Civil Aviation (Consumer Protection and Regulatory Reform) Bill [HL]

Lord Empey Excerpts

3rd reading
Monday 20th July 2026 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Grender (LD)]

My Lords, I am grateful for the opportunity to speak at Third Reading. I begin by thanking the Minister for the constructive way in which he and his officials have engaged with this House throughout its passage. I also record my gratitude to noble Lords across the House for the contributions they have made to the Bill at every stage. The scrutiny that this House has brought to bear, often from very different perspectives, has strengthened this legislation. I do not think that improvement would have happened without it.

I particularly welcome the Government’s agreement to bring forward a consultation on the experiences of disabled passengers—an addition to the Bill that I hope will make a real and lasting difference. For too long, disabled passengers have been left without the convenience or dignity that ought to be a basic expectation of air travel. I am glad that this House has secured a firm commitment embedded in the legislation to examine and address that failure properly.

I also welcome the corrective amendment the Minister has tabled for Third Reading, which addresses a technical deficiency identified by the Minister since Report. That kind of responsiveness does not always attend legislation of this kind, and it should be acknowledged.

I return to the principle that has guided my and my colleagues’ contributions throughout the passage of the Bill: that reform of aviation regulations should be directed first and foremost towards improving the passenger experience. The protections we have secured for disabled passengers and the standards the Bill now sets are what I will be watching for closely as it is implemented. Passengers do not experience aviation policy as clauses and statutes. They experience it as to whether they are treated with courtesy when a flight is delayed, whether they can travel with the support they need and whether the system as a whole is built around their interests rather than around convenience for everyone but them.

Too often in the past, passengers have been an afterthought in regulatory design. The Bill is an opportunity to correct that imbalance. I hope the Government will treat this not as the end of that work but as a foundation on which future improvements can and should be built. I close by expressing my thanks in particular to my Liberal Democrat Peer colleagues who have contributed to the Bill. My particular thanks, above all, go to Adam Bull in our Whips’ Office, for his diligence and unwavering support throughout its passage, for which I remain deeply grateful.

[Lord Empey (UUP)]

My Lords, I thought we were going to end on a positive note, but the departure gate gag has probably set us back quite a bit this afternoon.

I thank the Minister for his engagement and also thank the Bill team and the Public Bill Office. On Report, he indicated to me on the record that the Government did not have power to deal with the issue of slots. Subsequently, the Minister has indicated that he would like to clarify what he believes now is the position, and he promised he would put a letter in the Library of the House to confirm that. I thank him and all his team for their engagement. It was very nice to be dealing with a Minister who knows how to be a Minister.

[Baroness Finlay of Llandaff (CB)]

My Lords, I also thank the Minister, in particular for the exemplary way he has engaged with those of us who are Back-Benchers and on the Cross Benches over specific issues, and how he has facilitated moving forwards. If I may inform him, I have managed to secure a meeting with the CAA tomorrow morning, thanks to his intervention. I know that those who are disabled are also greatly relieved to know the seriousness with which he took the appalling situations in which they have often found themselves when travelling. I hope that he will continue, not only in his role but also in the way he has behaved towards all of us, because that personal contact has made it very easy to have very open discussions.

Civil Aviation (Consumer Protection and Regulatory Reform) Bill [HL]

Lord Empey Excerpts

Report stage
Monday 13th July 2026 Lords Chamber

[Lord Empey (UUP)]

My Lords, in support of the arguments advanced by the noble Lord, Lord Moylan, we discussed this in Committee among those of us who regularly use airports. As I recall, this phenomenon of airport drop-off charges started off at £1 not that long ago—in fact, some airports had a basket and the thing opened when you threw in the £1, and that was it—but it is now a significant expense and has moved on to £3 or £5, with some airports charging £8.50 or even more. The way this is going is in one direction.

Now, we understand that businesses have to survive and make money, but, if I may refer the House to the arguments put forward at the beginning of Report today on economic growth, this is not only a business cost but a tax on tourism and an inhibitor. It is becoming a significant issue, when you add in parking charges and so on.

We would all love people to be able to get to airports by public transport, but, very often, public transport is not integrated into airports in the way that we have all seen in other parts of the world. If you go to Schiphol, the trains run through the terminal, but that is not the case for many airports here. Realistically, if you come from a rural area or if a family with kids and a load of stuff are going on holiday, there is little opportunity to save on that cost. The noble Lord, Lord Moylan, has also made the point about disabled passengers, of whom we have spoken significantly, but this is not confined to people with physical disabilities; it is a charge on everybody and, in my opinion, the risk is that it just gets completely out of control.

My amendment has slightly different timescales and so on from that of the noble Lord, Lord Moylan, but that is neither here nor there. The fundamental point is that this revenue stream did not exist a relatively short time ago. It is rapidly increasing and it will continue to increase, either because the airports feel that it is a way of making money or because some people think that a policy that forces people away from the drop-off and on to public transport has its own advantages. However, that applies only in limited cases, and it is certainly not universally spread around the country.

In short, we need to take steps to get this matter under control. It is not a dramatic change in policy, but if we are focusing on economic growth, this is a business cost and is no different, in effect, from any other charge. I sincerely hope that the Minister will reflect and acknowledge that this is an area of activity that is growing and is currently out of control.

[Baroness O'Loan (CB)]

My Lords, I support the noble Lords, Lord Moylan and Lord Empey, on this issue of parking charges. In Belfast City Airport, which I use every week, there is a £4 charge to drop someone off, but if you are longer than 10 minutes, it rises to more than £20. The alternative is to use the short-stay car park.

I would just like to tell noble Lords what I paid for five visits over 14 days in June: for eight minutes, I paid £12; for 12 minutes, I paid £6.50; for 20 minutes, I paid £7; for 12 minutes, I paid £8; and for 13 minutes, I paid £8. So I wrote to the airport to ask how I was supposed to know what I would have to pay. I had already checked the website, which tells you that it costs £4 to drop someone off, but it does not tell you that you need to do so within 10 minutes. I got an email back from the airport, which said something really quite strange:

“we have introduced flexible drive-up rates in our Short Stay Car Park, meaning prices may vary depending on peak times and availability. These prices are displayed on the boards … Our three on-site car parks provide flexible options”.

I cannot understand what is meant by “flexible drive-up rates” and “prices may vary depending on peak times and availability”. The amount that we are being charged seems to be a figure that is pulled out of a hat.

I do not think that that is satisfactory, and there is a need for regulation on this. Customers coming into the airport—particularly the elderly and the disabled—have a difficulty in managing to get out quickly. Another aspect is that people who have to wait for baggage depend on the availability of baggage handlers to put their baggage on to the carousel in order to allow them to get out to the pick-up point where someone is picking them up. Sometimes you can wait for 10 or 15 minutes, and then you are into big-money charges.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill (Lab)]

I thank the noble Lords, Lord Moylan and Lord Empey, for re-tabling their amendments on airport drop-off charges. I will address them together.

I understand the concerns behind these amendments. Passengers should have clear, accessible information about travel options to and from airports, including drop-off, short-stay parking and free alternatives. The Government expect airports to act transparently and fairly, and reinforces this through regular engagement with the sector. However, these amendments are neither necessary nor proportionate. Most UK airports are privately owned and responsible for managing their roads and parking. Their arrangements are already subject to consumer protection law, competition law and industry standards, with enforcement and redress where practices are misleading, unfair or non-compliant. There are also established mechanisms to review airport drop-off charges where concerns arise.

The CAA has already examined airport surface access, including competition, consumer issues and the transparency of information on options and charges, and found insufficient evidence to justify a competition or consumer law investigation. Private parking operators are expected to comply with the sector’s code of practice, including requirements on clear signage, accessibility, penalty charge notices and appeals. The Government will continue to expect airports and operators to provide clear, accurate and accessible information before passengers travel. I say to the noble Baroness, Lady O’Loan, that if the information at Belfast City Airport is as unclear as she describes, she has a valid complaint.

Drop-off and parking charges support airports’ wider commercial and operational management. They can reduce congestion, improve traffic flow, support surface access strategies and fund passenger facilities, including cleaner transport options. Restricting them in primary legislation risks shifting other costs to passengers and undermining airports’ ability to manage congestion effectively. Almost all airports that charge for terminal drop-off provide free alternatives, such as shuttles. Airports should ensure that these options are clearly communicated in advance so that passengers can make informed choices. For those reasons, while I understand the noble Lords’ concerns, I ask them not to press their amendments.

[Lord Empey (UUP)]

Before the Minister sits down, he used the phrase competition, but is it not the case that, in the vast majority of cases, we are talking about monopolies? There is nobody to compete with because you have no choice. If you want to go to Heathrow, yes you have Gatwick as an alternative but it is miles away. There is really no competition here.

[Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill (Lab)]

I am referring to choices in the method of access to the airports, rather than the choice of airport itself.

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Lord Empey]

34: After Clause 3, insert the following new Clause—
“Responsibility for air quality standards on planes (1) Within 12 months of the day on which this Act is passed, the Secretary of State must conduct a review to establish responsibility for standards of air quality on civil aviation planes.(2) The review must—(a) make suggestions for which organisation should be responsible for standards of air quality on civil aviation planes, and(b) provide guidance for implementing a strategy for the establishment of standards of air quality on civil aviation planes.”

[Lord Empey (UUP)]

My Lords, we discussed this in Committee. It affects all of us who use aircraft on a regular basis—and, more importantly, those who fly and crew them, who live in a capsule with artificially filtered and pressurised air. Over the years, we have had examples of oil seals in engines leaking and vapour coming into the cabin, which has largely been down to either design faults or poor maintenance.

I have a close relative who works in the industry and spends his time in a cockpit. We know that, in that compressed environment, the air you breathe in can sometimes be contaminated with mineral oils, since the air is bled from the engines and pressurised, and in some cases heated, before being brought into the cabin. It is true that pilots quite frequently have a separate air supply from that of the passengers, but ultimately it all comes from the same fundamental source. The issue is contamination from these oils; they are there to help the engine, but this has the effect of breaking them down into their components, some of which can be toxic.

I am simply asking for the Secretary of State to

“conduct a review to establish responsibility for standards of air quality on civil aviation planes”.

We are now seeing longer journeys than ever, with people flying in an aircraft for 14, 15 or 16 hours. This issue is extremely important for those who earn a living in these environments and spend vast parts of their lives there. This is not a new phenomenon in industry; we have had it in mines, factories and all sorts of environments. In addition to being a location where passengers are carried, an aircraft is a location where people work. It therefore seems not unreasonable for us to pay significant and serious attention to this and ensure that we guarantee, as far as possible, the health and safety of the people who work in the industry and the rest of us who use it.

This amendment is not an unreasonable thing to ask for; it would not impose any huge burden on the Secretary of State, other than to review. We also need clear lines of responsibility. I hope the Minister can address this, because this amendment is not just about requiring a review of the health implications of long-term exposure to pressurised air. If we want to encourage people to join and use the sector, then they must be satisfied by the health and safety standards.

In proposed new subsection (2)(b), I have asked for the review to

“provide guidance for implementing a strategy for the establishment of standards of air quality on civil aviation planes”.

I think the Minister will find that that is not a burden on his department; it is a perfectly sensible and reasonable thing to do. Aircraft are places where we all spend a lot of time—some of us spend more time in them than others. If you work in one for your career, whether as a pilot or a member of the cabin crew, you are spending most of your working life in that environment, so it is not unreasonable for this to be reviewed and examined by the Secretary of State and that any necessary steps are taken. I beg to move.

[Baroness Finlay of Llandaff (CB)]

My Lords, I remind the House that I am president of the CO Research Trust. Cabin air quality is a critical issue. I am grateful to my noble friend Lord Empey for the way he introduced this group, and for co-signing my amendment.

My Amendment 37 would create a statutory duty on air operators to install continuous active monitoring for carbon monoxide and volatile organic compounds in the cockpit and passenger cabins, and provide an immediate alert to the crew and direct data reporting to the Civil Aviation Authority. I thank the Minister for meeting me last week and for the very constructive and open discussion we had. I hope he can confirm that the Civil Aviation Authority has the powers to act on cabin air quality and is willing to meet to see how we can best ensure this aspect of passenger and crew safety, as we would then not need to seek to put these powers in this primary legislation.

It has been interesting to go back over some air disaster reports, as the possibility of carbon monoxide and volatile compounds seems not to have been fully considered in some instances, along with questions over the possibility of fumes in the cockpit, even when pilot hyperventilation was noted. As we become increasingly aware of the dangers of low-level carbon monoxide exposure, particularly over prolonged periods, cabin air quality is critically important. I remind the House that HEPA filters deal with viral and similar particles in recycled cabin air but do not capture gases. In any case, carbon monoxide and volatile organic compounds enter the cabin’s air intake directly from the engine turbines—in other words, before the filters deal with recycled air.

In Grand Committee, the Minister referred to the committee on toxicity reporting that normal levels of chemicals found in cabin air are not likely to be harmful. But a fume event is not a normal occurrence, and we have to take a precautionary approach. It is a mechanical failure, for which carbon monoxide is an easily detected indicator of contaminated cabin air. Operators must report and investigate any suspected leaks, but the paradox is that an operator cannot report a suspected leak of carbon monoxide without any monitoring, as the gas is colourless and odourless, which explains why carbon monoxide exposures are undetected and unreported without monitoring.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill (Lab)]

I defer absolutely to the noble Baroness’s far superior knowledge. I think what she is referring to is the review that is currently being undertaken.

[Lord Empey (UUP)]

My Lords, I thank the Minister for the offer of a meeting with the CAA. I see from her head, which is about to nod off her shoulders, that the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay, agrees that this is a good idea, so I thank the Minister for that. It is a helpful contribution.

To the noble Baroness, Lady Foster of Oxton, I say that I would not wish at any point to frighten people away from aircraft. I feel I almost live in one as it is, and we all use them. However, we must remember that, as well as being a conveyance for passengers, an aircraft a workplace, which is the big difference. We have learned all about minute contamination. If we look back at the regulations that were enforced on what was supposed to come out of the nuclear power plant in the north-west of England and the levels of contamination that was allowed initially, which people said did no harm to anybody, we see that that is now down to about a thousandth of that. These things evolve with time, knowledge and so on. Nevertheless, the Minister has made a fair and reasonable offer and that is most helpful. Therefore, I beg leave to withdraw Amendment 34.

Amendment 34 withdrawn.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Foster of Oxton (Con)]

My Lords, I support the comments made by my noble friend Lord Grayling. I reiterate, as we had a very good debate in Committee, that, when the slot regulations were going through the European Parliament, even the Commission at that time, which liked to be involved in all sorts of things, acknowledged that it would not be involved in decisions about slots.

Slots are key to the value of any airline company, and they are regulated by the independent airport slots co-ordinator. We do not want to have, and we do not support, political and other influences that might not work to the benefit of the carriers and, subsequently, the passengers. As I mentioned, I therefore support the comments of my noble friend Lord Grayling.

[Lord Empey (UUP)]

My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Grayling, for his amendments, some of which are entirely complementary to what I want to achieve. I have been battling on this for a long number of years. I fully understand the point made by the noble Baroness, Lady Foster, about the value of an airline and how the slots are worth a lot of money—many millions of pounds, in many cases, depending on the time, and I can only see those values rising in the short term.

It is not that I would want the Minister to use hobnail boots to interfere with the slots regime, but there could be circumstances where—it is not impossible—given that we are in an international market and most of the airlines with slots at, say, Heathrow, are in effect international, the shareholdings of those could change. Let us suppose, for example, that a group such as IAG was purchased by a Middle East consortium; it might seek to maximise its profits from the use of the slots.

Let us take another example: regional airports. It is not a Northern Ireland issue. Let us suppose that that consortium decides, “We don’t need flights from Manchester to Heathrow; we could get rid of those”. Then the question would be: how would people get to the Cabinet? Would they have to take the bus? This is an extreme example, but the point is that a future shareholder could decide either to stop using a regional airport or to reduce the service to the point that it creates economic difficulties for a region. That requires a certain degree of interference by the state, because having inadequate regional connectivity is not simply a commercial matter. It is a matter that can affect regions. It can affect business. It could make regions less competitive, which has an impact on jobs and quality of life.

I got a Private Member’s Bill through this House twice, but we were then part of the European Union and the Minister said, “It’s a European competence; therefore, there is nothing I can do”, so that was that. But now we are in a different situation; we can do something. All I want the Minister to be able to say is that, in extremis, sufficient power exists—or that we will make sure that sufficient power exists—to ensure that the regions are not disadvantaged as a result of slots being removed from them and given to transatlantic or worldwide routes. This is not a difficult problem. Amendment 67 from the noble Lord, Lord Grayling, would give the Secretary of State a power to intervene, taking certain things into account. Therefore, I would have thought that it would be perfectly possible to have consensus on this, because nobody wants to see regions isolated or disadvantaged.

We have an opportunity now; it is within our own power. I accept entirely that we do not want to be messing around with the economics of a particular airline, but there could be circumstances in which the regions are put at risk. I hope the Minister will be able to satisfy me, the noble Lord, Lord Grayling, and others that this is not going to happen, and that he and the Secretary of State will have the powers to intervene if necessary.

[Baroness Grender (LD)]

My Lords, I turn first to Amendments 42 to 44. Although we understand the desire for commercial certainty, slot allocation is a strategic lever for regional connectivity, as described by the noble Lord, Lord Empey, and for national health. We strongly support his Amendment 46. Hub airports must provide adequate access for regional destinations. Regional routes must not be casualties of best-profit models.

On transparency, we support Amendments 47 and 48, which would mandate formal consultation and parliamentary statements before reforming the slot regime. As we have talked about in the past, Parliament and the public deserve to see evidence regarding impacts on competition and consumers before the rules of the game are fundamentally altered.

Procedurally, we support Amendments 52 and 53. All regulations under new Section 34A should be subject to the affirmative procedure, in our view. We welcome government Amendments 45 and 49, in particular, as referenced by the noble Lord, Lord Grayling, the removal of imprisonment for slot offences, which we see as a vital move toward proportionality. We welcome the Minister’s change on this.

--- Later in debate ---

I thank the noble Lord, Lord Moylan, for his amendments, which seek to require that all regulations relating to slots be subject to the affirmative procedure. I recognise the noble Lord’s desire for parliamentary scrutiny, but the provision is already tightly constrained. The negative procedure is used only where there is a significant threat to public health or another substantial reason, as noted in new Section 34A(2)(f), and only to make temporary changes to slot usage requirements. Requiring the affirmative procedure in every case would risk delaying the Government’s ability to respond swiftly to disruption in the aviation sector, where timely intervention may be essential.

[Lord Empey (UUP)]

Can I get some clarification on the Minister’s point about Amendment 46? Let us assume that, at this point in time, regional connectivity is adequate, which I believe it is. Therefore, I am not suggesting that existing slots be removed from an existing airline. What I am concerned about is this: if an airline decides to reallocate its slots for international flights, say, to the detriment of the regions, does the Secretary of State have any power to intervene to ensure that regional connectivity is maintained? I am not talking about new capacity or limiting capacity in existing slots. But, in the event that those slots might be reallocated to the detriment of a region, does the Secretary of State have any power to intervene, or are the Government merely a spectator?

[Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill (Lab)]

The answer to that is that the Secretary of State does not have any power to intervene because, as I said, the core principle of the slot allocation regime is that slots are allocated by an independent co-ordinator. There are suggestions from noble Lords opposite that in fact the Government should have less power here, so I am not sure that I see that the Secretary of State can easily intervene in something that is already allocated fairly neutrally and without bias towards any airline, airport or Government.

--- Later in debate ---

Tabled by

[Lord Empey]

46: Clause 7, page 8, line 2, at end insert—
“(2A) The regulations must make provision to ensure adequate slots at hub airports are allocated to flights from regional airports in the United Kingdom.(2B) In subsection (2A)—“hub airport” means an airport used as a transfer point for passengers from one flight to another in order to complete a route;“adequate” means at such a level so as to maintain national air infrastructure and regional economic growth.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment obliges the Secretary of State to regulate so that sufficient access to slots at hub airports such as Heathrow is allocated to flights from regional UK destinations.

[Lord Empey (UUP)]

It is not moved but it has not gone away.

Amendment 46 not moved.

Civil Aviation (Consumer Protection and Regulatory Reform) Bill [HL]

Lord Empey Excerpts

Committee stage
Thursday 18th June 2026 Grand Committee

[Lord Harper (Con)]

My Lords, I repeat my declaration of interest that I made on Tuesday as the non-exec chair of RVL Aviation.

I will say a word or two about the amendment from the noble Lord, Lord Grayling, and strongly support what he and the noble Baroness, Lady Bray, said. I wanted to ask the Minister to flesh out a bit the answer to the question that I asked at Second Reading. There are already consultation processes, as the noble Baroness, Lady Bray, mentioned. There is no specific one for the exercise of the direction power. I am keen that, if there are extra processes, they fit well together; we do not want one set of consultations at one stage and then, if the Minister decides to do some direction, another set. When the Minister responds and, I suspect, urges the noble Lord, Lord Grayling, not to press his amendment, I would welcome a clear exposition of how the current position works, how it would dovetail with any use of the power of direction that Ministers are taking in Clause 4, how they would expect to use it and how that would fit with the existing consultation mechanism. I am keen that we do not invent another consultation mechanism.

If that power of direction is taken and is used—although the Explanatory Notes say that they do not expect the Government to use it very much, as it is a backstop power—it is almost certainly going to be used in difficult or controversial circumstances, because it would not be needed otherwise. That is the position set out in the Explanatory Notes. It would be helpful to understand how that end-to-end process works. It may be that the Minister should come forward with an amendment on Report that sets out how the power would be used and consulted on, or at least how it will dovetail with existing consultation mechanisms. I am not clear about how that would currently work.

Finally, I back up the remarks made by the noble Lord, Lord Kirkhope, and the noble Viscount, Lord Goschen, about the charging mechanism. I want to set out some of the views from the International Air Transport Association. IATA strongly supports, as I do, and welcomes the Government’s intention to do airspace modernisation but has concerns about the charging regime. It thinks that the drafting is too broad and ambiguous, and risks undermining the international charging principles that exist.

IATA is also concerned—a concern shared by the noble Lords, Lord Kirkhope and Lord Moylan—about replacing the words

“operators or owners of aircraft”

with the undefined “persons”. It thinks that that significantly expands the pool of liable entities and breaks the link with service provision. It understands the need for flexibility for future entrants but think there should be a narrower definition that encompasses those but is not as broad as the one that exists.

IATA is also concerned about revised Section 75(7), which allows charges to be levied on the basis that services are merely

“available for use or benefit”,

irrespective of the actual use. That represents a fundamental shift away from usage-based charging, which is the agreed international regime.

IATA has a number of concerns, not about the principle of what the Government are doing. It recognises that there will be new users and technologies, and the need to change how charging is done, but there are some accepted principles about the user paying for these things. As the noble Lord, Lord Kirkhope, and the noble Viscount, Lord Goschen, said, that should be done proportionately, but it is not sufficiently backed up by the broad wording in the Bill as currently set out.

It would be helpful if the Minister could say what the thinking was behind the drafting; whether the Government agree with IATA’s views about whether the Bill is in accordance with existing principles; and whether the Bill would be improved by a tighter definition that absolutely encompassed new technologies such as drones and other potential things in the future but was not so broad, and explicitly reintroduced the link between the usage of airspace and the charging, rather than simply the theoretical benefit. The Bill would be improved if those changes were made, and I look forward to the Minister setting out the Government’s thinking about how its wording was arrived at.

[Lord Empey (UUP)]

My Lords, there are some positive amendments in this group. Amendments 60 and 61 are trying to get to the same place. If there are new arrangements for the management of airspace, that is code for motorways in the sky. But it also means that if there are new routes or a material intensification of a route, it is only right and proper that local people are consulted about it, because it can have a significant material impact on their lives.

Where perhaps the noble Lord, Lord Grayling, has the essence of the matter is that he specified a time. We could argue about whether 28 days is right, but the fundamental principle that he is pointing out is that consultations can be endless and open-ended and never reach a decision. Something needs to be put in to tie it down, provided consultees have adequate notice and there is an understanding. It is a bit like neighbourhood notification and planning applications. There are specific groups of people who need to be approached about this: the people over whom these aircraft will be flying, and those affected by other intensification activities, whether traffic or whatever. The amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Grayling, gets to the essence of this. Whether we settle on a specific number of days is another matter, but the principle has to be established.

I agree with the principle of the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Tunnicliffe, but I also accept that it would be inappropriate to specify a particular trade union, because they may change. There are pilots represented by other unions and some represented by none. That could change over time. If you specify the union in your legislation, that would be awkward. As the noble Lord said, we can find a form of words but the principle is the same. However technology may change, having air traffic controllers in the frame for that is common sense. These are the people who, day to day, have to do it. Also, as has been made clear, computer systems break down. We had a long debate on Tuesday over NATS and the breakdown there. The noble Lord is right. Pilots earn their money when the systems do not work, which is a regular occurrence.

By and large, there are some positive amendments in this group. However, I say to the noble Lord, Lord Tunnicliffe, that I would not specify a particular trade union. Other than that, I support these amendments. There are some positive ones.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Grayling (Con)]

My Lords, we now move on to the slots regime. My two amendments in this group, Amendments 66 and 68, are designed to press the Government to understand what they are trying to achieve and where the limits to that are.

I had always expected that, when we left the European Union, we would be able to have a less regulated slots regime, particularly once we and the European Union had taken the view that we would not stay part of the EASA. Fundamentally, we are talking about a private sector market, with privately owned airports or airports owned by third-party bodies—such as the local authorities in Manchester—and independent airlines. So the question is this: what do the Government actually need to do? What is the role of the Government in this space? Should the Government be determining how many airlines fly to an airport, how many slots are available to it and the circumstances in which slots can transfer between one organisation and another?

It seems to me that there are three things that the Government should be doing. I see the role of the Government in this as referee rather than regulator. I am concerned that the content of the clauses that relate to the slots regime give the Government extraordinarily sweeping powers. If I have a slight regret, it is that I did not provide for the removal of new subsection (4), which says:

“The regulations may make different provision for different purposes”.


What on earth does that mean? The Government are taking on to their own shoulders blanket powers to manage the whole of the slots regime between a commercially run airport, a commercially owned airport and a commercially owned airline. To me, that feels like many steps too far.

What I have sought to do with these two amendments is, first, on the principal amendment, focus on the things that the Government need. The first is all about acting as arbiter and referee, where there is genuinely a problem. We are talking about our key airports here. Where there is genuinely a problem—a dispute that cannot be resolved—I understand that the Government may, for strategic reasons for the benefit of the United Kingdom, need to have put in place some form of arbitration mechanism. Proposed new paragraphs (a) and (b) are designed to achieve that. It is topical because of the Iran war, as we have seen. We had the debate last week over the change to the slot regime resulting from that conflict and the need to take away from airlines the requirement to use a slot at a particular time. There may be circumstances in which, in a period of international crisis, the Government need to have a role in the slot regime.

I should also say that, on reflection—I look at the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Empey—I agree that there is an element, although we might not agree about the scale of it, of a need to make sure there is connectivity within the United Kingdom. In part, the market delivers that anyway. If you are a major international airline flying from Heathrow to another part of the world, you need the feeder flights to fill your planes. If you do not have flights from Belfast, Glasgow, Edinburgh and Manchester, you are losing a whole chunk of your market—probably losing a whole chunk of it to Schiphol. It is not, therefore, necessary for the Government to take an absolute view about this. But in much the same way that the Government provide and subsidise key strategic routes within the United Kingdom that may not be economically viable but are socially necessary, I understand that there may be a case, in some circumstances, for making sure that a particular route and slot is available to the airline. Therefore, I am not sure I agree with the full detail of the noble Lord’s amendment, but I have some sympathy with what he is trying to achieve.

What we do not need to do—this is my fear about elements of the Bill—is try to micromanage the market that is the independent aviation sector. This part of the Bill feels like it is treading into that territory. I am looking for the Minister to provide some clear justifications for the steps being taken here. Particularly, Clause 68 is designed to address, effectively, a criminal provision within the slots regime. I do not quite understand that. Why on earth does there need to be a criminal context to the management of the slots regime? I understand that there can, on occasions, be a need for regulatory enforcement or enforcement in the civil courts—but the criminal courts? My amendment would take out that provision. Frankly, I would take some persuading by the Minister before we come to Report that we need a criminal provision in the management of slots at our key airports. That feels like a bridge that goes much too far.

I need to hear from the Minister an explanation for why all this is necessary: why the slots regime needs to be as all-encompassing as it is, and why the Bill comes up with extraordinary provisions of interference. I refer again to proposed new subsection (4). The Bill does much more than is necessary to provide a sensible framework simply for protecting the strategic interests of the United Kingdom. It amounts to interference, not strategy, and should take a step back from where it is.

[Lord Empey (UUP)]

My Lords, I instinctively agree with a lot of what the noble Lord, Lord Grayling, has said but there are situations in extremis that could arise regarding access to hub airports, which is a critical—not only socially but economically—necessity. It has nothing to do with subsidy. There are some modest PSOs in operation. We had them when we were in the European Union. Cornwall was involved at one stage and had a subsidised air route. But that is not what I am getting at here. It is nothing to do with subsidy because all the main regional airports going to hub airports, primarily Heathrow, are perfectly economically viable. It is not a question of subsidy.

--- Later in debate ---

Finally, I turn to the amendment from the noble Lord, Lord Holmes of Richmond, on attaching environmental conditions to the holding and use of airport slots. The Government fully recognise the importance of reducing aviation emissions and supporting the sector’s transition to net zero. However, I agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Foster of Oxton, that the slots regime is not the right mechanism for imposing emissions-related conditions on individual carriers. The Government are addressing aviation emissions through the appropriate policy levers, including the UK Emissions Trading Scheme, CORSIA and the sustainable aviation fuel mandate. The international slots regime is built on clear and predictable rules, including historic rights where slots are used sufficiently. Requiring carriers to retain slots by reference to separate emissions metrics would cut across that framework and create uncertainty for airlines and airports. I will return to wider environmental issues in the relevant group. For now, I ask the noble Lord not to press his amendment.

[Lord Empey (UUP)]

In the Minister’s response to my Amendment 67, he responded to a point that I had not made. I had not asked for domestic slots to replace international slots. Mine is a probing amendment, but it is a very simple proposition: in extremis, does the Secretary of State have the power to ensure regional connectivity, or does he not? It is not a complicated issue in essence, even though the operational issues are. He anticipated something that I had not actually proposed, and I assure him that on this issue, while I shall not move my amendment today, I do not intend to go away. Perhaps his team could engage with me before Report.

[Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill (Lab)]

If I may, I shall respond to the noble Lord by saying that, if I have not understood his point clearly, I shall indeed go away and have a further discussion with him.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Barber of Ainsdale (Lab)]

My Lords, I begin by recording my registered interest as the president of BALPA. I strongly echo the point made so clearly by the noble Lord, Lord Tunnicliffe, about the importance of engagement with the pilot community on many of the key issues in the Bill. I very much welcome the recognition that I have heard from just about everyone in the Room of the vital expertise that BALPA members can bring to the consultations required by both the Government and the CAA in key provisions in the Bill.

I will speak briefly to Amendments 89 and 95 in my name, which are supported by the noble Lord, Lord Kirkhope. Amendment 89 seeks to remove the apparent veto given to the CAA over the document to be issued by the Secretary of State setting out their priorities and objectives for the exercise of the CAA’s rule-making functions; the noble Lord, Lord Moylan, touched on this point in his remarks. It seems a curious piece of drafting in this part of the Bill. The amendment also strongly emphasises the importance of consultations on these issues with organisations and persons with relevant interests and expertise who would be affected by the new or amended proposed rules; that will clearly include pilots.

Amendment 95 would require the Secretary of State not only to publish any directions issued to the CAA, as the Bill currently requires, but to lay any such directions before Parliament, thus allowing parliamentarians the opportunity to probe and scrutinise them. This would provide greater openness and transparency without being overly burdensome. I look forward to the Minister’s response.

[Lord Empey (UUP)]

My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Moylan, has conducted a forensic examination of many parts of the Bill, to which I am sure we will return at a later stage.

I shall commence by referring to Amendment 78 from the noble Lord, Lord Tunnicliffe. I agree entirely with the substance and strength of it but I will apply the same remarks to it as I did to a previous amendment he tabled, in that it is not appropriate to specify a particular trade union when it does not necessarily have a monopoly—never mind now; who knows whether it would in future. However, the sentiment is right, and I support it.

I have tabled Amendment 118. Perhaps the Minister could write to me on it before Report. We have here a situation where the CAA is getting a lot of powers and, if I interpreted one part of the Bill correctly, is almost in a position to veto a decision made by the Secretary of State. I might have picked that up wrong, but it seems to be accruing an exceptional amount of power.

One issue—it is a health and safety issue, apart from anything else—is flight-time limitations. A number of years ago, there was a major change to the relevant European directives that apply here, but, of course, flight-time limitations apply not only to airlines that operate or are based in the United Kingdom but to airlines in other jurisdictions that carry UK passengers and use our airspace. That is important. There are international agreements but, with all the changes taking place around who is regulating this area, it would be most helpful if the Minister could write to me before Report clarifying what his department believes the situation to be. This is one of the most difficult issues to deal with because safety is vital. At the same time, there is competition between the desire to have the safest possible environment and airlines pressurising for the maximum amount of efficiency. There is an in-built tension there.

Circumstances arise, be they weather-related or incident-related, in which an airport has to close and crews overshoot their time. We understand the practicalities of flying, but I want clarity on who is setting the rules for the operation of flight crews of not only UK-based airlines but airlines that use UK airspace. Those of us who fly have an investment in ensuring that the right conditions apply. We know that fatigue is a regular cause of accidents and fatalities: it has been well documented in reports, and air crash investigations frequently come up with it as a major issue. So it is important to know precisely where we stand now, given that our rule-making regime is undergoing so many changes and the CAA is accruing so many powers. We had a European arrangement prior to our departure from the European Union. I would be grateful to ensure that we have clarity on who does what and who sets the regulations.

[Lord Harper (Con)]

My Lords, I support my noble friend Lord Moylan in two of his amendments.

On Amendment 76, my noble friend made some very good points about making sure that we have a proper parliamentary process. From a combination of listening to him and looking at the Delegated Powers Committee’s report, I am not against his argument that very technical rule changes should be done by the CAA, but that distinction is not made in the Bill. Clearly, rules that have more impact than that should remain with Ministers—obviously, with the CAA advising them—so that they are made through parliamentary procedure and receive appropriate scrutiny in the House. If there is a backlog of non-technical ones, we can put processes in place, even for a limited period, to deal with it, if that is required. That has happened before: it happened when we were putting through the various changes that were required as a result of Brexit. Both Houses set up processes to deal with the one-off process of changing our legislation. It can be done.

What I want to hear from the Minister is: what powers do the Government intend to give to the CAA, and what powers do they intend to keep for themselves? How will they make a judgment on which powers to make rules it is appropriate for the CAA, which will have no parliamentary oversight, to have? Where Ministers will retain parallel powers, what will they be used for? As far as I can tell, that is not set out anywhere; it would be helpful if it were.

My final point is small but important. My noble friend Lord Moylan’s Amendment 91 deals with the extraordinary idea that, when the Government are issuing guidance to the CAA, the CAA somehow has a veto over whether the Government can issue the guidance. That does not make any sense to me at all. It is clear that, although the CAA rightly has operational independence in its regulatory and safety responsibilities, the Secretary of State sets out its objectives—she did so as recently as 20 April—in the letter that she sends to the chair of the CAA. Ultimately, she has the ability to hire and fire members of the board.

So it is clear who is in charge here. It seems very odd that, with this drafting, the CAA will be able to stop the Government issuing the guidance. I do not understand why that is there. It might simply be a drafting error, in which case the Minister should bring forward an amendment on Report to deal with it. If not, he should give us a clear explanation of what it is there for; I genuinely do not understand it. My noble friend Lord Moylan has done us a service by spotting this and highlighting it to the Committee.

With that, I draw my remarks to a close. I look forward to hearing from the Minister in due course.

Civil Aviation (Consumer Protection and Regulatory Reform) Bill [HL]

Lord Empey Excerpts

Committee stage
Tuesday 16th June 2026 Grand Committee

[Earl Russell (LD)]

My Lords, I will speak to my Amendment 9, which seeks to strengthen the consumer protection provisions at the heart of the Bill. This amendment would insert two paragraphs into Clause 1. We believe that both are desirable and necessary if this legislation is to deliver meaningful change for the travelling public. The first would add the requirement for

“standardised, comparable information at the point of sale”.

Anyone who has purchased an airline ticket recently will be familiar with the booking experience. I will not go through all the painful detail but suffice to say that, by the time you come to the payment page, the fee you are charged bears little resemblance to the one that first encouraged you to make the booking.

That is not an accident; it is intentional. It is a business model that has moved, frankly, from the sublime to the ridiculous. For example, at the moment, the CMA is investigating Ryanair’s mandatory charge of £8 each way for the privilege of sitting with your own children. It is a business model that harms consumers, distorts competition and corrodes trust in the aviation sector. Airlines that compete fairly on total price are undercut by those which strip out every possible cost, just to put them back in. We do not tolerate these practices in other markets—imagine for one moment that the same situation was in place when you were doing your online grocery shopping. It means that consumers cannot make rational or informed choices. Again, that is the intention. Families on modest budgets find themselves paying significantly more than they had intended to.

My amendment would address this directly by requiring airlines and all ticket sellers—I emphasise all ticket sellers, whether the airlines themselves, online travel agents or price comparison websites—to display the total price up front, including all fees, taxes and unavoidable charges. We believe this is not a radical proposition. It is not difficult for the airlines, if they are selling direct to consumers, or their agents to comply with. Most consumers reasonably believe that this is the case already, so this amendment aims to make it so.

The second element of the amendment concerns passenger rights. When a flight is delayed or cancelled, or a passenger is denied boarding, they are entitled to certain protections, and rightly so. But the evidence consistently shows that a significant portion of affected passengers do not know what those rights are and that airlines do not always volunteer that information. My amendment would require this information about passenger rights in disruption scenarios to be provided clearly at the point of sale, not buried deep in terms and conditions in the small print, and accessible only to those who know how to look for it.

Thirdly, the information element concerns environmental impact. Consumers are increasingly seeking to make informed choices consistent with their values. Aviation, as we know, is a significant contributor to greenhouse gas emissions. While the sector as a whole must decarbonise, individuals, too, wish to understand the environmental impact of their individual journeys. Standardised carbon footprint information at the point of sale would enable informed choices. It would also in time, we hope, drive competition on environmental performance, an outcome that we argue would drive consumer-led carbon-reduction measures.

The second part of the amendment includes mandatory minimum compensation standards and, critically, automated payment mechanisms for flight delays, cancellations and denied boarding. The right to compensation for significant disruption already exists in law. Yet, year after year, consumer bodies and passengers find that it is not happening. They are waiting long times and often having to go to court and take legal action. That is an unacceptable situation.

The solution that I have proposed is an automation system to make sure that, where delays happen, there is an automatic payment so that you do not have to go through a complicated process to do it. The airlines have all this information. They know who is on their planes, they know who is not, they know when they are delayed and they know when compensation needs to be paid. We do not believe that this requirement would be too onerous on the airlines. It would simply make it a more efficient, fair and effective system.

We welcome this Bill. We recognise the consumer protections, but we feel that they need to have real bite. That is what my amendments seek to do. Our worry is that, if we do not put stronger protections in the Bill, we will simply have gestures towards consumer rights without actually putting them in statute. With the inclusion of these amendments, we would take concrete steps to make sure that we are acting in the passengers’ best interests in making these systems fairer and more efficient.

[Lord Empey (UUP)]

My Lords, I will speak to Amendment 41. The question of responsibility for drop-off charges was mentioned in closing by the noble Lord, Lord Moylan. This has become a new and evolving tax in the last few years and it is quite substantial. Edinburgh Airport is now charging £8.50 for somebody to be dropped off. Our major airports, Heathrow and Gatwick, are around the £7 to £8 mark, and other airports around the country have various levels. What effectively is happening is that the sharp increase in business rates applied to the airports has been passed on to a passenger being dropped off at the front door.

This has a huge impact on the potential for growth. It has an impact on the cost of doing business in this country and on the cost of travel. While it might be nice to say that we would like as many people as possible to go to airports by public transport, the realistic situation is that there are many airports around the country where the practicalities of doing that are very limited, particularly if you live outside an urban area. We have to take these charges into account. It seems to me that more and more airports are making more money out of drop-off charges and car parking than they are out of running the airports. While I do not want to see the model of airports made less competitive, the fact of the matter is that this is a tax on travel and a tax on business. There are many parts of this country where, if you are going to do business, there is little alternative to using aviation. I think that is a very important point and I would like the Minister to address that.

The other issue I want to raise relates to Amendment 40 and air quality on aircraft. Obviously, we all fly, some of us more than others, but thousands of people work in the airline industry and are in aircraft all their working days. There have been cases, because the air supply in most aircraft—although changes and improvements are being made—comes from the turbines, of seals failing from time to time in those turbines and oil being vapourised and fed into the cabin, where it is visible. What worries me is that there will be many times when it is not visible. What is the Minister’s response to that? Who is monitoring this and at what levels? Are the levels reviewed and are any checks being carried out on those who work in the airline industry as to whether their health is affected by long exposure?

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill (Lab)]

I note the noble Lord’s point on Heathrow and other airports that have a regulated asset base. Airports must retain the ability to manage their own infrastructure. The Government’s role is to ensure that competition and consumer laws are protected and upheld. Ultimately, each airport operator must justify the charges they levy and show that they are fair, transparent and carried out with proper accountability. For those reasons, I hope noble Lords will feel able not to press their amendments.

I thank the noble Lord, Lord Young of Cookham, for his amendment relating to reimbursement for airlines if delays are caused by air traffic management, and I note the support from the noble Baroness, Lady Foster of Oxton, and others. Long delays and cancellations that are caused by air traffic management decisions are considered extraordinary circumstances under the current law, and therefore compensation is not due to passengers in those cases. None the less, the airlines are responsible for providing refunds, or care to passengers, such as meals and refreshments, when there are such delays and cancellations, provided certain qualifying conditions are met.

I note that National Air Traffic Services is subject to a robust regulatory regime overseen by the Civil Aviation Authority, and it includes performance targets linked to delays and a financial penalty mechanism when these targets are not met, meaning that NATS must reduce what it charges airlines in the following period. This is at least currently the effective penalty on NATS for poor performance.

I recognise that the noble Lord has diligently pursued this issue across the previous Government and this one. With relative joy, I have discovered how many previous Secretaries of State there are not only on the opposition Benches but in this Room. I am very grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Harper, for his explanation of what happened in the case that the noble Lord, Lord Young of Cookham, referred to. He supposes that I have some sympathy with the proposition that, somehow, the charges levied on Network Rail did not act as the incentive that they were supposed to. He is right, which is why the Railways Bill does not go in that direction. I am grateful to him—seriously—for explaining what decision he came to in that particular case, because he is right that the shareholding of NATS is very far from a conventional commercial company with a range of shareholders.

I hope I have never been grudging. I may—as the noble Lord, Lord Moylan, probably thinks frequently—be unpersuasive, but I think I owe the noble Lord, Lord Young, at least the courtesy of a meeting on this subject to understand better what he has said and to see whether the current Government’s position ought to be the same as what the noble Lord, Lord Harper, described in his Government’s case, or whether there is a persuasive case for change.

[Lord Empey (UUP)]

I thank the Minister for his response on Amendment 41 regarding drop-off charges. I understand the argument that an airport operator can manage its own property, but we have to distinguish between parking and dropping off. The dropping-off charge is almost a penalty for not parking. We also have to take into account the fact that these airports, by and large, are monopolies because of where they are: people perhaps do not have an option of going to another airport.

It is becoming a growing revenue stream and it can affect regional connectivity but also the economic model. It can put another charge on business, if that is what it is, or on tourism. I will look at Hansard and see exactly what the Minister said, but it is not a simple matter and I do not think it is an issue that will go away, because it is growing and growing. It started off at £1 and, as I said, in Edinburgh it is now £8.50. But what is the alternative for somebody going to drop someone off at Edinburgh Airport? Do they go to Glasgow Airport? It is a monopoly.

[Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill (Lab)]

I should just say that of course I respect the views of the noble Lord, Lord Empey, and if he looks at Hansard and considers what I said, I will similarly consider further what he said.

Civil Aviation (Consumer Protection and Regulatory Reform) Bill [HL]

Lord Empey Excerpts

2nd reading
Tuesday 2nd June 2026 Lords Chamber

[Lord Empey (UUP)]

My Lords, like many Members, I declare an interest as a member of the General Aviation APPG and as an honorary vice-president of the Union of Pilots, Engineers & Cabin Crew.

I want to talk about slots, but before getting to that point, I will say that 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? Is that part of the reason for the long delay between the passage of the legislation and its introduction in practice? It seems to me that a huge extra burden has been placed and, if rules are to be made as well as enforced, new skills will be required by the CAA to carry out that activity.

Much has been said about consumer protection, and many of the causes of the problems at airports are actually caused not by the airlines but by the people who operate the airport services—whether that is luggage or other services that are provided. There is always a gap. It seems to me that, when we get to Committee, we will have to probe to see exactly how that can be looked at to ensure that the best possible service is provided.

One issue that is not in the Bill but concerns the welfare of passengers and people who work in the airlines is cabin air quality. It has been largely glossed over for many years but, if it is not monitored properly, it can affect and have a direct impact on not only the people who work on aircraft and in aircraft but the people who use them.

I listened very carefully to what the noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Moulsecoomb, said. She is not in her place right now. We all have concerns about the environment. It is not confined to one particular party. We all have concerns. She argued that we should take only two flights a year. That is going to put people like me in some difficulty, I have to say. We have to be realistic. Exporting the pollution to another part of the world at our own expense does not improve the environment or climate in general.

The noble Lord, Lord Kirkhope, mentioned NATS: something that has largely been passed by. I ask the Minister: is he satisfied that there is sufficient resilience? In 2014, 2023 and 2025 there were significant failures, and the last one was pretty catastrophic. If you are going to redesign with the help of technology, and perhaps AI, how the motorways in the sky are controlled and monitored, there is a capacity issue there to be resolved.

Obviously, the noble Baroness, Lady Grey-Thompson, raised the issue of people with mobility issues and other issues. The person who took my seat in the Northern Ireland Assembly—a war veteran who was severely injured in Afghanistan and is 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 and took off while he was still on the tarmac, because the people who were responsible for bringing the equipment to get him on the plane did not show up. So, there are cases that we cannot ignore—but that is just one, and I am just saying that it is something we have to bear in mind.

I would like to bring slots to the Minister’s attention. Some years ago, I twice brought a Bill to this House, and it was passed twice in this House—the Airports (Amendment) Bill. It passed through this House and went down to the other place. As former Members of the other place will know, there was a particular Member down there who specialised in ensuring that a Private Member’s Bill ended up in a not very good place.

At that particular time, the Minister answering was the noble Lord, Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon, who is not in his place. What I was trying to achieve was to ensure that regional airports had access to appropriate slots at Heathrow. Of course, it was primarily a European function, and that is what his line was, because the Government of course did not accept the Bill. The fact is it has nothing to do with PSOs and providing subsidies. If you are a regional airport, the reality is that, in this country, access to a main hub airport to get connectivity internationally is essential. For those of us who do not have access to trains and so on, it is even more important.

In circumstances where a slot owner—let us take the IAG as an example—is acquired by people from the Middle East, for instance, who may find greater value in international flights than in domestic flights, they might decide to move in that particular direction and reduce the number of regional flights. The regions would then be at a disadvantage. In those circumstances, is the Minister satisfied that the Bill will provide the necessary powers? Would the Government be prepared to use those powers to guarantee that regional airports will have sufficient access to Heathrow to ensure proper regional connectivity within the United Kingdom? I do not think that that is an unreasonable thing to do, and we will probe it in Committee to see how we can do it. That was the primary purpose of the Bills that I put through this House, which had very strong support, I have to say. I ask the Minister: is that something that we can do?

The noble Baroness, Lady Foster, said that slots are not a simple thing. I understand that; they are very complicated. They are very valuable assets, worth tens of millions of pounds. Therefore, you can imagine a future situation where an operator is not nationally minded and is simply looking the best profit that it can make, which is understandable. But the fact is that there are national, regional and consumer rights for the people of this country, and we have to ensure that there are proper circumstances where they can get access. It has a huge economic effect on the United Kingdom as a whole. We talk about the London area, with the principal airports, and that is understandable, but we do not all live in London; there are one or two of us left outside London. I just draw that to your Lordships’ attention. So, it is important that we have that access and I think that most political parties would have that as a fundamental policy in their manifestos.

We may probe that issue in Committee, but I ask the Minister to take that on board so that we can be satisfied that, if circumstances arise where an operator or an owner of the slots is going to reconfigure their schedules to the disadvantage of the regions, that can be corrected by government action. In the past, Ministers were saying that because of our membership of the EU we could not do this; the question is whether this legislation will permit that to happen. Obviously, that is one of the things we will probe.

I point out that this has nothing to do with subsidising routes. There is a PSO for one or two perfectly justifiable routes, but this is not what I am getting at. Most of these routes do not need subsidies; they are perfectly economically viable in their own right, provided, of course, that there is the appropriate access. It is not a Northern Ireland issue; it applies to Scotland, to the north of England, to other areas and of course to the PSO routes as well, and to Cornwall and Scotland.

Can the Minister in summing up address the issue of slots and satisfy us that the Bill in its current form will have sufficient powers? If not, we will look at amendments to bring the necessary certainty that this will be addressed.

Aviation Safety (Amendment) Regulations 2026

Lord Empey Excerpts

Wednesday 15th April 2026 Grand Committee

[The Minister of State, Department for Transport (Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill) (Lab)]

My Lords, this instrument has two objectives. The first is to amend Article 71 of the assimilated basic regulation to give the Civil Aviation Authority more flexibility to grant exemptions to the basic regulation. The second is to remove a criminal sanction that has never been used. The removal of this sanction will enable further legislation later this year in order to bring the UK into line with international requirements on how far aircraft can operate from diversion airports.

This instrument was originally laid before Parliament in January this year as a negative procedure statutory instrument, in accordance with the procedures set out in the retained EU law Act 2023. Following scrutiny by both the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee and the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments during the sift, the Transport Committee recommended that this instrument be relaid as an affirmative SI. The Government accepted that recommendation, and the instrument was relaid as an affirmative SI in January.

During that sift, the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee raised concerns about how genuinely exceptional exemptions to Article 71 would be, given the suggestion that they would be used to facilitate day-to-day activities, and the JCSI raised a concern that

“the changes proposed by this instrument could represent a significant diminution of existing regulatory protections”.

Once the instrument had been relaid, the SLSC reiterated its original concerns and the JCSI had no comments. I will go into the detail of the amendments and then address those concerns.

Article 71 of the assimilated basic regulation sets out the conditions under which the Civil Aviation Authority may grant an exemption to the basic regulation for an applicant. A legacy of EU legislation, the existing wording of the law means that the CAA can grant an exception in only two possible scenarios: urgent unforeseeable circumstances, and urgent operational needs. This means that the CAA cannot issue exemptions for foreseeable circumstances with no urgent operational need, such as festivals or testing drones—consider, for example, the Formula 1 races at Silverstone, which handle around 1,000 helicopters over four days.

Under the assimilated aviation law, which is a legacy of the UK’s membership of the European Union Aviation Safety Agency—the EASA—all the basic requirements of the basic regulation would need to be met. This legislation was developed with the requirements of airports providing a permanent service in mind; such requirements are disproportionate for a short event. Currently, the CAA cannot grant exemptions for these events because they are yearly, predictable and foreseeable, even though granting an exemption would clearly enhance safety.

In addition, this amendment will allow the CAA to grant exemptions to businesses in order to enable the testing of new and innovative technologies. Today, that is difficult because many of the requirements of Article 71 do not take into account future developments in technology, such as testing “beyond visual line of sight” drone flights in airspace that is not separated from regular air traffic. The existing rules were made before current “beyond visual line of sight” developments, and it is difficult for the CAA to grant exemptions specifically for testing as testing is usually neither urgent nor unforeseeable. By enabling exemptions to be granted beyond urgent operational needs or urgent unforeseeable circumstances, the UK aviation sector will be able to trial and test new technologies more easily.

As the UK has now left both the European Union and the EASA, the Government are now able to amend Article 71 to give the CAA more flexibility to support safety and innovation. The CAA has developed a robust framework to ensure that exemptions granted under Article 71 will not degrade safety. Each request will be risk assessed by the CAA’s aviation safety experts and will be granted only if they believe that the exemption will maintain a high standard of safety and there is no other way of achieving the same goal. The CAA will examine each request individually, and just because the request has been granted once, it will not then set a precedent for future exemptions.

These criteria are deliberately strict, ensuring that the CAA considers the existing protection requirements for aircraft noise, fuel venting and engine emissions, whether decisions are non-discriminatory, the creation of unreasonable working conditions or safety risks, and whether exemptions support public protection and broader aerospace development. This means that while exemptions will be given for day-to-day activities such as testing, each exemption will still be exceptional. The CAA’s framework will ensure that each request is scrutinised and granted only if applicants can demonstrate high levels of aviation safety, as well as setting out a path to future full regulatory compliance. Regulatory protections will remain and my officials will continue to work closely with the CAA to oversee how the new exemption process is used.

I note that during the consultation, 42 of the 51 respondents supported the amendments to Article 71. One respondent, Unite the Union, raised concerns that exemptions might be granted on a regular basis, particularly where such exemptions could weaken the working conditions of crew onboard aircraft. I assure noble Lords that exemptions will be granted only where a high level of safety can be assured, and the CAA must and will carefully consider the impact of exemptions on working conditions.

I turn to the second objective of this SI, which is to remove a criminal sanction that has never been used. The removal of this sanction will enable amendments later this year, which will allow operators of two-engine aircraft more flexibility in how far they operate from diversion airports. Operators of aircraft with more than two engines will now also need to consider their distance from diversion airports. This change will bring the UK into line with international requirements. These amendments could not be introduced without removing the criminal sanction, as the powers needed to amend provisions with criminal sanctions are contained in the retained EU law Act, which expires in June this year. The Civil Aviation Authority has never brought a prosecution under this provision, and I am confident that it already has sufficient regulatory tools to ensure compliance without relying on a criminal offence—for instance, by revoking approvals to fly extended diversion time operations or by limiting operators’ air operator certificates.

On the wider powers gap issue in relation to criminal sanctions, the Government are aware of the powers gap. We are reviewing whether existing powers on the statute book may be able to fill the gap, and we are also considering introducing primary legislation when parliamentary time allows—I await with interest the King’s Speech on 13 May. I beg to move.

[Lord Empey (UUP)]

My Lords, the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee, as the Minister mentioned, has looked at this and suggested that the House may wish to seek assurances from the Minister regarding the use of exemptions. In the House of Commons Delegated Legislation Committee yesterday, the Minister said:

“I can confirm that we are confident in the capacity of the CAA to manage this process effectively. I am cognisant of the points raised by the shadow Minister and the Lib Dem spokesperson about the DFT having to exercise robust oversight over these processes and to liaise closely with the CAA to ensure that it is using these powers proportionately”.—[Official Report, Commons, Third Delegated Legislation Committee, 14/4/26; col. 6.]


The issue that I wish to question the Minister on is the capacity of the CAA to handle the various applications. Will he also address the issue of the testing by companies of new products, either aircraft or drones? We know of public events where there are a large number of helicopter flights coming in—golf tournaments, for example; I do not know whether Glastonbury has a lot of helicopter traffic—and I presume that these are covered by this sort of thing.

Without wishing to see things kept overly tight, particularly when we would like to see and encourage companies to develop new products—after all, this country has a tried and tested record of innovation in the aviation sector—the question is: who is overseeing the overseers in this case? I presume it has to be the CAA and the Department for Transport, ultimately, but is there sufficient capacity? Does the Minister expect an increase in these applications, or will it be only short term? If he does, is the capacity there and is his department sufficiently well organised to oversee that process?

The issue, I presume, comes down to the definition of “exceptional”. The Minister in the other place said:

“The shadow Minister asked me to say a little more about what we mean by ‘exceptional’. These exceptions will be granted only when there is no other reasonable way for the applicant to achieve the aims that have been put forward”.—[Official Report, Commons, Third Delegated Legislation Committee, 14/4/26; col. 6.]


He went on to give some examples.

This is a fairly straightforward regulation, but whenever regulations change there is always the risk that the organisation overseeing them may not be as fully prepared as we would like. I perfectly understand the Minister’s position on the powers that have not been used; it seems that there are alternative ways of dealing with those matters without having to regulate any further.

[Baroness Pidgeon (LD)]

My Lords, as we have heard, these regulations will allow the Civil Aviation Authority to exempt industry from certain safety requirements to allow for such things as greater research and development, as well as allowing increased air traffic control for one-off major events with increased air traffic. I thank the Minister for arranging a briefing with his officials, who answered my questions and provided clarity on a number of matters. I was really pleased to read the CAA exemption policy, which makes it clear that:

“When considering whether or not to issue an exemption, the CAA’s starting point will be that the requirements exist for good reasons and exemptions should therefore be exceptional. We will only issue an exemption on the basis of this Policy if to do so will maintain a high standard of safety, having regard to the safety of all aircraft, crew, passengers and persons on the ground”.


I was also pleased to hear the Minister’s assurance regarding risk assessments. Those points should assure us all.

We on these Benches support greater research and development in aviation, which these changes will allow. The regulations will allow the CAA to issue more exemptions, although within those safeguards, around trialling new aircraft and testing uncrewed aircraft or new fuel types and technology. In recent years, we have seen rapid developments in aviation technology, particularly in uncrewed aircraft. It is important that the UK is not left behind, but it will be essential that the CAA does not overuse these increased powers. Therefore, my only question for the Minister is: could he clarify what criteria have been drawn up by the department to set clear guardrails for how the CAA can use these powers and then report on their use?

Airports Slot Allocation (Alleviation of Usage Requirements etc.) Regulations 2025

Lord Empey Excerpts

Monday 20th January 2025 Grand Committee

I say again how much I support what is happening here, by and large. The industry is going through considerable difficulties. Airports are under enormous pressure; we have a shortage of pilots worldwide, which is very difficult to fill, and we have a great shortage—although it is not mentioned anywhere here—of professionals who work in air traffic control and other areas of the running of our important airports. So, I welcome this, but I would be grateful for some more reassurance from the Minister on the points I have raised.

[Lord Empey (UUP)]

My Lords, I have been following these issues for some years, and I find myself in broad agreement with the noble Lord, Lord Kirkhope. He mentioned air traffic control and the fact that restrictions are regularly placed on flights coming in and out of Heathrow, in some cases because of the absence of qualified staff.

I welcome the end of ghost flights, which were a nonsense not only environmentally but economically for the airlines. It was ridiculous having flights with half a dozen people, or none, going around, so that is a perfectly sensible provision. However, I want to draw it to the Minister’s attention that on two occasions I brought the Airports (Amendment) Bill to this House. It passed through this House twice. The noble Lord, Lord Ahmad, who was the Minister at the time, said that the problem, from the Government’s point of view, was that because of our membership of the European Union, we were not able to address the matter that I was raising.

That matter was the slots at London airports. Let us face it—Heathrow is the primary national hub, though I accept that other London airports are important—but there is no requirement to ensure that the main regional airports have access to Heathrow. We in Northern Ireland do not have much in the way of an alternative; in fairness, Boris Johnson promised us a bridge, but that has gone the way of all flesh so, in practical terms, we are left primarily with one way of getting here. You can get a ferry—but that can take a couple of days.

This applies to Edinburgh, Glasgow and Manchester. The Secretary of State does not have the ability to guarantee that the main regional airports have access. This is all to do with national connectivity. The primary clause in my Bill was:

“The Secretary of State may give to any airport operator a direction requiring him (according to the circumstances of the case) to do, or not to do, a particular thing specified in the direction, if the Secretary of State considers it necessary to give such a direction in the interests of ensuring sufficient national air infrastructure between hub and regional airports”.


It was to give the Secretary of State a power to deal with this. Even if competition is improved by these regulations, which I would support, that has nothing to do with where those slots are allocated. Maybe they are allocated to an airline, but they can fly anywhere. There is still a gap here. Now that we are not bound by the European regulation, will the Minister reflect on this? I appreciate that it is not in these proposals, but I am sure that he can see the rationale of ensuring this.

At the moment, we are well served—I have no issue with that. There are a number of airlines, albeit the competition has narrowed recently—but we are entirely at the mercy of the airlines. We have no ability to ensure that they travel on that route. It is a bit like the 80:20 rule; most of the time it works fine, but there could be circumstances in which it does not. We can also see that competition is limited and our fares are high, so there is a link to the consumer. The noble Lord, Lord Kirkhope, made that point; the consultation was wide, but consumer interests perhaps did not dominate to the extent that they should have.

I broadly support these proposals, but I ask the Minister to consider that with his department, because there is no guarantee that our key regions will have access, particularly to Heathrow. In those circumstances, the Secretary of State should have that power.

Road Transport (International Passenger Services) (Amendment) Regulations 2024

Lord Empey Excerpts

Monday 2nd December 2024 Grand Committee

[Baroness Randerson (LD)]

My Lords, I thank the Minister for his detailed introduction. There is a long background of negotiations on this legislation. The Explanatory Memorandum says that this SI

“will in effect maintain the status quo”—

that status quo was very hard fought in the days after the Brexit referendum. We have spent many hours in this Room debating the fallout from the detail of that situation.

Paragraph 5.4 of the Explanatory Memorandum says that the instrument will

“update the UK’s domestic … legislation by removing assimilated EU legislation”

on road passenger transport. Of course, UK bus and coach operators will continue to operate within the context of the framework of EU and international legislation generally. As the Minister said, there are three types of commercial bus and coach services: the occasional, the regular and the special regular services carrying specified categories of passengers, such as pupils.

It is good news that there is now a right for bus and coach operators to transport passengers through the EU to Moldova and Bosnia and Herzegovina. Are new signatories to the agreement likely to come on stream in future? This is a fairly limited market as it stands.

The key change in this SI relates to cabotage—the carrying of passengers in the UK by foreign-based operators. Paragraph 5.10 of the EM explains that international operators participating in the UK

“are currently permitted to undertake cabotage”

under assimilated EU law. This right is being removed. My second question is: how many services, roughly, are affected by this? How common is the operation of cabotage by EU operators? I assume that the answer is that it is not very common, because one thing that slightly surprised me was the fact that there was no consultation on this SI. I declare my interest as a member of the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee. Is this an important new right, or is it a marginal benefit?

As always, it is in Northern Ireland that the really intractable questions arise, following the Brexit vote and its implications. I am pleased that Northern Ireland operators will be able to operate cabotage within the island of Ireland, and vice versa. That is the only logical thing to do. I recall that, a few years ago, when I was a member of the EU sub-committee, we took evidence from a bus operator—although not in relation to this specific issue, of course. The bus operator said that his scheduled service crossed the border 13 times from one end to the other. The proposal at the time, from some enthusiastic Brexiteers, was that Britain should flex its muscles post Brexit by changing our clocks in the spring and the autumn on a different day from the EU. Businesses in Northern Ireland, and indeed in the Republic of Ireland, were very exercised by the practical issues, and the bus operator pointed out how impossible his timetable would become if we operated in a different way with time zones.

This is possibly not an SI of the greatest significance, but it is nevertheless one to be welcomed because of the common-sense approach in relation to Northern Ireland and the fact that British operators will now be in the same commercial position as EU operators for cabotage.

[Lord Empey (UUP)]

My Lords, I have a question for the Minister about this generally positive instrument. It is about electronic travel authorisation. If a bus comes from Great Britain to the Republic and into Northern Ireland, electronic travel authorisation will be required, as I read it. Can the Minister confirm this? Many of us see this as a disincentive and an obstacle to tourism. People visiting Ireland from outside the EU and from outside Ireland need, as I read it, electronic travel authorisation to come into Northern Ireland—that is effectively a visa. Can the Minister confirm that? If he does not have the information available, he can write.

[Lord Moylan (Con)]

My Lords, I thank the Minister for arranging a helpful briefing with his officials this morning. This is, I imagine, one of those very rare occasions where I find myself more in sympathy with the proposal from the Minister than with the speech from the noble Baroness, Lady Randerson, who seemed determined to reopen all sorts of arguments about Brexit and who did what when.

This is, in my view, a sensible and necessary disentangling of our laws from the pernicious effect of EU legislation, so that we stand on our own feet with our own laws, making international agreements—such as the Interbus agreement—and adhering to, and adopting, in this case, its protocol relating to these coach services, which the Minister spelled out in considerable detail, with great clarity for such a complex subject.

The impact assessment for this instrument says that it has no impact and that that is the reason for not having any consultation. I welcome that; we should have more laws that have no impact. Most of the laws that set out to have an impact seem to have only perverse impacts and do not achieve what they are intended to at all. This one is deliberately intended to have no practical impact—with one exception that I will return to—because it seeks to maintain the existing situation but translate it into domestic law. As I say, this is not only desirable but necessary because the provisions of the TCA under which it operates will effectively expire at the end of March next year, as the other foreign parties join the Interbus agreement. So, on the whole, we welcome this instrument and are happy to support it.

On cabotage, it is of course possible—as the noble Baroness, Lady Randerson, said—that there is some diminution of immunity to British travellers as a result of that. The Minister has been asked a question, and I certainly do not know the answer to it, but he may. It is possible that certain services currently operating start in, say, Paris and go to Edinburgh, stopping along the route, collecting passengers and dropping them off. Those services will no longer be able to operate in that fashion—picking passengers up and dropping them off along the route—once these provisions come into effect, which in practice will be on 1 April next year. As I say, that could constitute a diminution in services.

However, it is interesting that the noble Baroness focused on that, because the counterpart to that is that British coach operators will not have those cabotage rights in the European Union. I would have thought and hoped that the Liberal Democrats would be more interested in promoting the interests of British coach operators travelling abroad than protecting the business model of foreign coach operators operating in the UK. However, that appears not to be the case: her focus is on the latter—she did not mention the others at all.

Flight Cancellations

Lord Empey Excerpts

Wednesday 6th November 2024 Lords Chamber

[Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill (Lab)]

The noble Lord will know that the air passenger duty on domestic flights was reduced quite recently to a relatively modest level. The Government are entirely committed to good air connections with Northern Ireland and to the promotion of its airports. I do not think that the removal of the duty—which is, in any case, a Treasury matter—would make a lot of difference. We are committed to good regional connectivity and the future prosperity of the airports in Northern Ireland.

[Lord Empey (UUP)]

My Lords, I, too, was a passenger on the flight on Monday morning that never was. If you looked at the schedules in advance, it was not there. I took up the email at 8.10 am, although fortunately I do not have so far to travel.

On the wider point, however, this is becoming a repetitive issue. We understand operational challenges; we all have them and we all know that it is also from Covid, with the number of staff that were disposed of at the time. However, I brought a Bill through this House twice to guarantee slots for regional airports at Heathrow and it was rejected in the other place on the grounds that we were part of the European Union and therefore it could not be implemented. Now that that is no longer the case, will the Minister look with his department at ensuring that regional connectivity is guaranteed to Heathrow, because that is where the operational hub in the United Kingdom is? It also bears down on the airlines, because these slots are worth millions.

Hauliers

Lord Empey Excerpts

Thursday 4th March 2021 Grand Committee

[Lord Empey (UUP) [V]]

My Lords, in opening this debate, the noble Lord, Lord Taylor, said that easing friction is in everybody’s interests. I believe that everybody in this Committee would agree with that. However, as other speakers have said, we have exacerbated friction between Great Britain and Northern Ireland, almost to the point at which it is utterly ridiculous. A small piece of earth on the tyre of a vehicle can cause it to be prevented from entering Northern Ireland because it is contaminated with soil from Great Britain.

Groupage issues will be a nightmare for hauliers because, as everybody knows, people build up loads and try to ensure that they can be delivered in small parcels to different people. The paperwork for a pallet on a groupage lorry will be dramatic. Even the Irish Republic is suffering. It can send lorries directly to Europe without crossing Great Britain, but it costs between €600 and €800 extra per lorry. This results in hugely increased costs and empty lorries coming back. It is unacceptable.