Aviation Safety (Amendment) Regulations 2026
Lord Empey Excerpts(2 weeks, 6 days ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
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(1 year, 3 months ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
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(1 year, 5 months ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
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(1 year, 5 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
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(5 years, 2 months ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
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.
Operation of Air Services (Amendment) (EU Exit) Regulations 2020
Lord Empey Excerpts(5 years, 3 months ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Empey (UUP) [V]
My Lords, the Minister in her opening remarks referred to safety. Obviously, when airlines are not flying at normal levels and get in financial difficulty, sometimes safety is short-circuited and maintenance is put off to save money. Perhaps the Minister could tell us how safety is being maintained given these circumstances.
Secondly, I wanted to ask about the difference between what are called “foreign carriers” and “British carriers”. Airlines are owned internationally these days; they are not normally owned by a particular country, and what is a principal place of business is a matter often in the eye of the beholder. I am not quite clear how these arrangements are entered into. The other important point is that they should be reciprocal. How is that going to be rolled out over future years?
My third point, on the PSO, has already been referred to. The Minister will be aware that there are a number in the UK—in Cornwall, I believe, and I know there are others. We certainly have at least one in Northern Ireland. Given that Northern Ireland is still subject to state aid rules, how will the application of PSOs be looked at in terms of the agreement with the European Union? People could argue that unfair advantages are being given if PSOs are designated in particular areas; and of course, there is also our concern for the social and economic development of more remote regions. Perhaps the Minister could tell us how these issues will be judged. In Northern Ireland we at least have one operational PSO and are still subject to state aid; where is the interface between that and potential PSO rules in Great Britain?
Airports Slot Allocation (Amendment) (EU Exit) Regulations 2021
Lord Empey Excerpts(5 years, 3 months ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Empey (UUP) [V]
My Lords, I thank the Minister and her officials for arranging a briefing yesterday, which was most helpful. I agree with a lot of the contribution made by the noble Lord, Lord Blunkett. I also support in broad terms the relief from the 80:20 rule, because the last thing we want, for a whole variety of reasons, is to have the sight of airlines undertaking ghost flights to hold on to routes even if they have no current passengers.
A couple of years ago—in fact, on two occasions—I introduced a Private Member’s Bill, which passed the House, to give the Government powers on slot allocation in the UK. Of course, it was governed by European competence at that stage. Slots are not only big business; they have huge implications for connectivity. While this measure does not apply to Northern Ireland airports, because they have capacity, at the end of the day a flight cannot take off unless it has somewhere to land. My anxiety has for years been about the risk from the absence of connectivity between the regions and the principal airports—what are called co-ordinated airports —such as Heathrow and Gatwick. I will return to that, although it is not necessary for this SI, but the principle is clear: if you do not ensure that regions have access to major airports with connectivity, that has economic, social and other implications. I ask my noble friend to bear that in mind.
I also doubt very much that airlines could manage even 20% of the flights on a lot of their slots at present. We had a briefing from one of our colleagues—the noble Lord, Lord Deighton, the chairman of Heathrow —where he pointed out that, in a number of months last year, its passenger flow had dropped by 95%. It is quite obvious that there needs to be as much flexibility as possible. As I understand it—I hope I am right in saying this—these measures will be available to apply in the summer season this year, but further secondary legislation or an approval Motion would have to come through to deal with subsequent seasons if the need arose, and there needs to be data on which to base that judgment. I think I have got that right; perhaps the Minister can correct me if I am wrong.
I broadly support the regulations. We need maximum flexibility at the moment. We need data but, looking forward, we need to bear in mind that it is essential for the key airports to have slot allocations. My anxiety is that when this crisis is over there could be a sudden surge in those airlines—international operators, perhaps —that have resources buying up a lot of the slots from weakened UK airlines and other slot holders. This could have a negative impact on the regions, so I ask my noble friend the Minister to also bear that in mind.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Baroness Garden of Frognal) (LD)
The noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, has withdrawn so I call the noble Lord, Lord Naseby. We do not seem to have the noble Lord.
Freight Industry: Delays
Lord Empey Excerpts(5 years, 4 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Vere of Norbiton (Con)
Very briefly on the port infrastructure fund, 41 ports will be getting support. There were bids totalling £450 million and the pot was only £200 million, so some places were disappointed, but Ministers and officials stand by to address concerns.
The Sevington site will open as planned on 1 January to manage traffic, should there be disruption. As always, you would expect the Government to have a plan B, and that is why customs checks will take place at Ashford Waterbrook and transfer to Sevington in due course.
Lord Empey (UUP)
Will my noble friend tell the House what arrangements have been made in ports on the west coast of Scotland and England for the examination of some goods travelling to Northern Ireland? Secondly, given that the infrastructure in Northern Ireland ports for these inspections is not yet complete, what interim arrangements have been made to avoid long delays?
Baroness Vere of Norbiton (Con)
My Lords, as I said, the port infrastructure fund provided funding to 41 ports, and they will be able to put various things in place. Work is ongoing with the devolved Administrations for ports in Wales, and conversations are ongoing with the Northern Ireland Executive to make sure goods travelling across the Irish Sea can do so successfully.
Public Transport: Face Coverings
Lord Empey Excerpts(5 years, 10 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Vere of Norbiton [V]
I think the noble Lord will understand that at present, all Ministers have a close ongoing relationship with transport operators and unions. We are continually having conversations about the sort of measures that may come in in the future. We spoke to the unions about face coverings; indeed, it was the unions that did not want the use of face coverings by transport workers made mandatory. We listened and worked with them to make that the case. Transport operators such as bus drivers often have to turn people away, for example, because of poor behaviour, in which case they might then go on to call the police. It is the same in the case of face coverings; if people create a fuss because they are denied boarding, transport operators will get the police involved. Of course, we speak frequently to the British Transport Police about this matter as well.
Lord Empey (UUP) [V]
My noble friend will be aware that we are negotiating with other countries over air bridges for air transport to and from the United Kingdom. Given that the rules on the wearing of face coverings differ in the various parts of the United Kingdom, how is that matter being reconciled in the negotiations to create air bridges, which I fully support?
Baroness Vere of Norbiton [V]
The noble Lord raises an interesting point. It is obviously a consequence of devolution that the devolved Administrations can make their own rules in this area. However, I am pleased to say that the wearing of face coverings is mandatory in Scotland as well, so there is less confusion there, and their use is advisory in Wales and Northern Ireland. Of course, the wearing of face coverings on aircraft and the reciprocal arrangements with other countries will be an important consideration as discussions on international air bridges continue.
Air Traffic Management (Amendment etc.) (EU Exit) Regulations 2020
Lord Empey Excerpts(5 years, 10 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Empey (UUP) [V]
My Lords, I thank the Minister for contacting Members about the specific issues they wished to raise today. I understand the rationale for having to ensure that a body of law exists with our departure from the European Union and the replacement within national law of what is currently EU law, but Members will be well aware that an aircraft taking off from Heathrow is barely in the air before it transfers into European airspace. Therefore, the concept of having individual regimes is very difficult. On charges, what will these measures actually cost and how will these additional costs be recovered?
In the Explanatory Memorandum, at paragraph 6.3, reference is made to the devolved Administrations in the United Kingdom and the role that they might play in secondary legislation. Given that aviation is an excepted or reserved matter in the United Kingdom, what role does the Minister envisage these Administrations would play under these circumstances?
We have now got a very complicated arrangement based on different pieces of legislation, including the 2000 Act and incorporating existing EU regulations into UK law. Is her department contemplating bringing together a single piece of legislation with a clear guideline and a clear reference as to what the legal position is, rather than having all these disparate elements, some of which have been absorbed from the EU and others of which have not?
If we are proposing to do something differently—which I have no problem with in principle—can she assure the House that that will not create difficulties for our airline sector, struggling as it is under massive pressure? If there was to be a different regime, would that have implications for cost? Would it have implications for our European colleagues and, indeed, more internationally? Because, just like climate, which is a global issue, aviation is a global issue and there are no red lines in the sky. I would therefore like her to tell the House what the status of the current negotiations with the European Union is and whether she believes we will continue to have free and open access to each other’s skies as we move forward in the next few months.