Heathrow: National Airports Review
Baroness Foster of Oxton Excerpts(4 days, 4 hours ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill (Lab)
I thank the noble Baroness for her contribution. In a very modest way, I have some background on the connectivity of the United Kingdom. It is of course the Government’s intention that a third runway would enable better connectivity to Heathrow from a variety of places within the United Kingdom. One of the difficulties with running an airport that is at 95% capacity and has been for a very long time is that this rather stifles internal connectivity for external international flights. The Government expect a third runway to facilitate more of that, so that there is more connectivity from various places within the United Kingdom to a lot of places outside it that can be accessed only from a hub airport.
Baroness Foster of Oxton (Con)
My Lords, I thank the Minister for his comprehensive comments. I have a special interest, as I worked out of Heathrow for 25 years. So I was at the sharp end of delays, and we definitely needed further runway capacity.
It is ironic that Heathrow was built over six runways. Over the decades they built on four with various terminals, and ended up with two. My criticism is for all sides and all Governments, because none were bold enough to look 25 years ago at building a third runway, notwithstanding that Heathrow is the major airport in the United Kingdom. It is not just about London.
The noble Baroness, Lady Pidgeon, made a point about sustainability and the environment. This is a red herring, because so much has been stopped by these environmental arguments. Notwithstanding the aerospace sector, we build the cleanest, greenest aircraft on the planet. Aviation is responsible for 3% of CO2 worldwide and approximately 4% across Europe, which does not mean to say that we always aim to improve these sorts of things, so that is rather a negative argument.
At present, the two runways are running at 98% capacity, and just a little fog or a delay sends things into a turmoil. So I support the Government’s decision to back the building of a third runway, and what we did before we lost power. It is tragic that these infrastructure projects are delayed. Notwithstanding that, I question the projected amount of money: £40 billion is ludicrous, and I am sure that businesses can come up with a far better figure.
The reason why we do not have a third runway is nothing to do with the Government Benches or the Conservative Party: the reason, and why we have the problems with Heathrow expansion, is because of the Liberal Democrats. The noble Baroness explained perfectly all the reasons why we should not have one; it really is not good enough in 2025.
Aviation Safety (Amendment) Regulations 2025
Baroness Foster of Oxton Excerpts(2 weeks, 2 days ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Foster of Oxton (Con)
My Lords, I thank the Minister for his comprehensive outline of this topic. I seek clarification on two areas.
In paragraph 6.4 of the EM, reference is made to low-risk parts. Paragraph 5.4 also talks about allowing
“certain aircraft components to be installed without needing a Form 1, as long as they are declared safe by the design organisation”.
I want a little clarification here on what is defined as a low-risk part. I ask this for the right reasons, having spent 25 years in the industry—much of that time onboard aircraft—and having dealt with primary legislation for many years as a Member of the European Parliament.
In 1990, there was an incident involving a BAC 1-11. When a windscreen was replaced, the incorrect screws were used. That caused what we would have called a rapid decompression; they called it an explosive decompression. I knew the crew. The captain survived; he was swept out of the window. Since that accident, there was also a rise in fake parts, about which the industry was very concerned. Barcoding was introduced to ensure that the equipment, parts and components were all absolutely authentic.
My point is that the component that caused the accident was a tiny screw. You would look at it in the round as being a fairly low-risk component. It was just a general thing; it was nothing complex. I ask the Minister: what do the Government consider “low-risk parts”? Would they be used on certain parts of an aircraft that would not require a Form 1? We cannot be too general about these things because there is always a chain of events; the smallest component can cause a technical incident or accident. That is my first point.
My second point concerns drones. I drafted the drone report in the European Parliament in 2015. It was about the civil use of drones and the rise in the industry. The CAA has been extremely good. We have a fantastic organisation in it—as well as an excellent Department for Transport, if I may say so, having worked closely with many members of that department over time. My question is: does the CAA intend to delegate the assessment of drone pilot competency and of drones’ flightworthiness to third parties? The CAA has introduced excellent training for drone pilots—it did that itself—but who would these third parties be, in terms of taking over the role that the CAA currently holds, in which it is absolutely diligent in giving out licences?
Lord Kirkhope of Harrogate (Con)
My Lords, following on from my noble friend Lady Foster, I will touch on the second point she raised, because it is relevant. We have a situation where the CAA’s delegation and decision-making powers are being changed because of the nature of the arrangements with the European Union.
This whole set of regulations is part of a much broader project led by the CAA at the moment, which deals with, among other things, the simplification of the licensing and training of general aviation pilots—of which I am one. The issues around the changes in licensing are very important, because they bring about the ability of someone, who, like me, flies a single-engine piston aircraft, to fly an electric aircraft. I will not go into the shock-horror that the likelihood of me flying an electric aircraft is equivalent to my enthusiasm for driving an electric car, which is rather limited at the moment.
My question, which follows on from the point raised by my noble friend Lady Foster, is about the delegation of powers to the CAA. She raised a very good point on drones, but I would like the Minister to set out for us whether there were any changes as a result of these circumstances in the agencies, which can have a delegation from the CAA to make decisions, and whether that is adequate in terms of who looks into which agencies can have those delegated powers.
I will raise another point. This statutory instrument does not appear to have happened through impact assessments or anything else; it is a usual statutory instrument where nothing seems to have been necessary to draw to anyone’s attention. To what extent are the resources of the CAA being tested, as a result of these regulations or of ones that have been envisaged? As I think we are all aware, the CAA is short of cash. It is already doing a considerable number of functions, including coming up to date on the things that I have referred to: technology, licensing, the training of pilots and so on.
There is also the question of safety, which develops inexorably as we go along due to the rise of new-generation aircraft. There is also the issue around airports, including the changes in the control zone basis of airports, which must be costing the CAA considerable sums of money. Can the Minister also confirm that there are adequate resources for the operation of the CAA to pay agencies or others to which it delegates powers, and that he is satisfied that we will not need to go back to the Treasury and ask it for more cash? Safety in the air—the safety of training and the other uses of pilots et cetera—must be paramount if our skies are to be secure.
Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill (Lab)
My Lords, I thank all noble Lords for attending the debate and for their input. I listened intently to the highly experienced noble Baroness, Lady Foster. She raised a valuable point about the minute parts that might cause a serious failure. I recall the example used, albeit not as a practitioner. The answer to that is that type certificate holders will have a design process in place to establish the potential failure impact of every part, and that design process has to be established by the CAA as adequate. Any potential failure must be shown to have a negligible effect on the functioning of the aircraft. The screw that the noble Baroness referred to, part of the assembly of a windscreen, would be considered within the design process so that it would not be excluded from form 1 if the design process for the more major component was safety critical. You could not exclude the screws and still have the windscreen assembly—that is the practical answer to that question.
The noble Baroness asked who the CAA will delegate to. I cannot give her the names of the third parties, but the CAA has set out stringent requirements for third parties to be qualified entities. Qualified entities will be subject to an audit regime to ensure continuing compliance with the CAA’s requirements. They will clearly need sufficient subject matter expertise and regulation capacity, and the CAA will accredit and monitor their performance to ensure continuing safety. The CAA has to set out in detail how it intends to assess the competence of qualified entities for drone flightworthiness, assessment and training. It has experience of doing that in respect of how it dealt with the pilots of fixed-wing and rotary aircraft, so we are entitled to conclude that those processes are robust.
The noble Lord, Lord Kirkhope, referred to the delegation of powers. The criteria are more or less what I have just said, but if there is any omission from the explanation that I should have given as a consequence of his question, I will write forthwith. As for the testing of adequate resources for the Civil Aviation Authority, I believe that it is the Government’s responsibility to ensure that the resources are adequate and that it has adequate resources to pay the agencies to which this work should be delegated. Again, for the avoidance of doubt, I will write to the noble Lord and confirm that that is the case in respect of this element of these regulations.
The noble Lord, Lord Moylan, rightly asked whether the department, and I as the Minister proposing these regulations, take responsibility for them and for the proposal to delegate. The answer to that is, of course, yes. The department should not propose such regulations without feeling confident that it is competent to propose them and that what it is proposing is the right thing to do.
I believe that I have answered all the points raised. I conclude by saying again that the safety of aviation and of the travelling public is a priority for the Government. My department is committed to ensuring that aviation remains safe. The draft regulations form part of an important legislative programme which implements proportionate best practice in aviation safety regulation. I commend the regulations to the Committee.
Baroness Foster of Oxton (Con)
When I referred to the screws, the noble Lord quite rightly pointed out that we were looking at the design, et cetera, which makes sure that it is a bona fide part. The air accident that took place was not because the screws themselves were badly designed, or that they failed because of what they were, it was when they were fitted—it was the incorrect component. There is a differentiation here between something failing because of a design fault and something failing because the incorrect component has been fitted into a specific, probably critical, area of an aircraft. Could I just leave that with the noble Lord? I thank him.
Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill (Lab)
I am very happy that the noble Baroness leaves it with me. I will make sure that I write to her. I recognise the issue that we are dealing with—the incorrect fitment of correct components.
Flight Cancellations
Baroness Foster of Oxton Excerpts(11 months, 3 weeks ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill (Lab)
It is clearly wrong for the transport provider and the airport to know that a flight is cancelled, but for the passengers not to know. Similar circumstances sometimes apply on other transport modes and it is unacceptable there, too. I agree with the noble Baroness that it is unacceptable: what needs to be done about it is another matter. I will speak further to my honourable friend the Aviation Minister to see what needs to be done to stop this practice. It is unacceptable.
Baroness Foster of Oxton (Con)
My Lords, Regulation 261 is actually a robust regulation and I do not believe that the compensation is too little. In addition, in relation to the comment made by the noble Baroness regarding air traffic control issues, I do not believe that was the case either. However, there is clearly an issue here. Given the number of times this specific flight had been cancelled, with our noble colleagues, certainly those from Northern Ireland, so badly affected, it would be quite helpful, perhaps, if the Minister could speak with the Aviation Minister and get the CAA involved with this—because it deals directly with Regulation 261—to find out the specific issue to do with this flight. I do not believe it is a slots issue. Turning round and saying to passengers that this is an operational issue and giving people two hours’ notice, when they know that the flight has been cancelled the day before, means there is clearly something more going on. We would be very grateful if we could get more information on this specific issue, certainly to help our colleagues in Northern Ireland.
Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill (Lab)
If I were the airline concerned, I would not cancel this particular flight. It seems to me that having your operational business discussed in this House is probably not helpful to your reputation. But I shall otherwise do exactly what the noble Baroness suggests.
National Air Traffic Services: Operational Failure
Baroness Foster of Oxton Excerpts(2 years, 1 month ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Vere of Norbiton (Con)
As the noble Baroness will be well aware, we retained EU 261, which became UK 261, which puts certain obligations on the airlines to provide information on rights, refunds or rerouting, and care and assistance. Broadly, that is working very well. The CAA already takes action on the airlines not complying with that. The noble Baroness may have seen, a few weeks ago, that the CAA reached an agreement with Wizz Air to go back over many years to rectify some of the times when it had not treated passengers in line with those obligations. However, the Government will legislate, when parliamentary time allows, to give the CAA additional administrative powers to enforce consumer laws.
Baroness Foster of Oxton (Con)
My Lords, I was heavily involved in the original regulation 261 on passenger rights 20 years ago and I understand fully the criteria for exceptional circumstances, which was the case with NATS recently. However, can my noble friend tell us what mechanism is in place for the airlines to recover financial losses caused not only by the recent air traffic failure but by other third-party providers involved, such as ground handling companies, so that passengers can be compensated in a fair and proper way by the airlines?
Baroness Vere of Norbiton (Con)
As I think I have already outlined, there is no mechanism by which airlines can seek financial compensation directly from NATS in this circumstance. However, there is a mechanism whereby charges can be reduced in the future if NATS does not meet its service targets.
Rail Strikes: Impact Assessment
Baroness Foster of Oxton Excerpts(2 years, 10 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Vere of Norbiton (Con)
My Lords, let us focus a little on the railway workers themselves. I have the utmost respect for the work that they do. During the pandemic, the Government supported the rail industry to an enormous amount. In fact, it was not the Government: it was the taxpayer. The amount was £31 billion, which is equivalent to £300,000 for every single worker in the industry. Not one of them lost their jobs and, even more, not one of them was even furloughed. The railway sector now needs to modernise. We need a seven-day railway and, in return for that modernisation, it is right that the Government have put a reasonable offer on the table. We believe that there should be a referendum among RMT members about that offer.
Baroness Foster of Oxton (Con)
My Lords, a number of us travel a great deal on the railways, and we are aware that there is now some disquiet with some members of the RMT about the situation that they are in. Many people do not know that members of the RMT do not receive strike pay, which is quite common in many other unions, so they are penalised every time they take a day off on strike and lose a full day’s pay. There is no remuneration at all. There is an offer on the table, and these negotiations have been going on for several months, so does my noble friend the Minister agree that we should put that offer to those workers themselves? Then we can determine whether the offer on the table is sufficient or not.
Baroness Vere of Norbiton (Con)
My noble friend is of course completely right. As the frequency of strikes has increased as we head towards Christmas, and of course over the special period that is Christmas itself, it is absolutely right that we ask the workers—or indeed that the RMT chooses to ask its workers—whether they can really afford this around Christmas, and to think about their long-term career within the railways and the damage being done to the ridership of the railways. We are going to see even lower demand than we did before. It is not going to make for a long-term sustainable solution.
M56 Motorway (Junctions 6 to 7) (Variable Speed Limits) Regulations 2022
Baroness Foster of Oxton Excerpts(3 years, 3 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Berkeley (Lab)
My Lords, I support most of what the noble Baroness said in introducing this short debate. We are starting to hear that the Government are changing metres into feet or miles, but that is completely irrelevant. I suspect that, as the noble Baroness said, this regulation and the policy behind it—if you can call it that—will cover the whole of the country before long. I believe that there are already 236 miles of smart motorway, and that 200 more miles are planned.
I will say a few words about safety, because that is what it is all about. The distance between the places where you can get off the motorway must relate to what happens to your vehicle and the fact that you need to stop. The noble Baroness mentioned a variety of distances between 2,500 metres and 1,000 metres, but there will be situations where even 1,000 metres is not long enough; it depends on the gradient, the speeds and everything else. It is relevant that the AA has banned its recovery crews from dealing with cars that have broken down on smart motorways because it is too dangerous. There has to be a solution. I do not know what the right distance is; it is sad that the Government have not got some proper data on all this—probably over five years, as the noble Baroness and the Transport Committee suggested—so that we have some information to talk about and to see how safety is affected.
Two things are pretty obvious. The first is around the enforcement of speed on these motorways. There may or may not be variable speeds, but it needs to be much more effective and consistent. The electronic vehicle detection machine is supposed to be the Government’s flagship—in other words, if a vehicle breaks down not in a layby but in the left-hand lane, variable message signs immediately come up, saying “Slow down: lane is blocked.” But the figure I have seen shows that this works in only 62% of the examples where a vehicle has stopped, presumably in the nearside lane. That is much too low, because it means that, for the other 38%, there is a good chance that the vehicle behind will run into the one that has stopped. I cannot see why that cannot work properly. The Government should avoid bringing any more of these into effect until they can get this vehicle detection system working.
I look forward to the Minister’s response. As the noble Baroness said, I am pleased she is here, because she has a lot of experience on roads and transport. This is a terrible mess. Frankly, when the Government ignore the House of Commons Transport Committee’s sensible report, and receive the comments that the noble Baroness mentioned in the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee’s report, it is as if they just want to ignore the whole lot and battle on regardless. I hope I am wrong.
Baroness Foster of Oxton (Con)
My Lords, the noble Baroness raises some serious and good points. However, I gently remind noble Lords of how these smart motorways came to pass. I recall that, in my time in the European Parliament as the transport spokesman—obviously covering road, rail, aviation and maritime—the huge push for smart motorways came from the regulations and directives in the European Parliament some years ago. This was not just about the UK. We found that many member states were having problems with capacity due to the growth in traffic, and it was about trying to look at a way that we did not have to build motorways in different parts of the country but just expand the ones that we had.
I fully acknowledge that there have clearly been some awful accidents due to the fact that there was no hard shoulder. When motorways were built in the first place, it was known that there could be a risk of accident—obviously, there is always the risk of accident—and it was paramount that there needed to be a safe space to go. I also understand that in some cases where there have been accidents, it has been very much a technological failure because the notification above the lane that it was closed, or the X, was not showing. People have then got confused, and of course some of the results of that have been appalling. There are also appalling accidents even for the miles of motorways where we have hard shoulders, which is why we have tried to make sure that people are alert if they pull in and why we now tell people to get out of their cars, notwithstanding the size of the lorries that sometimes have to pull in.
Can my noble friend say whether the Government are looking at how, for example, the technology can work, notwithstanding that we have spent millions expanding these motorways? I use the M6 with great frequency when I drive down here, and the M56 too, which the noble Baroness mentioned, and we have miles of full lanes where we are doing 60 miles an hour. We have had years of this expansion—obviously not of infrastructure—for all the right reasons on the motorways, to get the capacity, and we have been under terrible restrictions with roadworks; it is now even more infuriating that we have four lanes but are still all crawling along half of the time.
Notwithstanding the issue of technology, which clearly needs to be seen to be working and to work properly so that people and organisations have confidence, I look forward to the response from my noble friend. We need to move this on. As the noble Baroness opposite said, there is clearly a need for more laybys to access. This will take some time, because more roadworks will have to be started, but it is imperative that those can be put in place as quickly as possible.
Lord Tunnicliffe (Lab)
My Lords, the Government’s failed rollout of smart motorways costs lives, which is exactly why Members of this House have long warned of serious flaws. It is a tragedy that lives were lost before action was taken, and it is thanks only to the dedication of bereaved families that the rollout was paused at all. It is therefore beyond belief that the Government are still pressing ahead with new introductions.
Even in their current form, smart motorways, coupled with inadequate safety systems, are not fit for purpose, and clearly no adequate explanation has yet been offered for their further introduction. Unfortunately, the reality of this new scheme is even worse. The emergency areas in this new scheme have average spacings of 2.5 kilometres, which is much greater than the recommended separation of 1.5 kilometres. Before pressing ahead, the Minister needs to offer proper reassurances on the monitoring of CCTV, further reviews of the evidence and improved distances between refuge areas, at the very least.
Besides the well-noted safety concerns, there are also serious issues with the scrutiny afforded to these changes, not least the fact that the Explanatory Memorandum does not address any of these obvious issues. I hope that the Minister can provide such assurances today and address the points made in the noble Baroness’s Motion.
Rail Dispute: Michael Ford QC
Baroness Foster of Oxton Excerpts(3 years, 4 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Vere of Norbiton (Con)
I did not say what the noble Lord has just said I said. I said that the negotiations are between the employer and the union. I set out very clearly how and at what level those negotiations are taking place nationally. On the one hand, there are a set of negotiations with the Rail Delivery Group, which represents the train operating companies, and there are also negotiations going on with Network Rail, particularly around the reforms to transform—the important reforms that we need in order to have the modern and efficient railway that our country deserves.
Lord Ashton of Hyde (Con)
My Lords, I do not think that two noble Lords can stand up at once. It is the Conservatives’ turn.
Baroness Foster of Oxton (Con)
Thank you. My Lords, does my noble friend the Minister agree that these rail disputes are less about terms and conditions, and more about party politics?
Baroness Vere of Norbiton (Con)
The truth of the matter is that the negotiations that are happening, and have been offered daily, are about many different things. Sometimes things get narrowly conflated, or get very heated, but at the heart of all this is the fact that we must get a modern and efficient railway. The Government have that at the front of their mind and give the mandate to the employers—that is absolutely clear—and I hope that this will be resolved as soon as possible.
Queen’s Speech
Baroness Foster of Oxton Excerpts(3 years, 5 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Foster of Oxton (Con)
My Lords, it is an honour to take part in this debate on the humble Address and, in addition, to welcome the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Guildford to this House today. I also welcome the proposal outlined yesterday, but there is still much to do.
Domestic and international travel are integral to the success, or not, of the British economy. Hundreds of billions of pounds in revenue are generated by the free movement of people and goods, not just for the business and manufacturing sectors but for tourism. The pandemic literally decimated both for nigh on two years, and it makes the recovery that much more important when making decisions about what we do next.
Last night, I attended a dinner in London hosted by the Airport Operators Association. It was attended by more than 650 guests representing all UK airports and airlines, international airlines from across the globe, infrastructure companies dealing with navigation, IT and power, and of course the aerospace manufacturers. There were also the regulators, such as the CAA and NATS, along with all the representatives of the tourism sector.
It was clear that, in many cases, there is still a long way to go to get back to profit and to ensure that operational challenges can be addressed post Covid. Thousands of people were laid off and many companies —SMEs—went under, so it is vital that we as a Government do not create unnecessary bureaucracy and unworkable rules. Many employers are crying out to employ staff across the sectors and supply chains, but there is still a laissez-faire approach to working from home in too many quarters. You cannot run industries in this way. In addition, you do not always need graduates. There needs to be a much more robust and positive message from Government regarding the great careers and opportunities out there in the travel and tourism sectors. Clearly, apprenticeships are one way to do this, but we also have to look at the qualifications and training needed for the tourism sector, which are currently not being delivered by our education system.
This brings me to the lack of can-do, because it is also about passengers and customers. Despite restrictions being lifted, it is wholly unacceptable that the Passport Office, for example, is not delivering. This is not because people are panicking and sending in their passports, as I was informed; many are trying to renew their passports online and first-time applicants are also being badly affected. Along with position at the DVLA, this is wholly unacceptable.
This brings me to the responsibility on airlines and airports, some of which are leaving passengers standing outside for two or three hours, apparently because they do not have enough security or check-in staff. People spend their hard-earned cash to travel, and this third-world treatment is disgraceful and unacceptable. I do not know about noble Lords, but I am sick and tired of hearing Covid being used as an excuse to stop or delay practically everything we do or need to do, not to deliver on time or not to deliver the first- class customer service we pay for and should now be experiencing again.
The travel and tourism industry of the United Kingdom had a great reputation—83% of people fly in and out, along with millions of tonnes of freight, every year. This contributes to a huge underpinning of the entire supply chain, which creates and sustains 4 million jobs. But our world-class industries are being tainted. It is time for everyone in the public and private sectors to raise their game.
Two examples should be looked at again. School and youth groups are a £32.2 billion industry that has been decimated due to the UK no longer accepting ID cards as a form of entry from abroad. We should also consider reintroducing the VAT reclaim system, which was abolished in 2021. As one of the shopping capitals of the world, we are the only European country not to offer tax-free shopping—a £1.3 billion net benefit to the Treasury. These are just two examples where we need to look again.
The Government’s responsibility is now to crack on. The incessant negative messages on travel, across the piece, are doing as much damage as Covid. Extinction Rebellion and others are preaching one thing, only to turn up at an airport or stay in a hotel as often as anyone else. Hypocrisy rules, I am afraid. Positive messages and actions are needed. We need to get back to normal, so that our economy can benefit from the successes that the travel and tourism industry can deliver.
P&O Ferries
Baroness Foster of Oxton Excerpts(3 years, 7 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Vere of Norbiton (Con)
Of course, the Government are watching the services and their capacity levels very closely at the moment. Our assessment is that there is sufficient capacity with other operators. For example, at the short straits, Eurotunnel combined with the other operators will provide sufficient capacity. Obviously, we are monitoring this on an hourly basis and working very closely with operators to see how they can put on extra ships to ensure that freight and passengers are able to move appropriately.
Baroness Foster of Oxton (Con)
My Lords, as a former trade union negotiator, albeit in my past life and in the airline industry, there were times when we had to negotiate under the most difficult circumstances, particularly concerning downsizing or cost savings. Schemes such as early retirement, voluntary severance and, often, flexible contracts were ways to resolve this issue. Fortunately, we never had to dismiss an employee. Notwithstanding the appalling behaviour of P&O, as has been clearly echoed by Members across this Chamber, could the Minister tell me how long the negotiations took between the trade unions and P&O regarding these redundancies? Were the paid-up members of the trade unions aware of the consequences of an agreement not being reached between the trade unions and P&O? If the Minister does not have this information to hand at present, could she look into this matter with some urgency? In my opinion, while the trade unions are clearly not responsible for these job losses, they were a huge influence in the negotiations which took place.
Baroness Vere of Norbiton (Con)
I can say to my noble friend that we do not believe that there was consultation with the unions, which is one of the big problems here. We have asked for urgent information as to how many conversations there have been. It is our impression, at this current time, that there have not been any conversations. If there were none, that may well be unlawful. That would be up to the employees to challenge via a tribunal. It will also depend on where the jurisdiction for the contract of employment actually lands. My noble friend is quite right that we need to dig into this in an urgent way to ensure that unions are not locked out of these circumstances in the future.
Transport Act 2000 (Air Traffic Services Licence Modification Appeals) (Prescribed Aerodromes) Regulations 2022
Baroness Foster of Oxton Excerpts(3 years, 9 months ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Transport (Baroness Vere of Norbiton) (Con)
My Lords, these draft regulations will be made under the powers conferred by the Transport Act 2000. The regulations set out which airports may appeal licence modification decisions made by the Civil Aviation Authority, or CAA, in respect of the en-route air traffic services licence granted under Section 6 of the Transport Act 2000. In essence, this instrument will ensure that the aerodromes likely to be materially affected by a decision to modify a licence condition are able to appeal those decisions.
Air traffic management services in the UK fall into two categories. The first are terminal air navigation services provided at individual airports. They support arrivals, departures, and planes in the vicinity of the airport typically up to an altitude of 7,000 feet. This is a competitive market, with airports procuring these services from a number of possible organisations or providing their own. The second are for planes outside of these areas, such as planes at cruising altitude, or planes being guided to gateways where they can be handed over to terminal control services of airports. These services are delivered by a monopoly provider, regulated under the en-route air traffic licence.
The Air Traffic Management and Unmanned Aircraft Act 2021—the ATMUA Act—updated the Transport Act 2000 to give the CAA a more effective power to modify the conditions of air traffic services licences. Currently, the only licence which has been granted is held by NATS (En Route) plc, also known as NERL, to provide certain air traffic services in the United Kingdom. Under the previous framework, the CAA could only modify the conditions of this licence with consent from the licence holder or via a determination by the Competition and Markets Authority.
To modernise the licensing framework, alongside the powers to modify the licence conditions the Act also introduced a new appeal process into the Transport Act 2000, which gives appeal rights in respect of licence modifications to three parties. The first is NERL, the licence holder; the second is the owner or operator of an aircraft whose interests are materially affected by the decision; and/or an owner or manager of a “prescribed aerodrome” whose interests are materially affected by the decision. Should any of these parties wish to appeal the decision to modify a licence condition, they could appeal to the CMA on one of more of the following grounds, namely: that the decision was based on an error of fact; that the decision was wrong in law; and/or that an error was made in the exercise of a discretion. For the relevant aerodromes to be able to appeal licence modification decisions, they must be prescribed in secondary legislation, which is what this draft instrument seeks to do.
Turning to the content of the SI, the CAA can modify the conditions set out within NERL’s licence. A licence condition relates to operational matters, such as the requirements which the licence holder must meet to maximise safety and efficiency, and includes conditions relating to control of charges—the prices that users of NERL’s services pay for the services that they receive. To modify a licence condition, the CAA first must publish a notice in relation to the proposed modification. It must state that it is proposing to modify the licence and set out what the modification is, the reasons for it and its effect. It must then give a reasonable period for NERL and the other relevant stakeholders to make representations. The Department for Transport consulted on this policy in 2017. Stakeholders were broadly supportive of the policy and no aerodromes at the time requested additional appeal rights.
As the licence conditions include control of charges for the London approach service, the Government have decided that airport operators whose interests could be materially affected by the decision to modify a licence condition are likely to be airports receiving the London approach service from the licence holder, and that these aerodromes should be able to appeal these decisions on the grounds of fairness. The London approach service consists of the control and sequencing of flights between the licence holder’s en-route service, which will be quite high up, and which operationally include holding stacks, and the tower service at London airports, which is quite low down, and which is provided at each airport by an air navigation service provider under contract with the airport operator. Airports currently receiving the London approach service from NERL are Heathrow, Gatwick, Stansted, Luton and London City, and these regulations enable those airports to appeal. These regulations have been drafted in such a way as to ensure that in the future, should another aerodrome become part of the London approach service from NERL under its licence, it too will be able to appeal modifications to licence conditions.
This instrument will ensure that the aerodromes likely to be materially affected by a decision to modify a licence condition can appeal those decisions. It is as simple as that. I beg to move.
Baroness Foster of Oxton (Con)
My Lords, I thank my noble friend for the Explanatory Memorandum and the information she just gave us. There are two areas highlighted by the Explanatory Memorandum that are hugely important, which are the failures with computer systems and with NERL. But I want to raise another, which I hope has been fully rectified now. I was the rapporteur in the European Parliament in 2015 on the safe use of civil RPASs or drones, so I will reflect on what happened a couple of years ago, because this is a growing industry and we need to make sure we keep our eye on the ball.
As I recollect, between 19 and 21 December 2018, there were drone sightings at Gatwick. Regrettably, 140,000 passengers and 1,000 flights were affected. This was the biggest closure since the 2010 volcanic eruption in Iceland and, I have to say, the way it was handled became quite farcical. The airport spokesman said they could not do much about it, because there was no counter-drone technology when, actually, there was, albeit it was not at Gatwick then. It also ended with two people being arrested and, fortunately, released and paid compensation. It was not exactly a good look for the UK.
In addition, we must also realise the challenge of geo-fencing in the civil drones sector. This is particularly difficult for airfields, due to their geographical size. For example, Gatwick or Heathrow—a large airport—covers several square miles, but just in their infrastructure and to their boundaries or the end of the runways. That does not include the miles of airspace above, where an aircraft can be at risk either on ascent or descent. We know this is a huge challenge.
Nevertheless, the cost of the investigation was £800,000 and it had to include the police, military and the RAF in particular. The good news that followed was that Gatwick and others installed counter-drone technology in 2019, which is now available across all the appropriate airports in the United Kingdom.
We have a world-class civil aviation industry and reputation, which I am sure all noble Lords agree we must maintain. I ask my noble friend to give me the reassurance that the CAA, which is an excellent regulatory body, will continue to have clear and detailed oversight of this area to maintain our high standards, certainly in this growing industry.
The final point I raise, which will be covered by two other noble Lords so I will not cover it in too much detail, is regarding EGNOS. I was again a rapporteur in the European Parliament on GNSS, so I have a serious interest in the systems we require to make sure our airfields are well-equipped. Since, by all accounts, EGNOS was stopped last year, a number of our peripheral, small airports have been put in huge difficulty. We have flights either being cancelled or their safety jeopardised, for both passengers and crew. They are hugely reliant on life-saving services coming in, whether to take people to the hospitals on the mainland or for other reasons.
I will finalise on those points, because I think my noble friend is aware of them and has passed them on. We look forward to meeting with the appropriate Minister at some stage, and I thank her very much for taking these points on board.