the civil aviation area and other forms of transport, the Baroness, the former RAF Baroness, has left. But I do recall she mentioned what it was like in the RAF all those years ago. And those of you who are pilots and understand airspace, when I started flying, I was on a Hawker Siddeley.

I think it was most airfields didn't have an ILS. That's an instrument landing system. And yet we have these most advanced aircraft that could virtually land in low visibility. So technology has moved on a pace, certainly in the last 50 years. And I say that because I think we have one of the best industries and the most exciting industries, I think that we've ever created. When we go back historically into civil aviation, certainly post the Second World War, we also have some of the best brains and the best scientists that are also inventing the technologies in the aerospace sector that make aviation as safe and as clean and as green as it is today.

During my time as a member of the European Parliament, because I'm going to come on to the three key areas that are mainly in the bill. And I thank the Minister for his comprehensive introduction. And also, I obviously read through like like most colleagues, you know what it has said. It's quite clear that obviously our leaving the European Union are leaving the European Aviation Safety Agency, which I was actually involved in the legislation for that 20 years ago, which was actually developed for the certification of the A380 aircraft, because obviously we cross border manufactured.

So that was the reason that agency was set up. But then its scope obviously expanded over the years. So the agency had competence for many, many other areas. Now, that, of course, took away the competences that the CAA had had when I'd originally joined the airline industry, there was every nation had its civil aviation authority, but there was no sort of European central body. But what we also also comply with, of course, are the Montreal Chicago Conventions, ICAO, IATA.

So this is not just about legislation that we made here, and the government needs to take account of that, as did the European Commission at the time. It's fine to say, well, we will make rules and regulations about X, Y and Z to do with civil aviation, but primarily we are signed up to and we must comply to international obligations, which obviously affect the entire aviation industry worldwide. So clearly, where we are now is putting back competences to the Civil Aviation Authority, which they had not dealt with over over many years.

And clearly, they need to make sure they have the resources and everything else to make sure that they can do it properly. I have every confidence in our Civil aviation Authority. I think it's one of the best civil aviation authorities in the world, along with this sector. And in terms of also our Accident Investigation Bureau, and I think the independence that our agency have is is key. Therefore, we don't get overwhelmed by political interference into areas where the experts really need to be making a lot of the decisions.

So I'd just like to touch then on the three areas, which are primarily in this bill, the first one is on on airspace. And of course, we know with the the increase in traffic over the years that the pressure on airspace has been obviously grown terrifically. I was actually one of the rapporteurs for the single European Sky regulations over 20 years ago in the European Parliament, and that was looking at functional airspace blocks. And it was also obviously looking at ensuring that right across Europe it was smooth.

It was obviously that Eurocontrol had taken a huge role in traffic management across. So it started to improve it hugely. But nevertheless, we still do have bottlenecks around Europe, which will affect us in the United Kingdom. But what the United Kingdom was known for was we had actually at that time, one of the best systems. What we did is we all we we mixed the civil with the military. And to ensure that when we weren't using airspace, which was military airspace, that the civil air space, the civil aviation could could actually use it, which was very unlike France and very unlike some countries who insisted on keeping these corridors.

And therefore, we'd have this backlog all the time. Now, what we do know is, is in terms of capacity, that the that the airspace sector, when they reduced the vertical separation over 20 years ago down to 1000ft, obviously, because of the introduction of of anti-collision devices, etc. that was a key to trying to get more capacity into European airspace. But as we know, the industry has grown further. So it's quite right that we're looking at how do we actually make this better? I think the CAA, I think Nats and the the providers have done a terrific job actually, notwithstanding the trying to to obviously with vertical, not with the vertical separation, but but obviously when you're looking at trying to ensure that we can cut times down for landing for take off and all of the steps that they've taken.

But I do accept that there's more technology that needs to be brought in to make it even more efficient. But what I'd like the government, what I would like the Minister to tell us, maybe not today, is what exactly they're looking to do, because what we've got is a lot of what you'd like to do, but I'd like to know precisely what they think will make this more efficient. And I haven't I haven't read that anyway, if I can just move on to slots, if I may.

I was also rapporteur on slots in around 2000 and 405 and also the slots revision, which was about ten years later. And slots isn't actually a simple thing. I think I've still got the scars on my back. People think it's generally it's the slot. The captain says, here's the slot, and we're going to push back. And sometimes you've missed it because the baggage isn't on or something, but it's not. Of course I after these slots are traded twice a year, and this is a quite complex, complex business.

In addition to these slot airports, if you're looking at Heathrow, Gatwick and airports and other airlines coming in, don't forget the value of their company also depends on which slots they hold. And when. We were actually looking at slot revision going back to 2004 five, the European Commission actually wanted to have primary trading. Well, that actually wouldn't have worked. They also had an idea of maybe they should be the ones that allocate slots. Well, that was certainly not going to work.

And so after much debate, it was recognised that one of the key issues to make sure the slot fairness, apart from grandfather rights, new entrant rules which were brought in, and obviously what happens when we have issues like the Middle East or conflicts, the use it or lose it rules, which we've mentioned when we've talked about Statutory Instruments, there are ways to to get to get around this sort of thing. But but notwithstanding, notwithstanding that, as I say, I think people need to tread very carefully, very, very carefully indeed when they are looking at some sort of slot changes or the rules to that.

This is just not a simple, oh, well, let's add this. Or somebody sits in the Department for transport and thinks we should do X, Y, and Z. It'll be at your peril. If if somebody starts to try and do the wrong thing, because it does affect third country carriers as welcoming in. So my final area I'd like to touch on was passenger rights. And I think it's. And also I was involved with the passengers with reduced mobility and Tommy Grey Thompson, Baroness Tommy Grey Thompson and others have raised this particular point.

And I'll just touch on the passengers with reduced mobility regulation. At the time that the regulation was changed, the airlines had been the ones who had taken responsibility for their disabled passengers or passengers who needed assistance. It was actually the European Commission that determined 20 years ago that it shouldn't be the airlines that do this, not that the airlines may want to do it now, but this should move then to the airports. What it did take away the disadvantage of that was when an airline offered a service.

Everything that happened on that journey came back onto the airline. So they took responsibility. I was crew, I sat with people while they waited for the wheelchair or tried to check that the wheelchair wasn't damaged if it was in the hold. So I have seen it first hand, and there is no excuse for people to be left on aircraft on their own, waiting for somebody to take them off. And there is little excuse for for for wheelchairs to be damaged when they are held loaded.

The decision at the time was to move it, as I say, away from the airlines responsibility and move it into airports. And this is where you lose. I think that connection, how you could reverse that, I have no idea, because I doubt these days whether airlines would want to take back that responsibility, but it's just a thought as to how things were done and then what has slipped since. And it isn't an easy solution. There's no easy solution to this, but it's about what's called good, good customer service.

Which finally brings me to the general passenger rights. The old regulation two, six one and 261 really was about cancellations and delays. And I have to say some people may disagree with me, but I lived and breathed two, six one as well over those years. And certainly colleagues with me in the European Parliament, we've got a very, very good deal for airline passengers. The legislation was robust. The legislation it was the first legislation, really, that made airlines that didn't actually look after their passengers if they were cancelled or they were delayed, it put the onus on them to really cough up and make sure that they were doing their job.

Most of the time, did do a good job, but unfortunately, there were a number of airlines and they just were not particularly interested. That hopefully has improved hugely. But again, there has to be a balance between the responsibility on the airline and for example, if there's compensation A to what level it was. And we got to two, four, 600, which was euros on obviously small, medium and short, medium and long haul flights. So there has to be a balance, there has to be struck.

But I don't think it's impossible. I think the legislation that's in place at this moment in time is good. I mean, we even moved from force majeure to exclude external events to certain things that were actually then brought back in where a passenger could actually claim compensation or at last, or at least ensure that they were being looked after. And so, as I say, it's good to see that the passenger is at the heart of this, and it's right that the passengers should be at the heart of this industry.

As I said, we run a great industry. There's no reason for people to be treated badly. I've been at the at the forefront when you're, you know, 35, zero zero zero feet and you're going to be diverted and there's thunderstorms and all those things. And this is where professionalism has to come in. And this is where reassurance and training of staff who are in the industry has to come in and ground staff to ensure that the passengers are there. They're the priority, and they are the ones that need to be looked after because even in the most dire circumstances, the public generally, I think, are fabulous.

They know that they're in your hands and they will be very forgiving if they know somebody is doing their very best and is professional in doing that. So I would just finish by saying, on a maybe slightly critical note that the Secretary of State appears to run right through this, this this legislation, it's the Secretary of States decides this, the Secretary of State is going to decide that. And, of course, the Secretary of State is answerable to all of these things.

But he'll be, you know, responsible for the rulemaking he or she and, and whatever. And then the question is, well, who's advising this? Who's going to advise the Secretary of State on this new rule or whatever? Well, the Secretary should be talking to the CAA. Well, they'll be talking to people in the Department for transport. It's looking a little bit ambiguous. So I think there needs to be some clarity. And finally, there also needs to be some clarity, as I said, on the issues themselves on, on, on airspace, on slots.

It's telling us what's wrong or what they quite like to do, but I'd like examples where it's really gone wrong. And what precisely is the government thinking of putting in this legislation. And aside from that, as I say, there are questions to to be answered. But I would like to thank, again, the Minister and my colleagues, certainly for for referring to general aviation, which is absolutely key as well, and others. And I'd like to thank the Minister again for coming to the House with the with the Bill today.



**** Possible New Speaker ****

My Lords, I must first declare an interest, as noted in the Register, that I'm the current Register, that I'm the current president of Balpa, the British Airline Pilots Association, and Airline Pilots Association, and Balpa is strongly supportive of the bill's objectives to modernise bill's objectives to modernise aviation regulations and to enable space reform. The Bill offers an
18:08
Lord Barber of Ainsdale Portrait Lord Barber of Ainsdale (Labour)
-
-
space reform. The Bill offers an opportunity to create a more responsive and agile framework. But in such a safety critical sector, this flexibility must be matched by clear expectations on effective oversight, better visibility of future workforce needs, and on consultation with professional pilots. First, on the issue of airspace change, modernisation has the potential to deliver more efficient routeing and better use of UK airspace, contributing to the long term sustainability of the sector.

But Baroness Antrobus references to the drone revolution provided a compelling illustration of the scale of the impending change coming our way. However, given its direct impact on flight operations, it's essential that pilots and their representatives are engaged throughout this process, from design through to implementation, and I hope that the government will ensure that there is a structured and ongoing consultation with frontline professionals. As airspace change proposals are developed, delivered and indeed reviewed once new arrangements become operational, and it should be recognised from the outset that airspace modernisation, alongside possible expansion at major airports like Heathrow and Gatwick, are likely to lead to significantly increased traffic levels in UK airspace over the coming years, and any material uplift in both flight movements and passenger numbers could lead to an increase in demand for pilots.

This opportunity to build a growing, highly skilled UK based workforce needs to be understood and positively planned for if we are to avoid facing critical skills gaps at a moment of real and much needed opportunity and growth. Now, airlines, of course, operate in the private sector, but there is a strong case for the government and for the Civil Aviation Authority to monitor, for example, the make up of the pilot workforce, including the number approaching the mandatory retirement age of 65 for commercial airline pilots, and to consider two, whether the training pipeline is adequate for future demand, which itself is being driven by public policy decisions such as airspace modernisation.

Now, the CAA already publishes a range of key aviation statistics. Should it now also be required, though, to provide a more regular analysis of trends within its licence registered data to improve the visibility of workforce dynamics and to support more informed planning across the sector. Looking at a very different sector, the Nursing Midwifery Council publishes regular such assessments of the workforce on which it holds data. Could we not do that in this sector? Turning to the wider role of the CAA, clause eight of the Bill transfers responsibility for setting, setting, detailed aviation safety and operational rules, moving from Parliament and Ministers, transferring those powers to the CAA.

Now this. While this may improve regulatory agility, it does represent a significant shift in where practical control of the aviation rulebook sits, with reduced opportunities for parliamentary scrutiny, so this gives rise to some key questions. How will the Bill ensure meaningful consultation with pilots and other affected groups? As rules are reviewed and before rules are created or amended? What mechanisms will allow Parliament to exercise effective oversight of significant or perhaps more novel regulatory changes? And how will the CAA be required to provide the transparency around decisions, including on the rationale and operational impact of new rules? Now, I hope in the Committee stage we will be able to probe these points to ensure that the proposed flexibility in rule making will be balanced with appropriate accountability and expertise to ensure that we maintain confidence in the UK's aviation safety framework.

Finally, on the CAA's role in providing accountability to consumers for the effective enforcement of their rights in aviation, this could indeed be a positive alternative to lengthy, expensive litigation supporting precious few people with legitimate grievances about failures in the sector. But can the government really examine how the CAA in practice will discharge these responsibilities to ensure that it can and will deliver a step change for the better over the current defective arrangements? And in particular, I would say, addressing the powerful challenges expressed today by Baroness Grey-Thompson and Ramsay on the difficulties faced by disabled people and others with significant accessibility issues.

I look further forward to the further

**** Possible New Speaker ****

stages of this important bill. My Lords, it's a pleasure to

**** Possible New Speaker ****

My Lords, it's a pleasure to take part in this Second Reading debate. In doing so, I declare my interests as set out in the interests as set out in the register as first, the adviser to the Crown Estate in Dover plc and the Crown Estate in Dover plc and Simmons and Simmons LLP. Can I congratulate the Minister on the way he introduced the bill? I know way he introduced the bill? I know he owns a bus. I don't know if he has a jet, not yet.

But if he had an end of the runway comment, I think it's only fair to say that I've always found him incredibly plain speaking. Anyhow. So I'd like to talk inclusion and innovation, largely because the bill doesn't talk very much about these issues at all. There are sections and sections around proposed secondary legislation, but secondary legislation is set out in the bill and it's permissive. It's not in any sense mandated. And while I can understand the need and support flexibility when it comes to provisions for secondary legislation, I think that goes to prescription.

It goes to operational detail and the need for flexibility there. I don't think it should be flexibility and permissive when it comes to the principles, particularly around inclusion. And can I ask the Minister, firstly, would he not agree that the bill could say a lot more in terms of principles when it comes to inclusion on the face of the Bill itself? My Lords, come fly with me. Come fly, let's fly away. Lovely words from Mr.

Sinatra. But what about if you're a sight impaired passenger or a wheelchair user, or somebody with different mobility or cognitive needs, perhaps of disabled people. Often flying can be torturous, anxious, making. Before even arriving at the
18:17
Lord Holmes of Richmond Portrait Lord Holmes of Richmond (Conservative)
-
-
airport and an experience which is not uplifting but is dire, sometimes discriminatory, often sometimes discriminatory, often demeaning, sometimes left in the terminal. Sometimes if you get to board left on the aircraft at the board left on the aircraft at the end of the flight, and when you finally emerge from the aeroplane, oftentimes finding that your wheelchair or your essential mobility equipment has been damaged or destroyed, come fly with me. Well, not without greater protection and coverage on the face of the bill, not least for disabled people.

And what about older people not mentioned in the bill? Younger people, passengers, minors, travelling unaccompanied, no increased safeguarding provisions for them set out in the bill. No equality assessment of passenger complaints and actions taken when it comes to disability and mobility issues. When we look at the current draft of the bill, we see nothing specifically for disabled people, older people, younger people or anything specific on equality. Would the Minister not agree that to have an inclusive by design statutory duty set up on the face of the bill would be a huge step forward? Yes, for disabled passengers, but for all passengers boarding a plane.

Turning to innovation, an industry which has come up with some of the greatest innovations and advances in science, in engineering, in technology, across the country and across the world. So again, interesting that when it comes to new technologies, emerging technologies such as AI, blockchain, cyber and quantum, the bill again is curiously silent. Nothing in terms of an AI layer for slot allocation and transaction for the issue of passenger redress, and, crucially, for the issue around airspace itself.

What about digital tools for passengers to press their claims, assess at what stage and track where they are, and to be empowered through the digital tools that could be put in their hands as a consequence of this legislation, potentially. What of data? What of interoperability? Many of the powers in the bill will potentially dramatically increase the amount of data which is gathered. Commercially sensitive data, data, which could easily identify private individuals. And yet the bill is currently silent.

Nothing in terms of AI governance, responsible AI, ethical deployment, all of which could be set out at a high level on the bill without in any sense frustrating the flexibility of the proposed secondary legislation. To give one example of where AI could positively impact. Imagine a system whereby claims under the already mentioned EC 261 2004 could be assessed automatically by AI and the compensation not only calculated but paid. Imagine. Similarly, predictive analytics used before disruption has even occurred, looking at data around weather patterns and so on to slot allocation.

What AI could do there using the level of data and analytics already available if it was brought together with powerful AI tools and perhaps a blockchain basis for slot allocation and transaction in the first place, to give that immutable record of what's happening in what can sometimes be perhaps a somewhat opaque exercise. My Lords, if we don't address these technology questions in a framework capacity on the face of the bill, then what we will have is different approaches to AI and other technologies when it comes to consumer redress.

When it comes to passenger tracking, their claims, when it comes to slot allocation, when it comes to airspace itself, differing variable and, crucially, a lack of clarity and a lack of consistency, which is completely avoidable at this stage if we get it right. To conclude, inclusion by design, absolutely essential and currently lacking innovation in all its forms. Curiously absent from the current draft of the bill and in many ways to be only somewhat reductive, what we currently have is a bill which in some ways pushes digital by default, but is without inclusion by design, which, if unamended, will leave exclusion by default and exclusion by design.



**** Possible New Speaker ****

Actually a great honour for the noble Lord, Lord Holmes. Well, and I agree with very much what he said I agree with very much what he said today. As will be clear to my noble friend the Minister, some of us have joined this important Second have joined this important Second Reading debate as consumers, not as experts of the aviation industry. experts of the aviation industry. Unlike, for example, my noble friend Lord Tunnicliffe, who will bring his huge knowledge of this
18:23
Baroness Thornton Portrait Baroness Thornton (Labour)
-
-
bring his huge knowledge of this sector to bear, I have no doubt in his contribution. Today, my noble friend Baroness Antrobus, whose speech adds to the knowledge and wisdom of this House, and indeed my noble friend Lord Barber, I very much welcome the part of the bill which grants direct enforcement of consumer protection legislation by the Civil Aviation Authority. My noble friend, the Minister will be aware that as consumers rather than experts in aviation, it is therefore a matter of particular satisfaction that the Bill proposes to grant the Civil Aviation Authority these direct enforcement powers in relation to consumer protection legislation, strengthening its existing powers and bringing them into line with those enjoyed by other regulators.

My Lords, what might this mean in practice? Let me offer you a Lordships, a small but telling example drawn from my own experience last Thursday, noble Lords will recall that it was an exceptionally hot day in the United Kingdom. I can tell you it was even hotter in Poitiers. As our Ryanair flight landed, I noticed a very long queue. Passengers standing outside the terminal building virtually on the tarmac itself in blazing sunshine while waiting to board the aircraft.

We were about to leave. I have no idea how long they had been standing there, but whatever. The answer was plainly too long. Nor is it easy to see how such treatment could be justified unless the overriding priority was to achieve the fastest possible turnaround time, regardless of passenger comfort, and arguably regardless of considerations of health and safety. I did indeed feel herded at Stansted, but at least my brain didn't get fried. I readily acknowledged that standards of courtesy and general customer service in budget airline sector have improved significantly over recent years.

As we know, until a few years ago, the Ryanair chief executive, Michael O'Leary, was famous for not caring about the brusque and sometimes rude way that his staff treated passengers and then, famously speaking at a Paris air forum in June 2016, he says, and I quote, if I had known being nice to people was so profitable, I'd have done it some time ago. So credit where credit's due. The staff are indeed very charming by and large. Nevertheless, much more still needs to be done if consumers are to be treated with the degree of dignity and consideration that they are entitled to expect when buying any product or service.

People understandably choose budget airlines because the fares are low, but also because those airlines frequently serve destinations which few other carriers are willing to fly to at all, or not at scale. In many places, that gives them what is, in effect, a near-monopoly position where that occurs. Robust consumer protection becomes all the more important. We may not be able to insist upon better standards in France, but we can, and we should insist upon them here in the United Kingdom.

Although I also think it's worth saying, and this follows partly on what the noble Lord Lord Jones was saying. If you are not tech savvy, if you don't have a printer available to you, if you don't know how to use online ticketing, you will be fined. So does the bill address the issue as one of equality and reasonable adjustments for ability, disability and age? Yes. And will this will this also be considered in the new consumer rights? The bill espouses? Most passenger rights originate.

Of course, we know from European legislation and that this bill seeks to update it. As my noble friend the Minister said, the bill is needed and its three primary objectives are to promote economic growth and infrastructure development, to strengthen consumer rights and protections, and to enable improved aviation safety. The bill modernises the regulatory framework for aviation and ensure it can keep pace with technological change, the evolving consumer landscape and to ensure the sector remains resilient to disruption and aligned with international standards.

It introduces a delegated, enabling power for the Secretary of State to amend existing passenger rights regulations and introduce new regulations where necessary. It addresses airspace modernisation, which about which I knew absolutely nothing but feel since the contribution by my noble friend Baroness Antrobus, I think I feel I know a little bit more than I did before this debate. It delegates responsibility for certain aviation safety and operational rulemaking to the CAA, enabling highly technical rules to be developed and updated more efficiently, and creating a more responsible and agile regulatory framework.

And it restores powers lost after the EU exit to amend and create aviation safety relation relating to criminal offences and assimilated law. In other words, my Lords, it's an important bill in all those areas. I welcome this Bill and look forward to being involved in its House.
18:29
Lord Kirkhope of Harrogate Portrait Lord Kirkhope of Harrogate (Conservative)
-
-
Yes. >> Yes. >> My Lords, I declare several interests in aviation. First, as a interests in aviation. First, as a quite a long term private pilot, but not, I'm afraid, one now flying 21st century glass cockpits referred to by the noble Lady Antrobus. I'm afraid I have to rely on 20th century cockpits. My flying. I'm also the honorary vice president of the British Airline Pilots Association, and I involve myself with the all party parliamentary group on aviation, and I am a former director of Newcastle International Airport.

So my interest in aviation goes back a long way and is still very current. But I'd like to begin by welcoming in general the Bill, which presents a considerable opportunity to modernise our aviation legislative framework and could help to position the United Kingdom as one of the world's leading aviation markets, particularly in light of the recently published Aviation Competitiveness Index, which ranks the UK. Disappointingly, only six out of the eight aviation markets is assessed. I say so with one substantial qualification, which I imagine the Minister anticipates.

This is almost in its entirety, this bill and enabling measure. It creates no new passenger rights and reforms, no single rule. It confers powers on the Secretary of State and on the authorities to do those things later by regulation. Well, I've raised in relation to other pieces of legislation my concerns that so much is left for later decisions, often implemented without the full scrutiny that they might deserve at the time. It therefore, remains to be seen how Ministers will utilise the new powers contained in this Bill to enable meaningful reform and to improve aviation regulation for the benefit of consumers and airlines alike, because that's surely what we all desire.

Taking the consumer provisions first. The inherited framework referred to before regulation UK 261 that was drafted for a different era, and it now imposes liabilities on carriers well beyond anything its authors intended, covering passenger rights when flights are delayed and cancelled, and when there's a denial of boarding. This regulation followed our leaving the EU. So although in general it follows the same matters as the similar EU regulation, it is enforced by our authorities. So we do have the possibility of both EU and UK regimes applying to flights between the UK and Europe.

In the government's discussions with their European counterparts, we certainly could benefit by trying to ensure some alignment, at least in this international marketplace. The European Union, which wrote the original form of regulation, has itself concluded that the thresholds no longer work and its council agreed last summer to lengthen the qualifying delay to four hours on short haul flights and six on long haul. The power in clause one is an opportunity to bring clarity, not least to the vexed question of what amounts to so-called extraordinary circumstance, which sustains a small industry of litigation and serves passengers and airlines alike very poorly.

On the enforcement powers in clause two, I would urge greater caution, for by the authority's own survey, passenger satisfaction stands at its highest recorded level. Powers of direct penalty should be reserved for genuine and systemic harm and exercise with proper process, and I should be grateful to know what safeguards the government intend to intend to avoid misunderstandings and unnecessary rigidity with. I come now to the part of the bill closest to my own concerns as a pilot. Airspace.

Ours is the most congested in the world. Nats handles a quarter of Europe's traffic and barely a 10th of its airspace. Yet the basic design is scarcely altered. Since the 1950s, when the country saw some 200,000 flights a year against more than 2.5 million now. In 2019, I was asked by the all party parliamentary group on general aviation to undertake an inquiry into lower airspace, particularly because of the pressures on general aviation, and we came up with a number of proposals for change.

We concluded, inter alia, that the methodology in which airspace design changes occur was antiquated and in need of radical reform, and called for the scrapping of legislation governing lower airspace design. I wonder if this legislation is at last going to encompass our findings. Could the Minister perhaps confirm it? Modernisation is now very overdue, and the powers in clause four to see airspace change actually implemented are sensible and necessary. But the new design service, the so-called single guiding mind, was promised to be operational by the end of last year.

And I must ask, where is it? An assurance on a revised timetable would be helpful? I asked two that the smaller users of our skies, the gliders and the light aircraft previously referred to by several speakers, including my noble friend Lord Davis, are not again quietly squeezed out, for they have as good a claim to the air as any airliner. And if we are to grow the aviation industry with developments like the third runway at Heathrow and capacity growth at many regional airports, we shall need to deal with the shortage of pilots to fly our aircraft.

I am not persuaded that that supply can safely be left to the market alone, and I would ask whether the government or the CAA might take an informed interest in the health of that workforce, and to encourage more to train for this role. The smaller private training schools need encouragement, not impediment, of course. At the heart of this legislation will be full and ongoing consultation with professional pilots and their representative organisations to ensure we adequately respond to the needs of the industry and a more flexible and dynamic system of training and recruitment.

Finally, I would like to make a couple of points relating to Nats. First, may I press the Minister to clarify the proposals on the charging for air traffic and navigation services? Those responsible to pay for those services, according to the Bill, is to change from, I quote, owners and operators of aircraft to simply the word persons. General aviation is not wisely affected too much by the present arrangements, which largely apply to the airlines, and I would argue that the burden of such charges should remain as at present.

Is this change more. Perhaps because of technological developments like drone delivery systems? Perhaps. The Minister is nodding his head. Perhaps he could confirm that in his wind up. We do need to protect general aviation for the future. But my second question relates to liability. When the air traffic control system failed in the summer of 2023, some 2000 flights were cancelled and over 700,000 passengers disrupted at a cost. The regulator has put at up to £100 million.

The airlines met that bill in its totality. Nats, which we know is a profitable company that was at the very heart of the failures, paid absolutely nothing. The most that could be done was to embark on the clear complications of finding them, but with much lesser redress available. When a carrier causes the delay, it has to pay without argument. It has to pay. When the monopoly air navigation provider causes it, guess what the carrier pays again. That surely cannot be right.

And I do hope the Minister will say whether this bill, with all its new

**** Possible New Speaker ****

powers, might finally correct that imbalance. Yes. My Lords, I welcome this Bill. I shall engage constructively as it proceeds. But I return to where I began. This bill could do a great deal of good. It could also, I'm afraid, give a great amount of disappointment. I think we all want disappointment. I think we all want the former outcome, not the latter one. So the government must be held

**** Possible New Speaker ****

closely to account. Yeah. Brilliant.
18:38
Baroness Gill Portrait Baroness Gill (Labour)
-
-
My Lords. Imagine the scene. It is 1 a.m. on freezing Tuesday. A is 1 a.m. on freezing Tuesday. A young mother is sitting on the airport floor trying to comfort a crying toddler. Her flight was cancelled four hours ago. The terminal departure boards are completely blank. The airline staff have packed up their desks and vanished. The automated customer phone lines are dead for that family and for thousands of travellers, especially those with disabilities. Every single week, the miracle of modern flight collapses into a nightmare of absolute hopelessness.

We're not talking about rare or isolated mishaps. Independent adjudicators handle over 43,000 formal passenger complaints in a single year. Millions of pounds have to be legally forced out of their lines after they're initially rejected. Legitimate customer claims. Shockingly, the Civil Aviation Authority's own research reveals that when major flight disruptions strike, only 1 in 10 passengers fully feel informed of their actual legal rights. This is the grim reality of the British airport floor today.

And that is why this bill is not just necessary. It is an urgent economic and a moral imperative. This legislation delivers three undeniable victories for ordinary travellers. Accountability. Repeat corporate offenders can no longer break consumer law with impunity. Transparency. Passengers will receive honest, real time, frequent communication during a crisis. Oversight. The heavy burden of proof shifts away from individual consumer and onto proactive regulatory enforcement. My Lords, having said that, aviation is one of the ultimate success stories of modern Britain.

Our airports handle over 300 million passengers journeys annually. For the vast majority of us, the air travel is not luxury. It's an absolute necessity in modern life. For me, this is an industry. It's not just a sector on a spreadsheet. It is deeply personal. My late mother worked for over a quarter of a century for our national flag carrier. It was her hard work and the stable, secure employment provided by that airline that allowed her to support me through my university years.

I saw firsthand how a job in aviation could transform a family's horizons. In fact, many with her her wider circle of friends and her family were able to completely transform their lives thanks to sustainable work in the airline sector around Heathrow. Because of that upbringing, I carry a deep, lifelong degree of loyalty to the industry. And over the course of my career, I have more than repaid that debt. Years. Years ago, my work commitments meant I was practically living out of a suitcase.

I was working for a North American IT company tasked with overwhelming responsibility of working with teams scattered across three quarters of the globe. Now, this was the Dark Ages before the everyday convenience of Zoom teams and video conferencing. In those days, virtual collaboration wasn't an option. It was needed if you needed to align a team across continents. You didn't just click on a link. You bought a ticket. My friends used to taunt me and say that I was practically living on a plane, and I must confess to the house.

It was a lifestyle that completely shattered any potential green credentials I could ever hope to claim. But because I have spent a massive portion of my working life in the year prioritising our national carriers to repay the generation debt I mentioned, I know the rhythm of our airports like the back of my hand. I have flown through Heathrow, Birmingham, Gatwick and Manchester every conceivable hour and I have seen absolutely the best of this industry. I have watched airline crews and ground staff display heroic professionalism under immense professional and operational pressures.

But like everyone else, I've also experienced the worst. I know what it feels like to stand in a queue that stretches out of the terminal doors, just like Baroness Bi Baroness Thornton watching a hard fought and an important meeting and opportunities that it would bring, or a family milestones just vanish with the clouds. I have sat stranded on tarmac for three hours with zero explanation. I received an automated emotional text message cancelling a flight just as I reached the airport.

I spent successive evenings playing digital hide and seek with airline chatbots, trying to navigate intentionally difficult complaints system just to submit a complaint. My travel history has taught me one undeniable truth the British public is remarkably resilient and reasonable. Passengers understand that aircraft develop technical faults. They know that safety must always come first. They accept that adverse weather or air traffic restrictions can shatter as schedule. What they do not accept, and what this Parliament must no longer tolerate, is being treated like an inconvenience or worse.

They do not accept radio silence, a total lack of accountability, being forced to fight like a corporate lawyers just to claim basic rights that already belonged to them. That is why I stand in staunch support of this civil aviation Bill. Concurrently, we must also listen closely to the warnings from the aviation sector. Like many of you, I received a Second Reading briefing from Airlines UK, and they make a number of serious claims that this House must evaluate.

They point to consumer surveys and argue that passenger satisfaction is at an all time high. They claim that existing complaints procedures and alternative dispute resolution pathways are already providing substantial avenues for redress. They tell us frankly, there is no strong case for additional consumer measures, and they warn us that broad turnover based fining powers will create regulatory uncertainty. Now, with respect, I invite the authors of that briefing to leave the boardroom and stand on a terminal floor, because the data tells a completely different story.

How can satisfaction be absolute when, as I said earlier, independent adjudicators are inundated with over 43,000 formal passenger complaints in a single year? How can the current system be deemed substantial when millions of pounds have to be legally dragged out of airlines after they initially reject legitimate customer complaints? Airlines UK argues that the current framework imposes disproportionate liabilities on them. But what about the disproportionate burden placed on a lone disabled passenger left stranded without a room, a flight or an explanation? I have been there, like many of you, to the industry's fear of new fining powers.

I say there is no uncertainty if you comply with the law, if you communicate honestly, if you refund promptly, and if you treat the British public with dignity, you will never have to face the sting of these new enforcement powers. However, let us be fair. The industry note is not entirely without merit. In fact, there are areas where the government should actively align with our airlines because consumer protection and industry competitiveness are not mutually exclusive.

First, I support the industry's call to use this bill to fix legal definitions surrounding flight disruptions. The current application of what constitutes an extraordinary circumstance is a mess of uncertainty. It fuels endless litigation that helps neither the carrier nor the traveller. Therefore, I support that the government should use the delegated powers in this Bill to establish a clear, non-exhaustive and a modern definition. Secondly, I support Airlines UK on the urgent matter of airspace modernisation and airport slot reform.

Our airlines are completely right to call the current system outdated. Modernising our skies. The invisible motorways of the air is vital for network resilience, reducing delays and cutting emissions. The temporary powers that allow us to govern these frameworks are set to expire on 23rd of June. We cannot afford to let our regulatory framework lapse into legal limbo. So I echo the industry's urge to the Minister. We need a clear, revised timetable for the UK airspace delivery Service.

The government must ensure full delivery of this programme no later than 2035. If the government wants airlines to deliver for passengers, the government must also deliver the infrastructure to let them fly efficiently. So while I champion these new powers, I ask the Minister for some clarity on how they will be deployed. The industry is rightly concerned about broad powers being used recklessly. How will the government ensure that this enforcement tools are used proportionately, focusing strictly on sustainable market failures, rather than penalising airlines for genuine, unavoidable and operational disruptions? My Lords, legislation is meaningless if it lives only in the statute book.

Its value must be felt by the passenger standing at the baggage carousel. No act of Parliament can banish bad weather. No politician can legislate away a mechanical failure on a jet. But we can, and we must ensure that when chaos hits, our citizens are treated with dignity, informed with honesty and supported with speed. At its core, this bill is about restoring the soul of British aviation. This success of this bill will not be judged by the speeches we give today, or the guidance notes we print tomorrow.

It will be judged by the travelling public. It will be judged by whether the silence at the gate is replaced by clear communication, whether the agonising delays in payouts disappear, whether basic respect is permanently restored to the passenger experience. If we achieve this, we do not just regulate an industry, we secure the trust of the nation. We restore the dignity of British traveller, and we ensure that the sky belongs to people who depend on it, and not just the corporations that operate within it.

I commend this legislation to the House.
18:51
Lord Empey Portrait Lord Empey (Ulster Unionist Party)
-
-
Thank you. >> My Lords. Like many members, I declare an interest as a member of the General Aviation APPG, as an the General Aviation APPG, as an honorary vice president of the Union of Pilots, Engineers and Cabin Crew, I wanted to talk this afternoon about slots, but before getting to that point, much of the bill gives additional powers to the CAA. Can the Minister tell us what the capacity of the CAA is to deal with the extra powers that are being directed towards it, and is that part of the reason why there's a long delay between the the passage of the legislation and its introduction in practice, because it seems to me that a huge extra burden is being placed.

And if rules are to be made as well as enforced, then new skills would be required by the CAA to carry out that activity. Much has been said about consumer protection and of course, many of the causes of problems at airports are actually not caused by the airlines themselves, but by the people who operate the airport services, whether that's luggage and other services that are provided. So there is always a gap. And it seems to me that when we get to committee, we'll have to probe just to see exactly how that can be looked at to ensure that the best possible services provided.

One issue that perhaps the Minister would. It hasn't been. It's not in the bill, of course, but it does come in regard to the welfare of passengers and people who work in the airlines. And that is the question of cabin air quality, something that has been largely glossed over in many years, but something which can affect, if it's not monitored properly and have a direct impact. Not only the people who work on aircraft and in aircraft, but the people who use it.

And I listened very carefully to what the Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb said. She's not in a place right now, but we all have concerns about the environment. It's not confined to one particular party. We all have concerns. And if she was going to argue that we have two flights a year, that's going to put people like me in some difficulty, I have to say. So, you know, we have to be realistic. And I think by exporting the product, the pollution to another part of the world at our own expense doesn't improve the environment or, or climate in general.

Lord Kirkhope mentioned. Not something which I think largely has passed by. Can I ask the Minister, is he satisfied that there is sufficient resilience there because there have been 2014, 2023, 2025, there have been significant failures, and the last one was pretty catastrophic. So the question is, is he satisfied that there is sufficient resilience there? Because if you're going to redesign with the help of technology and perhaps AI, how the motorways in the sky are controlled and monitored, then it seems to me that the there is a capacity issue there to be resolved.

Obviously, Baroness Grey-Thompson raised the issue of people with mobility issues and other issues, and I know the person who took my seat in the Northern Ireland Assembly, who's a a war veteran who was severely injured in Afghanistan, a wheelchair user was left literally on the tarmac, having the indignity of watching his baggage being offloaded from the plane, which moved off the apron took off, and he was still on the on on the tarmac because the people who were responsible for bringing the equipment to get him on the plane didn't show up.

So there are cases that we can't ignore, but that's just one. And I'm just saying that it is something we have to bear in mind. Now with regard to slots, this is the thing I'd like to bring to the minister's attention. Some years ago, I brought a bill twice to this House, and it was passed twice in this House called the Airports Amendment Bill, and it passed through this House and went down to the other place. And as former members of the Other place were know, there was a particular member down there who specialised in ensuring the private member's bill ended up not in a very good place, but at that particular time, the Minister answering was Lord Hameed of Wimbledon, who's not in his place, but what I was trying to achieve was to ensure that regional airports had access to appropriate slots at Heathrow.

And of course, it was primarily a European function. And that's what his line of was, because the government, of course, didn't accept the bill. But the fact is, it's nothing to do with PSO and providing subsidies. If you are a regional airport, that the reality is in this country access to to our main hub airport to get connectivity internationally is essential. And for those of us who don't have access to trains and so on, it's even more important.

So what I was wanting the Minister to confirm is that in circumstances, for instance, where the slot owner, let's take the IAG group for an example, is acquired by people from the Middle East, for instance, who may find greater value in international flights rather than domestic flights. And if they decide to move in that particular direction and reduce the number of regional flights, then that means that our the regions could be at a disadvantage in those circumstances. Is the Minister satisfied that the Bill will provide the necessary powers, and would the government be prepared to use those powers to guarantee that regional airports will have guaranteed access, a sufficient access to Heathrow? So to ensure proper regional connectivity within the United Kingdom? I don't think that's an unreasonable thing to do, and we'll probe it at committee to to see how we can do it.

But that was the primary purpose in in the bills that I put through this House with very strong support, I have to say. So the question then is for the Minister, is that something that can do because noble Baroness Foster said slots is not a simple thing, and I understand that it is very complicated. They're very valuable assets worth tens of millions of pounds, and therefore you can see if a future situation, an operator was not nationally minded, was simply looking at what's the best profit that they can make, which is understandable.

But the fact is there are national, regional and consumer rights for the people of this country that we have to ensure that they have a proper circumstances where they can get access, and it has a huge economic effect on on the United Kingdom as a whole. I mean, we talk about the London area with the principal airports, and that's understandable. But we don't all live in London. There's 1 or 2 of us left outside London. I would just draw that to your attention.

So it's important that we have that access. And that's a I think I think most political parties would have that as a as a fundamental policy within their manifestos. So the Minister, whether we'll maybe probe it at Committee stage. But I would have to say to him that that is something that I would ask him to take on board so that we can be satisfied that the Secretary of State, if circumstances arose where an operator or an owner of the slots was going to reconfigure their schedules at the disadvantage of the regions, that that could be corrected by government action.

In the past, the Ministers were saying because of their membership of the EU, we couldn't do this. And the question is, will this legislation permit that to happen? And that's one of the things, obviously, we will we will probe. But I do say apart from the. This is nothing to do with subsidising routes. There is a PSO for 1 or 2 perfectly justifiable routes, but this is not what I'm getting at. Most of these routes don't need subsidies. They're perfectly economically viable in their own right, provided of course there is the appropriate access.

It's not a Northern Ireland issue. It applies to Scotland. It applies to the north of England. It applies to other areas. And of course the so routes as well applying to Cornwall, Scotland as well. So I would ask the Minister in his summing up if he could address the issue of slots and could satisfy us that the Bill in its current form would have sufficient powers, and if not, we will look at amendments to bring the necessary certainty that this will be addressed.
19:02
Baroness Griffin of Princethorpe Portrait Baroness Griffin of Princethorpe (Labour)
-
-
OK. >> OK. >> My Lords, can I concur with the statement of Baroness Grey-Thompson, statement of Baroness Grey-Thompson, Baroness Walmsley and Lord Holmes? Re access. Can I ask my noble friend the Minister, if he agrees with me, that disabled air passengers and air passengers with conditions which restrict their mobility, should be enabled to travel independently if they so wish to do. Currently it is total assisted travel having to arrive earlier, airports not being able to use lounges to work or absolutely nothing.

I have personal experience of being left in what can only be described as holding pens in airports. Once being given colouring pencils. When I was on my way to Strasbourg to declare an EU wide climate emergency. I wish, however, to thank OCS assistant staff in the UK who are kind and resilient. Disabled passengers deserve equality of dignity. Will the consumer protection powers in the bill significantly apply to airports and the rights of disabled passengers when flying time and time again when coming from the European Parliament to Manchester Airport, I was met with broken down lifts and escalators with no advance warning, leaving me stranded.

Is there scope for secondary legislation relating to both airlines and airports? My noble friend, this isn't widely known, but I discovered most airline staff will not assist with placing hand luggage in overhead compartments on planes, resulting in disabled passengers having to check in, even hand luggage in advance or depend on the kindness of strangers. This is stressful and unequal. What measures are there to ensure better protections for air passenger rights, including those of vulnerable groups such as disabled passengers? I also have a Michael O'Leary story, and this is true.

Both Baroness Foster and I served on the transport committee in the European Parliament. Michael O'Leary asked for a meeting with the then chair, Brian Simpson. Brian, with his colleagues and his civil servants, asked Michael O'Leary and his staff if they would like a coffee, to which the response came back, yes, bearing in mind this was over a decade ago. The chair of the EPP Transport Committee then said, that will be 3, please. What are the powers to amend or create Air passenger rights regulations? Will the needs of deaf, blind or visually impaired passengers who wish to travel independently be met? What provision is there for disabled passengers to escalate complaints when needed to? Many disabled passengers are left on planes.

The BBC's Frank Gardner is a case in point as noble Baroness have already said people disembarked to find their electric wheelchairs damaged. How will the bill improve this? Will the bill give powers to issue direct penalties when an airline or airport breaches their legal obligations to disabled and less mobile passengers? The most recent Civil Aviation Authority consumer survey illustrates. While passenger satisfaction has improved overall, disabled passengers, people who struggle with digital services and those under financial pressure report lower levels of satisfaction.

The most common reasons for disinfection includes overcrowding and problems with accessibility. Assistance is required by passengers with Pan impairments, including visible, non-visible, physical and non-physical challenges, neurodivergence and health conditions. The CAA has only taken court action in one case relating to air passenger rights. This took nearly four years to reach a final judgement, leaving passengers out of pocket and without recourse throughout that period. Can I ask my noble friend the Minister, how will this bill, which I warmly welcome, improve this year?
19:07
Lord Tunnicliffe Portrait Lord Tunnicliffe (Labour)
-
-
My Lords? >> For the past. >> Term I've been a backbencher for two years, and in that period I two years, and in that period I rather assumed that the previous 14 years had bored enough people. So I've not been making too many speeches. I have a select committee and I do my duty there. And most important of all, I vote as my whip instructs me. However, it was put to me that when this bill came up that given my background, I'd better participate.

So the real reason I'm speaking now is, frankly, just to say I'm going to participate. Just a little bit on my background. I spent 22 years in civil aviation. I spent about eight years as a pilot, not a captain. I'm afraid a mere co-pilot status matters in that industry. I spent 16 years as a manager, and very early on in my career, I spent three years as a pilot shop steward. Since I spent the rest of my career in one management role or another, it was fascinating to listen to managers talking about strikes, to recognise that they hadn't the faintest idea trade unions work, and the emotions involved in making career.

I've read the bill and the notes from cover to cover, and frankly, I think it's pretty good, Bill. And generally speaking, I will be supporting it. And perhaps in places defending it. However, I received a briefing from my old trade union, Balpa, and three points stood out, which I intend to explore and unfortunately. Lord Barber got the same briefing. So I'm not getting a lot of original things to say. I'm also going to make a point or two about some points.

Lord. Nolan, raised in The King's Speech. Flying is relatively straightforward. Now, I'm not talking about the disastrous sort of dangerous flying Baroness Eccles. I'm not good at names. Baroness Antrobus was doing, and I admire her doing it, and I'm deeply jealous. But civil aviation flying. The flying of the aeroplane is pretty straightforward. That doesn't mean it's not fun. I racing down the runway at 200 miles an hour and gently pulling back the control column and persuading 320 tons of aeroplane to follow you into the air, has a rather special excitement about it, only matched by getting the thing back on the ground.

Eight hours later. But one thing that's not come up in this debate is that flying is dangerous. It's very dangerous. It's dangerous for a series of reasons, but perhaps the single most significant one is you do not have little accidents in aviation. When they happen, they are very significant. We haven't had any in several years in the UK, but in the rest of the world, the world has not been going well. Aeroplanes have been crashing and it's important to understand that why flying is dangerous.

It's not getting the aeroplane into the air and it's not getting it back on those final few feet onto the ground. It's all the other things that get in the way. One of the most important hazards is the weather, private pilots. And of course, I way back I was a private pilot and. That's great fun. But if the weather's bad, the key skill is deciding not to fly. In civil aviation, you want to fly right up to the edge of what is possible.

You want to fly when there are thunderstorms, when there is fog. When there is. Gale like wind. There are other aircraft. That. Those aircraft have got lots of people in them. You've got to not fly into them. There are technical problems. There's no good saying that. You know, they they're all right now and they're only all right because of the considerable efforts regulators and airlines put into assuring that those technical problems do not become disastrous. There are communications problems.

London's been mentioned. One of the privileges of London is it's an international centre. But that means communications aren't always that straightforward. And when they can go wrong, it can go very wrong. And then lurking there all in the background is the terrain, the terrain when you can't see it either at night or when it's covered in fog and snow and so on. And that is the challenge. That is what makes airline operations important. And that is where the pilot comes in.

The pilot is in the business of flying these wonderful modern aeroplanes and coping with all these hazards, and they all crop up sooner or later, as we've seen over recent years. The three areas that Balpa brought out as as Lord Barber has said, was essentially in pilot involvement in airspace design. The the CAA rules airspace design. The the CAA rules and the issue of pilot numbers. The. The the involvement in the first two airspace design and pilot roles has to involve pilots and other critical workers, but has to involve pilots because it's.

It's almost impossible without being there to appreciate not each individual problem, but how they are crowd together and accidents happen. Usually almost exclusively, I would say when 2 or 3 of the issues come together. And then a lot of people die. So it's crucial, I think, that workers are involved, and particularly pilots are involved in the airspace design. And in the whole issue of rules in a consultative fashion. So those rules, those redesigned airspace and the rules are workable and are acceptable.

Also raised the issue of the pilot workforce. And the pilot workforce has been pretty chaotic ever since the Second World War. Broadly speaking, in the early part of that period, the Royal Air Force produced pilots and the Royal Air Force for many years was a a pilot rich environment. Of course, there are less and less pilots in the Royal Air Force now, and technologies are going more and more. We're talking about aeroplanes, fighter air jet fighters will carry a swarm of drones with them in the in you know, 20 years ago, they try and carry a swarm of aeroplanes with them.

No longer single people, less and less pilots are being produced. The air when the B a and BEC had a monopoly, they saw that coming and it was the job to actually create pilots. And they did. And I was a product of that, of that, that creation. And it all happened at a place called Hamble. And then larger places. They became the issue of who should pay. Well, I was lucky, lucky in my university career. I was lucky in that we had to merely pay £1,000.

In retrospect, now that doesn't sound like a large amount of money, but if you apply inflation, it's about £27,000. More recently, though, individuals have had to pay and the real cost of of a achieving the qualification that a pilot will be employable by that is £115,000 plus, and there's no. Scheme of loans. Whatever you think of the student loan scheme, at least it's there and it's an automatically available. Frankly, if you want to become a pilot in recent decades, it was a good idea to be born to an affluent family.

The. More recently, I have to commend my old employer. They have at long last gone back to the whole issue of. Training their own pilots. I want to pick up from page three of my notes is, is this whole issue about. Secondary legislation and the concern by Lord Moylan of that, that there's not enough parliamentary involvement once this has been passed? I'm afraid I've seen the other side of that for 14 years.

I was Her Majesty's loyal opposition, odd job peer. And now they see frontbench peer and I used to pick up a a transport, defence, Treasury and so on. And you'd batter away at bills. And the one thing you went for is, let's get some more affirmative orders. Let's let's get the government come back and involved with this with this piece of legislation. And over and over again, I'd get punished for that because I'd end up in the Moses room with four peers.

The government Minister, the government Minister, sidekick, me and the Lib Dem. Now, you know, is that really involvement by Parliament? The problem with our secondary legislation processes is in the Commons, the the government's always got a majority. And in this House there's a constitutional crisis. When we vote down an affirmative resolution, it's much more important to get the involvement of the people who know what they're talking about. The trade unions, the, the obviously the the owners and the operators and so on.

And of course, customer representation and of course, customer representation in this important area of disabled disability. I will be looking out as this developments that we only use secondary legislation or particularly affirmative secondary legislation where it's going to add real value, because I have to tell you, through 14 years of experience of secondary legislation and this included. 4050 appearances in the room in a year when we were going through through Brexit, adding no significant value.

We must only use these sorts of devices, and we must look for a much wider view of how to input and have checks and balances than that. I hope we have a good time working through this bill. I hope we don't spend too much time going late into the night on the bill in general, I think through his sound, I hope we tune it rather than ruin it by unnecessary amendments.
19:21
Baroness Bray of Coln Portrait Baroness Bray of Coln (Conservative)
-
-
Well done. >> My Lords. >> Let me begin by saying that there is much in this Civil Aviation Bill that is sensible and Aviation Bill that is sensible and worthy of support across the House. As we've been hearing, aviation remains vital to the United Kingdom island nation that we are. It supports trade, tourism, investment and employment in every region of our country, connects families and businesses, and helps sustain Britain's position as an outward looking and internationally connected nation, serving passengers across the world.

And when those passengers purchase a ticket, they are entitled to fairness, transparency and proper treatment. When things go wrong, consumers should know clearly what they are paying for. They should receive timely information when delays or cancellations occur, and they should not face endless obstacles when seeking compensation or redress. In that respect, measures to strengthen consumer protections and also to improve clarity by making aviation regulations clearer and less fragmented for consumers and industry are welcome. Provided such reforms remain subject to proper scrutiny and ongoing review when necessary.

I also recognise and support the case for fairer competition within aviation markets, and for ensuring that access to airport capacity is not unduly dominated by entrenched long standing interests. At some of our major airports, incumbent airlines can become excessively dominant over time, which may reduce competition and ultimately work against the interests of passengers through reduced choice and weaker competitive pressure. However, reforms designed to improve operational efficiency must also proceed with Proper regard for the communities affected by likely increased aviation activity at its best.

Good governance is about balance, balancing economic progress with accountability, transparency and public confidence. And it's on that basis that I believe parts of this bill deserve closer scrutiny. Too often, modern legislation comes before this House as a broad framework, while substantial powers are left to future regulations, ministerial direction, or regulatory interpretation. And that matters in this case. When change is presented as technical or operational may have significant consequences for communities far beyond airport boundaries. Parliament should always exercise caution before delegating wider discretionary powers.

Without sufficient safeguards or scrutiny. Now, to be clear, this is not formally an airport expansion bill, but it does involve changes to airspace management, operational arrangements and regulatory powers. Sometimes communities have been told that proposed changes are just technical adjustments, only for them to discover over time that the cumulative effect is a substantial increase in aid intensity, which subsequently places them under new or busier flight paths, sometimes far beyond airport boundaries. For many residents, especially in rural and semi-rural Britain, this can be a serious development.

It may well lead to the introduction of aircraft noise over towns and villages, hitherto totally unused to it, or an increase for others quite likely to more runways and expanding regional terminals, along with increased traffic on local roads and pressure on local infrastructure, countryside and green spaces, and the gradual erosion of the quiet character of areas where people have chosen to live. And indeed is all some people have ever known. Once lost, it is rarely recovered. And by the way, what does that do for local property values? I'm not opposed to aviation or economic growth.

Britain needs both. But public confidence depends upon assurance that change will proceed fairly openly and with proper regard for those affected. This House was not only to support economic activity, but also ensure that decisions command legitimacy and democratic consent. The countryside is not simply spare land awaiting development. Communities likely to be affected are not obstacles to be managed through consultations. Exercises of questionable sincerity and quality of life, including quiet landscape and environmental stability, has genuine public value, even when those things are hard to quantify economically.

So while I support many of the broad objectives of this bill, I hope Ministers will listen carefully in committee to concerns regarding parliamentary scrutiny, community consultation and the cumulative impact of aviation expansion and airspace change. I would hope that we can ensure that significant regulatory changes remain subject to proper parliamentary oversight. Communities likely to be affected are properly consulted before decisions are settled, and environmental and countryside protections remain meaningful. Safeguards, rather than procedural formalities. If the bill proceeds in that balanced spirit, supporting consumers and economic activity, while also respecting communities and democratic accountability, then it will be a considerably stronger piece of legislation and that ultimately is the balance I hope this House will seek to achieve.
19:26
Baroness Ritchie of Downpatrick Portrait Baroness Ritchie of Downpatrick (Labour)
-
-
Yes. participate in this debate on this bill, and this evening, I welcome the Bill, and I welcome my noble friend, the Minister on the front bench. As this bill focuses on supporting the aviation industry and provides for much needed consumer rights and safeguards. And if I take it from a Northern Ireland perspective, aviation industry makes a major contribution to the local economy, employment creation and business development there. Some businesses have grown up around Belfast City Airport and in my former constituency of South Down.

When I was in the other place, Collins Air Space, located in Kilkeel, manufactures aircraft seats and other components for the world aerospace industry, and that company and its predecessors have done that for generations. Bradford, based in Rostrevor, some ten miles away, manufactures the covers for the Seats and Thompson Solutions in Lurgan also makes aircraft components for the global market. So therefore air connectivity and the aerospace industry are vital to the economic development of Northern Ireland.

Like my noble, my noble friend, I call him Lord Empey. I am a weekly user of return flights between Belfast and London. Unlike our other colleagues from Northern Ireland. So I would gently say to Baroness Jones that if we were only restricted to two flights per year, unfortunately we wouldn't be here very often. On those flights, I witnessed the challenges which face the aviation industry and their consumers. Unlike Baroness Thornton, I speak in this debate as a consumer.

Such challenges include flight disruptions caused by weather patterns, climate change, late arriving aircrafts or mechanical difficulties at the airport as they experienced on Sunday evening in Belfast City Airport. Other challenges include inadequate compensation, enforcement and accessibility barriers for vulnerable passengers, including disabled persons, as has already been referred to by many of our noble colleagues this evening and to the amateur traveller, Airlines can cancel flights at short notice without due consideration to the rights of passengers, and I do respect the need for consumer air safety.

But consumer rights need to be recognised. So therefore, this Bill, my Lords, is designed to address these by giving the government and the Civil Aviation Authority expanded powers and to update and enforce passenger rights. And this is a welcome step forward. The bill will promote economic growth and infrastructure, because our economy is key to economic growth. This piece of legislation will enhance aviation safety and will also seek to modernise UK airspace. Around two years ago, I tabled questions about air traffic control issues at Gatwick and Edinburgh airports, which have a known knock on effect on flights and business with Belfast and Northern Ireland.

So many flights were cancelled which caused immense inconvenience to passengers and businesses. And at that stage I met representatives of Nuts who wanted the government to bring forward measures to improve and modernise UK airspace and largely welcome the provisions within this piece of proposed legislation. And my Lords, like many noble Lords in the chamber this evening, I have been contacted by Nats, Airlines UK and the British Airline Pilots Association regarding the legislation, and it is worth noting that Nats has no concerns about.

Clauses four, five and six are scheduled to, as it is believed, their sensible changes, which support the practical delivery of airspace modernisation and help ensure the regulatory charging and appeals framework, which keeps pace with the way the UK airspace is evolving, such as the integration of new airspace users into UK skies. Clause four is seen as strengthening the framework for progressing and implementing airspace change proposals, which would help support the delivery of airspace modernisation strategy and the work of the UK Airspace Design Service, which the government has asked us to lead on.

Nats also believes the clause eight on the Civil Aviation Authority rulemaking could be usefully strengthened to include two additional safeguards. First, clearer consultation and impact assessment and implementation, and secondly, a statutory ruling rulemaking plan. So therefore, I will ask my noble friend the Minister, what are the possibilities of government amendments to reflect these sensible safety requirements? The British Airline Pilots Association is also supportive of the bill's objectives to modernise aviation regulation and enable airspace reform.

They feel there are several provisions, particularly the delegation of rulemaking powers and the delivery of airspace change that requires stronger safeguards around workforce engagement and transparency and strategic planning. So in this regard, I would ask my noble friend the Minister, what are the possibilities that the government could accommodate such changes while ensuring the best quality safeguards are in place? Airlines UK welcomes the legislation and the recognition from the government that the aviation sector is vital to the UK economy, enabling trade, tourism, business and economic growth while supporting hundreds of thousands of jobs and underpinning critical national connectivity.

They do not believe there is a strong case for additional consumer measures at this time. Legislative updates should focus on improving outcomes by supporting a modern and innovative UK aviation market, rather than by adding unnecessary regulatory burdens and costs. I would have a certain disagreement with that, but I'm sure. And the noble, my noble friend the Minister, could provide further clarification. So therefore, what is the position of the government and the Minister in this regard? Will the government ensure that the protection for consumers and airspace modernisation in this piece of legislation are sustained? I believe the provisions in the Bill are constructive and proportionate steps towards delivering a modernised and integrated airspace, which is fit for the future.

I believe that the environment of the cabin on the cabins within the aircraft, and also the wider environment need to be respected. But in terms of the wider environment, we also have to achieve a balance which allows our economy to grow. So, noble Lords, my Lords, I welcome this Bill and undoubtedly it could be improved in the area of the CAA rule making framework. Undoubtedly, the aerospace industry makes a major contribution to transportation, connectivity, job creation, tourism and our local economy.



**** Possible New Speaker ****

I thank the noble Lord Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill for introducing this bill, and it's been a debate where many peers have been clear about the strength of our aviation sector. And indeed, it's been great to have insight it's been great to have insight from a flight operations officer, no less, in Baroness Antrobus and
19:35
Baroness Grender Portrait Baroness Grender (Liberal Democrat)
-
-
no less, in Baroness Antrobus and pilots Lord Tunnicliffe and Lord Kirkhope. This bill and the Air passenger rights in particular, are much needed and welcome, along with the modernisation of our airspace in many clauses. This is, as the Minister has described, paving legislation, a framework designed to be filled in later through secondary powers, CAA rules and ministerial directions, whose details we are as yet to see paving legislation, as we've heard from many other peers, is, by its nature, raises more questions than it answers.

But I personally remain hopeful that we will either get all those answers in a few minutes, or certainly in committee stages, especially with the work of other noble peers such as Lord Tunnicliffe. Particularly welcome was the minister's engagement with some of us beforehand. My noble friend Earl Russell also Lord Barber last week it gave me an opportunity to raise with the Minister in particular concerns of my noble friend Baroness Brinton and others, and what they will pursue in committee because of lived experiences of disabled passengers, and that remains a serious and unacceptable part of modern air travel.

Our advanced conversations did go some way to providing reassurance, in particular, that this bill is not intended as a vehicle for airport expansion. We take that in good faith, but good faith is really the same as an absolute guarantee. So we welcome the reassurances already given from the Dispatch Box. It will come as no surprise to the Minister that we will be seeking more, and he will understand why, as a long standing resident of Richmond, he will be only too well aware of the demands as set out by the noble Baroness Bray and the demands and needs of local communities who are under flight paths.

The Minister mentioned Airports National Policy statement, and that this would be the way or the opportunity for MPs and peers to scrutinise any changes. But he will also understand that we will seek to try and embed that within some kind of statutory status, and he'll be aware that scrutiny of a statement doesn't sound very strong or a strong opportunity for scrutiny. So firstly, I want to ask the Minister directly, can he confirm on the record when he sums up that the powers in this bill, including those relating to slot allocation and airspace direction, will not be used in any way to facilitate expansion at Heathrow or Gatwick? If airport expansion is on the agenda, then frankly, my Lords, this House deserves a very different piece of legislation, one with substantive provisions on the face of the bill, full environmental impact requirements written into statute and meaningful parliamentary scrutiny at every stage.

That points to a broader concern about this bill's reliance on secondary legislation. The government is asking this House to endorse a framework before we have sight of the regulations that will give it the substance. My Lords, it's a bit like being asked to buy a house without seeing any of the rooms in it. It's a regular practice that the Conservative and Labour parties in this House do not vote down Statutory Instruments or do not support fatal motions, but without the heft and suggestion of that, we will not achieve what we want to achieve, which is having, you know, kind of detailed potential for scrutiny within this bill.

So sometimes I miss the noble Lord Rooker on these occasions because he will say, just vote for the fatal motion, and then the civil servants will have to work the detail out. It's a bit of a brutal instrument, but it is sometimes the only place we are left. And of course, it is entirely academic because the Conservatives will never support a fatal motion or rarely, rarely do. And so, you know, kind of that is the only way if secondary legislation is the only direction on the face of the bill, the consumer protection provisions, the new CAA rule making powers, the reforms to slot allocation, and the Secretary of State's direction over airspace change all carry significant implications.

And yet again, we will need more clarity on that. What I consider to be one of the most consequential provisions, those relating to slot allocation and airspace change. The bill will allow the Secretary of State to make directions about the implementation of airspace changes, slot and airspace decisions are not merely technical, they are levers over airport capacity, a reallocation of slots at a level three coordinated airport, combined with changes to airspace design and air traffic redistribution, can have the practical effect of facilitating expansion.

Even when the expansion has not been presented to parliament or to communities as a discrete, clear policy choice. Communities living under flight paths, enduring the noise and breathing the emissions deserve better than to find out that that outcome enabled quietly, through delegated legislation, any exercise of these powers that has the practical effect of facilitating increased capacity must be preceded by meaningful community consultation and a proper environmental impact assessment. So my second question to the Minister what environmental and noise tests will apply before the Secretary of State exercises directions under this bill? And like the noble Lord Harper, I'm intrigued to learn what happened to the consultation in 2023, I believe.

Is that right? And I noticed that in the notes that we had when we met with the noble Lord, the Minister, there was an assurance that no decisions on specific changes to the airport slots regime have been made. Yet industry views will be sought, including through formal consultation. What it doesn't reference is consultation of communities on that. So I wonder if he can elaborate on that. Along with, I thought, the very useful consultation of pilots as set out by the noble Lord Barber.

Now, to the part of the Bill that we hope is, at its heart, consumer and passenger protection. The Bill will grant powers to the UK to diverge from the retained EU law as it relates to the aviation industry, and it is critical that where this is done, it does not come at the expense of passengers. UK 261 gives passengers rights to compensation for delays and cancellations. But as we've heard from noble Lords, it's been patchy. Last year CAA had to pursue enforcement action to recover over £1 million in refunds owed to passengers for just one budget airline.

It should not require a regulator to chase each airline individually for compliance with basic rights. The EU is currently reforming, as we know EU 261, including maintaining the right to compensation after a three hour delay and banning fees for basic check in and child seating. And I would be intrigued to know whether the government intends to keep pace with that or. I don't want us to follow that. If it is a low common denominator, let's pursue the highest common denominator, whether it is EU two, six one or UK 261.

We also believe there's a compelling case for a passenger charter embedded in this legislation. A clear, accessible statement of a passenger first approach with statutory weight not buried in guidance. And no one could have made a more eloquent case for something along those lines. So I hope she will support it, but I suspect not, given the bench she sits on for from Baroness Gill, and she gave a very eloquent argument about what I think should be a passenger charter on accessibility.

The. We must. The new regulatory framework must ensure the CAA has robust enforcement powers over accessibility rights, not just in guidance. My noble friend Baroness Brinton shares similar experiences to those outlined by Baroness Grey-Thompson, Baroness Ramzi's, mum Baroness Hollins and Baroness Griffin. She has shared in the past with with this House the appalling experience at the hands of Wizz Go, who insisted on the impossible task of her removing and carrying two large batteries from her wheelchair.

Bigger than bus batteries. She was evicted from a flight stuck in Bucharest for seven hours, and then had to pay an additional £900 to get home. So we will work with others to ensure that measures such as something that the noble Baroness Brinton is suggesting. A wheelchair passport is included in this bill on clause A, and the new powers relating to CAA rules. We want to understand the scope of those powers when they can be exercised and what parliamentary procedures apply.

We look forward to guidance from the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee's report. We haven't seen that as yet, and the accumulation of wide delegated powers in this bill deserves this House's sustained and skilled scrutiny. It is no surprise that so many noble peers raise this and rightly reference it as an issue. And amongst those, Baroness Dacre Foster, Bray Kirkup and the noble Lord Tunnicliffe finally wear high quality rail alternatives exist or can be developed. They should be promoted, as described by my noble friend Earl Russell Eurostar's potential to connect more of Britain to more of Europe is one such opportunity, not a substitute for all aviation, but part of an intelligent and integrated transport framework that this bill should sit within the climate emergency means we can't ignore this issue.

As Lord MP made clear, and I would very gently refer the noble Baroness Jones. According to recent research by Climate Outreach, that her own party dramatically reduced their own references to the climate emergency in the local elections. I'm very happy to send the research on, and that the Liberal Democrats were much more explicit on that issue. My Lords, we will engage with this bill at every stage. We will welcome its stated consumer protection goals. We will test its environmental safeguards.

We will scrutinise its delegated powers, and we will ensure that communities and passengers sit at the centre of whatever framework emerges. I look forward to the Minister's response and to a thorough Committee stage.
19:48
Lord Moylan Portrait Lord Moylan (Conservative)
-
-
My Lords, it has. Been an >> My Lords, it has. Been an excellent debate. Most of my points excellent debate. Most of my points have been made and in the course of the afternoon I've been tearing up and disposing of parts of the speech that was prepared for me. So I hope noble Lords will forgive me if what's left is a little bit disjointed. I want to start by thanking the officials who provided me with a briefing, and the Minister, the noble Lord, the Minister for arranging that.

And I want to thank noble Lords for their speeches. I learnt a great deal. I learnt in particular about the experience of those with disabilities. I, from my my own background, have had to engage with those having disabilities, having experiences with disabilities on on trains and on the railways in particular, and to hear the stories today about those who've had problems in the air and the sorts of problems they've had and the responses they've encountered has been a very important experience for me.

And I can certainly say that we will consider sympathetically amendments brought forward to try to offer some sort of redress. I hope, in fact, that some of those amendments could be brought forward by the government, because I know that the noble Lord, the Minister, is himself not unsympathetic to that case, and I would have thought that it would be helpful all round if the government could, in fact, take a lead with those amendments. But but if they don't, I'm sure others in the in your Lordships House will do so like other noble Lords.

I want what this bill does. I want, for example, the powers gap as it's known to be filled. That's the fact that the retained EU Law Act expires on the 23rd of June, and there's a whole range of areas that we can no longer make regulations for without primary legislation. This bill addresses that in respect of aviation, civil aviation. In fact, as the noble Lord the Minister knows, I have been berating him in various fora in the last couple of months to say, what are you doing about this, this powers gap that's arising on the 23rd of June, and I'm still going to take time out now to berate him about it, because while this is this is this is dealt with in relation to aviation, his department still has no answer in relation to marine regulation of the marine sector, for example, and, and other areas where we are going to be left completely bereft as a result of a perfectly foreseeable development, namely the expiry expiration of an act which was passed several years ago on a known date, which happens to be this month.

And it's not just if I can go beyond that, it's not just the Department for transport that is affected by the powers gap, but other departments as well. But the government has done nothing except in regard to aviation. So we want to see that done. We want to see airspace modernised. We want to give, and this is my way of putting it. We want to give a legal basis for passenger protection rights to substitute for the the basis in EU law, which no longer which will no longer exist.

And that is what the bill does. It creates a legal basis for those passenger rights. We want to see that done. But I don't think really we want to see it done this way. We don't really want to see it done by the creation of a huge, baggy, all powerful, regular new regulatory body. We've had 25 years of creating regulators as the answer to everything, and it doesn't work. We've had 25 years of taking powers away from Ministers and from Parliament and giving them to wholly unaccountable regulators, and here we are doing it again.

The Civil Aviation Authority is essentially a safety regulator, an economic regulator and a regulator of airspace. It is a very focussed body and it's very good. We're now giving it a far broader range of powers and we're giving it powers so great that if you look at the memorandum and I'm going to read out the bits of it that matter, the memorandum on on the European Convention on Human Rights, we find that clause one engages article six, article eight, and the first and article one of the first protocol clauses two and three engage article six and article ten, clauses 4 to 6 engage article six and.

And the first article of the and and article one of the first protocol. Clause seven engages the first article. Article one of the first protocol call clause eight engages article six and article seven. Clause nine engages article six. Whole swathes of this bill are open to challenge. Now, of course, it's the case that civil servants believe that those challenges, that they can rebut those challenges in court. But effectively, a very large. No wonder my noble friend Lord Redwood talked about the possibility of delay, in effect, a very large parts of this bill will be determined not in this Parliament, but in a foreign court, as we discover whether in fact these clauses stand, should they be challenged? Well, the powers it's just an illustration of how wide the powers are that are being transferred.

Parts of the bill. I some I think I almost feel were written by the Civil Aviation Authority. I'm going to come to some of them. But there's also the question of delegated powers now, tomorrow or soon after tomorrow, thanks to the information offered by the noble Baroness, Lady Ramsey of Wall Heath, we are going to wall Heath. We are going to get the report of the Delegated Powers Committee. There are extensive, huge swathes of power is being delegated to the Civil Aviation Authority and there are extensive.

Henry. The Eighth clauses in the bill. All of this needs to be explored and the role of Parliament in all of this needs to be properly understood. At the moment we are being. We are being emasculated in this. I do not see. With these great swathes of powers being granted the CAA. Any provision in the Bill for parliamentary accountability or need for any accountability by the CAA to anybody, including to the Minister, how can that be an acceptable way of making law and regulation for the future? I'm going to disappoint the noble Lord Lord Tunnicliffe, but I do want to say before disappointing him, that I thought that his speech was one of the most one of the most interesting made in the course of the debate because he brought alive for me in a rather remarkable way the experience of being a pilot, even if not a captain being a pilot, and the things that can happen, he brought that alive.

I know other noble Lords spoke with that experience, but I greatly enjoyed his speech and learnt from it. But I'm going to disappoint him because I'm afraid it is true. Of course I agree with him. It is true that you should, in drafting and preparing regulations, you should consult people who know about things. You should consult pilots, you should consult airlines and so forth and bring them together. But that can be done alongside having proper parliamentary scrutiny. And while, of course, the the Statutory Instrument is an unsatisfactory method for doing so, it is the only one we've got.

And to give up on it completely, I think, would be an abandonment of of our duty clause one. If I just turn, I'm going to run through some of the clauses and I say a lot of my points have been made and I'm not going to make them. I'm not going to try not to repeat them. But I do think there are some things that need to be raised. Clause one in subsection three gives the Secretary of State the power to confer enforcement powers on the CAA.

So why do we need clause two, clause two, then? This is one of the bits I think was written by the CAA clause two then. Then puts all of those powers which the. Which the Secretary of State has the power to confer already puts them all on the face of the Bill. And these powers are extremely extensive. So what is what is going on there? And then we have the question in schedule one, paragraph six, subsection three. E creates provisions for the Secretary of State to manage what's going on.

If two bodies, two bodies are doing the same enforcement. Now, I don't know which two bodies he means, but I suspect it could be the Civil Aviation Authority and the Competition and Markets Authority, but it might be others. And it's one of the principles of enforcement. One of the things that those of us with local government experience come across all the time is that there should be, for one crime, there should be one enforcement agency and one prosecutor only. That way you get clarity.

And as somebody avoid being punished twice for the same thing. We're actually building dual enforcement into it and then giving the Secretary of State some power to sort of manage it from the centre. The bill shouldn't be doing something like that. What it should be doing is having clarity about the enforcement, one or the other. Not both. Not more than, not more than and certainly not more than two. If I come to clause four on airspace, airspace modernisation, subsection two of clause four amends section two of the air traffic Management and Unmanned Aircraft Act 2021 to extend the existing ministerial direction powers so the Secretary of State can compel implementation of approved air sport airport changes.

This is what we're calling the last resort level. In the last resort, the Minister can step in and force things to happen, but there's nothing in here. And here I echo remarks made by the noble Baroness, Lady Grender, and by my noble friend Lady Bray. There's nothing in here about the consultation of communities who are going to be affected by airspace modernisation. There will inevitably be winners and losers from that. So where are the communities in this? There's no answer to that.

But the Secretary of State, he can exercise that lever without any regard to community consideration. Isn't that too large a power for the Secretary of State to have clause eight on on CAA rulemaking is another example. I think, of something which another example of part of the bill, which I think must have been written by the Civil Aviation Authority. It is astonishingly extensive. First of all, I want to know what a rule is. I mean, we have a rule in we have rules in football.

You have the offside rule. I know what a law is, but I don't know what a rule is. But the CAA is what is the force of a rule? Does it have the force of law? The CAA is going to make rules. It has no accountability in how it's going to make rules. There is no requirement in the bill, particularly about consultation. And then we have and this must be one of the most bizarre things that anyone has ever written into a bill.

And this is one of the reasons I think the CAA wrote it. We have in schedule a schedule one, which is the part that relates to rule eight in new paragraph 61 F new clause 61 F we have the power. Just listen to this for the Secretary of State to issue a document. Note careful avoidance of the word guidance to issue a document that sets out the Secretary of State's priorities and objectives for the exercise of the CAA rulemaking functions.

No problem with that. That makes a great deal of sense. We then go down to subsection six B, or subsection six, which says the Secretary of State A must consult the CAA in preparing or revising the document. And B, just listen to this may not issue the document without the agreement of the CAA to the contents of the document. So we have an arrangement where the Secretary of State is allowed to affect to give effectively guidance. Of course, if you use the word guidance because that has a legal meaning, but it is effectively guidance, I hope, effectively to give guidance in the CAA which the CAA can veto.

I mean, does anyone read these things before they actually print them? How can how can that possibly be justified? And then we come to clause nine. Clause nine offences. Nobody. This is no criticism of noble Lords, but nobody in the course of this debate has mentioned the fact that the CAA is being given the power to create criminal offences, criminal offences, something that Parliament normally reserves to itself. But the CAA can create criminal offences and you can go, you can get a fine, you can be taken to the magistrates court and you can get a fine.

And again, how, how what is the parliamentary scrutiny for that? What's the justification for leaving that in just that fashion? We also then have the Henry the Eighth powers. Now these are completely unnecessary, completely unnecessary if I slip through because the government's own delegated powers memorandum, which it has written for the benefit of the Delegated Powers Committee, identifies every act that this bill interacts with and states that those amendments are already made on the face of the bill.

So why should they need Henry the Eighth Powers to amend further legislation? What further legislation? If they've already identified all the legislation with which the bill interacts, unnecessary? Henry. The Eighth powers loaded in with are simply not needed. My Lords, we support aviation. I agree with everything that's been said about its economic importance and about its contribution to growth. I cannot nonetheless allow the government to sit there and say that that is solely their objective when they have done so much damage to aviation in the country, it's them themselves.

The SAF mandate, for example, is adding significantly to the costs of fuel, and that is feeding through to what passengers are having to pay. And then we have the astonishing, the the bone crunching increases in business rates being imposed on airports. This bill could be a chance for the government to do something for the benefit of aviation and to make good on its commitment to use aviation as a means for growth. It could be that it needs drastic change.

If it is to do so credibly.
20:05
Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill Portrait Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill, Minister of State (Department for Transport) (Labour)
-
-
Yeah, yeah. >> My Lords, I thank those who have engaged in today's debate on the bill. I've listened carefully and with much interest to the excellent points being raised across your points being raised across your Lordships House. I will attempt to respond to as many questions and concerns as possible, and where I have not been able to. I will follow up in writing as my. As. As the noble Lord Moylan says, the. It is likely to make. My own contribution is likely to be a little disjointed, even though the.

This bill is is constrained as to its. As to its effect, and I also. I am in agreement with the noble Lord Moylan as much that I've learned about from many of the contributions today, I think I should start with consumer protection because virtually every noble Lord who spoke on that, on that aspect of this bill was, I think, supportive of, of the of the intention of the bill and a number of noble Lords. Baroness Baroness Grey-Thompson Baroness Ramsey of Wall Heath.

Baroness Dacres of Lewisham Baron. Lord Holmes of Richmond, Baroness Thornton and Baroness Gill, and Baroness Griffin Griffin of Princethorpe spoke passionately and and and with great strength of feeling about the inadequacy of some of the actuality that people have faced, particularly if they're disabled, whether they're physically disabled or neurodivergent or with sensory issues about air travel. And that's why the government has brought this forward, because actually it, it, it it doesn't accept that that's inevitable.

Lord Holmes of Richmond was kind enough to say that he knows that. I've had some previous encounters with this, and the bus services bill and the Railway Passenger Services bill. And I think in this circumstance, there's clear evidence that the government needs to take action and that the action it needs to take is to enable the civil, Civil Aviation Authority to deal with this subject much more easily in future than it has done, than it has been able to in the past.

And the the fact that it's only managed one prosecution and that's taken four years is evidence that its existing powers aren't sufficient. And that's why that's why we're we're bringing we're bringing this forward. We are particularly grateful to Baroness Grey-Thompson for chairing the Task and Finish Group I. I will write to her about with a current update about where those. I think 16 conclusions have got to, and we are determined to do something about this because access to aviation should be for everybody and not just not not just people who are, who are, who are physically and mentally fit.

And I, I, I, I won't go through in greater detail the experiences of noble Lords who've, who've spoken other than to say that there ought to be real redress about all this in a way that there currently isn't. I noted particularly that Lord Holmes referred to inclusion by design. And I'll take that away and think about how, whether or not we how to what extent this bill covers this, this circumstance. And I do think that we need to make progress on this because it is unacceptable.

And the stories both of the individuals concerned, which we've heard about today, and people who are able to make a noise about their, about their, their, about their experiences, means that we should make a change. Baroness Griffin of, of Princethorpe asked one particular question, which is the application of this to airports as well as airlines. And the answer is that it will apply to both. The question about divergence from from former EU protections. Now there are there are.

We've clearly heard different views today about whether or not we should be precisely aligned with the EU, but our position enables us to take a view about the extent to which we align with the EU. Not not foolishly diverging from things that are obviously obviously useful, but using the freedoms that we now have to, to, to, to do so. I'll turn, if I may, to airspace modernisation. And I think the first thing to say, the noble Lord Harper raised the question about whether or not any direction would affect existing rights to be consulted.

And indeed, Baroness Grender also raised that question. The answer is that there will. That this. Anything in this bill will not affect assisting existing rights to be consulted, and that must be right, because otherwise the existing procedures would have no effect in in terms of in terms of airspace modernisation. This is not of itself a measure for expansion and the expansion of, of, of capacity in, in most of the country is limited, in fact, by runway capacity. But this bill is designed to support the entire aviation sector, helping it grow and remain competitive for decades to come.

And some measures within the bill will support airport expansion across the UK, such as enabling further reforms to airport slot allocation and supporting airspace modernisation to meet future needs. They're not particular to expansion at Heathrow, and they are also needed for the broader objectives raised during this approach, and slot coordination can't increase capacity at an airport, but it can help manage that capacity more effectively. And the noble Baroness Grender and Earl Russell will know because we discussed it prior to prior to this Second Reading this afternoon, that one of the effects of of better of airspace modernisation and better utilisation of slots is to reduce delays and pollution by better using airspace rather than having a rather than having aircraft circling, circling around.

The. Lord. The noble Lord Kirkhope raised the question about the single guiding mind. The setup is now complete and it's starting work, and the noble Lord MP raised the capacity of Nats. We believe they do have capacity and notably, Baroness Foster of Oxton was very complimentary about the Civil Aviation Authority and Nats. And we agree with her. Actually, they do do a terrific job and it is important that we recognise the competence of the CIA as a, as a as a competent body to to do this.

Lord Barber of Ainsdale and Lord Tunnicliffe and indeed, Lord Kirkhope raised the question about the engagement of pilots. And in that we agree, the people who pilot planes should be consulted about aircraft, about airspace modernisation, and the noble Baroness Antrobus raised the whole question about drones for freight, blood, police and the military. And this is, of course, one of the main reasons for for looking at airspace modernisation and the charging mechanism too, which is these are new uses of airspace, and the users of them need to be airspace modernisation needs to allow for their use.

And the people who the people who are are using the drones need to be appropriate, be appropriately charged for it. The question about wider slot slot reform, Baroness Fox Allen of Oxford, said we should tread carefully and I think that we will tread carefully. The noble Lord Redwood said nothing will happen for ages. I paraphrase that in my own in my own words, I think we do have to be careful with some of these measures and we should do them properly.

But there's not everything in this which will be delayed forever. And indeed, actually the question of airspace modernisation, I think many people regard as urgent and we do to, and I also hope, going back to consumer consumer protection, that we regard that as urgent too, because that's been a scandal for far too long. So not everything in this bill will take years, years to do, but in particular with airspace modernisation and slots. Lord Tunnicliffe Lord Tunnicliffe gave us a very careful exposition about safety in the operation of, of, of, of, of, of airlines, of aircraft.

And we should be very careful to make sure that we, that we, that what we do in this space, what we and government bodies do in this space is always safe and is properly considered. Lord, the noble Lord MP raised the question about access to slots at Heathrow for regional flights, about which I. I know a little through some of my prior work. It isn't our intention to interfere with airport with airlines commercial decisions, but it does give powers. This. This bill will give powers that.

To allow the allocation of slots to be relevant to the evolving context of, of, of, of airlines. In, in, in, in relation to the questions about civil aviation delegation to the civil aviation and safety rules, we would acknowledge that actually we do need to be careful with this. And that's why the Secretary of State is retaining powers to direct. But we also need to be aware that actually this the the environment in which we are making aviation safety rules is highly technical and fast moving.

And I rather I was I too was interested to listen to the noble Lord Tunnicliffe with his experience of of, of business in the Moses room. And, and I think we are struggling to keep pace with evolving international standards. And that's why we propose to fix this by placing technical rule making with the CAA. We will, of course, listen very carefully indeed to the Delegated Powers Committee when we get their report, and I. I've no doubt at all bearing in mind the length of time the noble Lord Moylan spent on it, that we will spend a great deal of discussion about about the the virtues of doing this.

But we do have to remember that in the course of what we're trying, in the course of whatever we do here, we have to give this industry the ability to keep pace with international standards so that it can continue, as many of noble Lords have remarked, to make up the contribution to economic growth that it that it does. And I and I would go just go back to the previous remarks about the competence of the CAA. It CAA it is a good regulator, and of course, it will have to be staffed in order to.

In order to carry out the functions that this bill seeks to give it in, in the future. There was some debate also about. About other questions related to the. The delegation to the CIO. And I. And as I say, I've no doubt that we will we we will fully discuss that in, in, in in in in in committee. There are a number of other questions raised by noble Lords. The noble Lord Harper raised the question about whether the in the range of options for Heathrow expansion, the CAA has powers to implement all the options.

Our current position is that the CIA has not identified any new powers needed to implement the options that they've. That they've put forward. The noble Lord Davies of Gower raised the questions about general aviation. We ask that this government is supportive of general aviation. It does see the connection, particularly with training pilots and so forth. And it. And and it will continue to maintain its interest in general aviation. And it notes the importance of general aviation in airspace modernisation and will continue to consult it.

The the questions about which the noble Lord Barber of Ainsdale raised, and also the noble Lord Tunnicliffe about the future supply of pilots and the noble Lord Kirkhope. The government is mindful of future requirements of the industry. I'm sure that we can discuss that in the course of the Committee stage as well. We do recognise that to have a healthy industry, we need to develop new generations of pilots and there will be more to be said about that.

No. No doubt. The question about cabin air quality, which was raised by the noble Lord MP, was last looked at in 2022 when a review of current evidence concluded there was no there was no significant cause to think that ill effects were caused caused by it coming to the noble Baroness Grender contribution. Firstly, I welcome her to the. To the front bench of the of the Liberal Democrats and a number of. She's made a number of very strong points, which we will have to obviously answer answering committee.

I think I've dealt with the question about whether this is some surrogate vehicle for airport expansion and already. But I'm. No no doubt we'll discuss it. We'll we'll discuss it further. The. She expressed concerns about delegated powers, which of course will discuss. And her points about Eurostar are well made. And separately, this government is very committed to increasing international travel by rail as a means of. Because of course, if it can be done, then it leaves.

It is a. An environmentally friendly alternative to to air travel. I think that I. I could better answer many of the noble Lord Moylan points in committee because he'll make them again, no doubt, and and, and I, I could answer the questions, for example, about clause clause one setting out in clause two, why the details of the powers that are needed. And I think perhaps I should just answer that question because I think we've heard so much about the rights of people who use air travel that I don't think it's a bad thing at all to point out in the bill what we're trying to deal with in terms of the obligations of both airports and airlines to provide adequate service, both to, to, to all sorts of customers, including those who are disabled.

And I don't think that's a bad thing to do, and I don't I can't quite see how we can quite conclude that it's that it's such a difficult thing to, to, to contemplate. I won't keep the your Lordships any longer. It's been highly encouraging to see such passion and interest on the topic of aviation, and I've noted the broad consensus in favour of the. Both the important role that aviation can and does play in supporting our country, and also the broad consensus to have a Bill of this sort and to and to deal with the subjects which are contained within it, strengthening consumer economic rights, strengthening consumer rights and protections, and promoting economic growth and infrastructure provision, and in enabling improved safety standards, will ensure that the UK retains its its appeal as a competitive aviation hub.

It's been a privilege to present this bill to your Lordships House for the Second Reading. Once again, I reiterate my thanks to all Lords that have participated in today's debate. I welcome the support of many noble Lords who've spoken in favour of the bill's measure, and I look forward to detailed discussions we will have in committee. I beg to

**** Possible New Speaker ****

move. Question is this Bill be now read a second time. As many as I read a second time. As many as I have that opinion will say content contrary, not content. The contents

**** Possible New Speaker ****

habit. I beg to move the commitment

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I beg to move the commitment motion standing in my name on the Order Paper. The question is that this motion be agreed to. As many as are of that opinion will say content. Of the contrary, not content. The

**** Possible New Speaker ****

contents have it. My Lords, I beg to move the House to now adjourn.
This debate has concluded
Return to start of debate - Return to top of page