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

Debate between Lord Empey and Baroness Finlay of Llandaff

3rd reading
Monday 20th July 2026 Lords Chamber

[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]

Debate between Lord Empey and Baroness Finlay of Llandaff

Report stage
Monday 13th July 2026 Lords Chamber

[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.

Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill

Debate between Lord Empey and Baroness Finlay of Llandaff

Committee stage
Friday 30th January 2026 Lords Chamber

[Lord Empey (UUP)]

My Lords, this has been a very interesting debate. Many Members perhaps do not appreciate the extent of the potential, and the length of time over which that potential could remain open.

When I was Minister for Enterprise in Belfast and represented Belfast East as an elected Member, that area had vast numbers of people suffering from asbestosis, mesothelioma, pleural plaques and so on, because it was an industrial area. We had shipbuilding, aircraft-building and electrical work, and asbestos was involved in wiring. The workforce used to play snowballs with it; that was the extent of it.

What emerged—and this is the important point, as I am sure the noble and learned Lord, Lord Falconer, will understand—is that first, a lot of companies, such as Turner & Newell, a very famous company, had gone out of business and, in some cases, their insurers had gone with them because of the extent of the claims. What people need to understand, and the reason why the Northern Ireland Government got involved, is that, in some cases, the state had owned those companies at one point, so the state was the employer. Therefore, there was a direct line of liability between the client, the company and, ultimately, the state. Now, the state has owned a number of businesses on and off over the years, all over the UK. This is not confined to asbestosis or related diseases; as the noble Lord, Lord Harper, mentioned, there is the whole question of the Armed Forces, for example.

To give a sense of the spread of all this, it can take up to 30 years before a disease such as asbestosis becomes obvious, and for mesothelioma and many of these diseases, there is no cure; it is very brutal, and it can be very quick. It emerged that, when workers came home, their clothing passed the asbestos on to their spouses and children. I remember many years ago setting money aside, up to 2050, to cover potential claims arising from the state having owned parts of some companies over the years. So in the absence of any insurer or employer, the state ended up in that position.

These amendments have opened up a whole new frontier that we have to get sorted out. The risk, obviously, is that those dependants will therefore have absolutely no recompense: not only will their relative have died a pretty brutal death—as the noble Lord, Lord Hendy, knows from his experience—but they will be left destitute. This needs sorting out.

[Baroness Finlay of Llandaff (CB)]

I am most grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Hendy, with whom I have had conversations going back to last September. I have looked after many patients dying of mesothelioma, and it seemed to be a loophole if the chain of causation was not completely intact.

We had advice in several calls from extremely wise sources—I will not list them all—and I learned a great deal about the legal side and the Fatal Accidents Act. I have some questions for the noble and learned Lord, whom I met with yesterday. He assured me that he would be bringing forward amendments, but unfortunately, I did not see them at the time; it was only much later that they appeared in my inbox. I have not been able to go through them in detail to examine the precise wording.

The concern is that unless this is watertight, these companies will wriggle out of any type of compensation. Therefore, what is the position of coronial oversight in these cases, where perhaps even the diagnosis might be questioned by a company, and it could be difficult for a family to provide the evidence it might be demanding? One does not know. Also, what is the position regarding the life insurance policy of the individual when they have an industrial disease and there is a chain of causation? They might be eligible, one hopes, for compensation. That needs to be followed through. However, somebody could claim that in some way, the chain of causation had been broken.

Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill

Debate between Lord Empey and Baroness Finlay of Llandaff

Committee stage
Friday 23rd January 2026 Lords Chamber

[Lord Empey (UUP)]

As I said when I opened my remarks, I have amendments in group 50 for that purpose, but there is an inextricable link between having knowledge about these substances and having informed consent, so we cannot compartmentalise it as easily as that. The people who are overseeing the consent of the person must also have that knowledge. The risk factors have to be made available to the patient: that is my point. Because there has not been sufficient research done on these matters, I am not convinced at this stage that the information being provided to the patient is accurate. How can it be if the research has not been done?

[Baroness Finlay of Llandaff (CB)]

My Lords, this group of amendments is about the process of information giving. The lead amendment, Amendment 39A, is about the person having an understanding.

In any process of giving information, there is no point just giving the information: broadcasting it, if you like. You have to check that the person has understood it. Usually, in clinical practice, that is done by asking the patient, “Can you tell me what you have understood from what I have just told you?” That allows the patient to repeat back. Sometimes, you find that they have not understood it at all. Sometimes, you find that they have over-understood and brought in other sources of information, and you can then deal with misinformation that comes in and that might be relevant to them. That process is behind consent. The signing of a consent form is simply verification that the process of handing over and receiving information has happened. It is not the signature that matters, it is the process.

I will deal very briefly with something that came up before lunch—

Assisted Dying Bill [HL]

Debate between Lord Empey and Baroness Finlay of Llandaff

Friday 16th January 2015 Lords Chamber

[Lord Empey (UUP)]

My Lords, one is reluctant to become involved in a debate when so many noble Lords with senior medical and legal experience have been putting forward their interpretations. However, I want to deal with a couple of matters. With this amendment, the noble Lord, Lord Carlile, is clearly adding that a medical practitioner will have to have significant knowledge of the patient.

I want to speak on this issue because I feel that the Achilles heel of the whole Bill is that it is built on sand. It works only on the assumption that the medical profession will deliver it, whereas it is obvious to most of us that the vast majority of the medical profession do not want to deliver it. That leads us to what may be the essential contradiction or conflict in the amendment. A number of noble Lords have said that specifying six months would be an overburdensome requirement. Therefore, we have the dilemma that either you have a medical practitioner who knows the patient, knows the condition and knows how that patient is likely to react to certain drugs, or you have a complete stranger who comes in and makes a judgment on the spot, having read a medical file. I fear that a rent-a-doctor procedure will develop and will distil down to those who are prepared to do it, and that, in my view, will create a whole series of new problems.

I want to raise another point regarding these amendments. We talk about having conversations, discussions and processes. I represented an inner-city constituency for more than 25 years and my question is: with whom and at what time are people going to have these discussions, conversations and processes? At the moment, nurses hardly have time to feed patients on their ward, let alone to involve themselves in very complicated and difficult conversations, discussions and processes.

Therefore, looking at the modern-day NHS and all the pressures that it is under, to some extent we are adding a further pressure without the active support and consent of the medical profession. Also—this is the one thing that I worry about more than anything else—we are changing for ever the potential relationship between a doctor and a patient. In an inner-city area, the ordinary person will say, “Oh, here comes Dr Death. How can that person help me on the one hand and put my lights out on another?”. I fear that that is how this will be distilled down to street level.

In the amendment, the noble Lord is clearly trying to put in place the safeguard that the patient will at least be dealt with by somebody who knows him or her. I understand that and accept the rationale for it. However, there are practicalities, which have been raised by others. With inner-city practices, it is hard enough to get the patient to go to a doctor in the first place, but if they think that that doctor could at some point in their lives, as they would say, sign them off, will the amendment achieve the worthy objective for which it is meant?

The word “control” has been used a number of times. I think the noble Baroness, Lady Meacher, and others used it. One can see that people would want to have control over their lives. It could happen to any of us. But in the real world out there, many people who are seriously ill may not have the means. They do not have access to the courts, money or knowledge. Control may be all right for those of us in this House, but it is not always available to the ordinary person in the street. That is where I believe there is a fundamental weakness in this. Without the act of involvement of the medical profession who really want to do something, we are forcing them into a corner. It will inevitably boil down to a handful of doctors who will go around the country signing off people they do not know.

[Baroness Finlay of Llandaff]

The noble Lord made some cogent points in relation to this group of amendments. He made me wonder whether he thinks the solution may be that the discussions could happen earlier but the provision of the assistance to end life should be much later. The timeframe could change. Discussion of whether someone is terminally ill could start much earlier, and could therefore take more time, but the delivery of the lethal drugs could happen much later. For clarity, they are not morphine or heroin. The drugs are a massive overdose of barbiturates, which is completely different and would never be used therapeutically. That is the way that you end people’s lives under the Oregon and other legislation. That might be a solution. I also ask the noble and learned Lord, Lord Falconer of Thoroton, whether he would consider that type of solution in looking again at the clause.

Assisted Dying Bill [HL]

Debate between Lord Empey and Baroness Finlay of Llandaff

Friday 7th November 2014 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Finlay of Llandaff]

Would the noble Lord accept the premise that we are trying to provide the evidence based on what we know happens elsewhere? My noble friend Lady Grey-Thompson outlined a reality—that we know reports come from those countries that have changed the law about patients whose symptoms are not being addressed in the days between the time that it has been agreed and when they have their lethal overdose. That is a reality that we abhor.

I would like to correct the perception about palliative sedation to which the noble Lord referred, as it is important that people out there do not have the misconception that patients are either not consulted about treatment decisions or that they are put into some kind of coma by those who are looking after them.

The evidence from Holland was presented at the international conference on clinical ethics in Paris in April this year. In Holland, about 2.7% of all deaths are from euthanasia or physician-assisted suicide. Their regime of palliative sedation is used in between 12% and 16% of cases. That is completely different from what we do here. In this country we may use sedation, titrating the drugs up temporarily to get on top of symptoms but then lowering the dose again and adjusting it to meet the patient’s needs. That is quite different from deliberately using a dose of drugs to induce coma and using uncontrolled escalations of opioids and benzodiazepine cocktails to produce absolute loss of awareness as a therapeutic goal. There is concern among those of us who are operating in palliative care in this country about that way of managing patients at the end of life. That is not standard practice here.

If the noble Lord would like to look at the recommendations on the use of sedative drugs at the end of life, I would be happy to take him through them. They are on various therapeutic websites. However, I hope he will accept that what may be said casually by people and propaganda is not necessarily what should happen, and that nobody condones the withdrawal of fluids and dehydrating people until they die. That was exactly why the noble Baroness, Lady Neuberger, undertook an inquiry into the Liverpool care pathway. It was misused because that was not what the relevant document said should happen. That was abuse, not treatment.

[Lord Empey (UUP)]

My Lords, I wish to speak on Amendment 67 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Carlile, but, before doing so, I want to say how much I regret the direction of travel of our Committee stage today. I should have thought it would be more profitable to debate all the amendments in Committee and make decisions on Report. However, noble Lords have decided to take the proceedings in a different direction and we will have to deal with that.

There is no perfection to be found with this Bill or without it. As we have said many times, the Second Reading debate gave an opportunity for a large number of noble Lords to express their views and the compassionate arguments that were expressed throughout that debate were very moving. Indeed, there have been similar contributions today.

I have no complaint about the way that the amendments have been grouped today, but that does mean that certain amendments are more relevant to certain issues than others. That is inevitable. My anxiety, as I expressed at Second Reading, concerns the position of the medical profession. I am not a doctor but a close relative is starting out on that road. We have given insufficient consideration to the impact that the Bill, if it is enacted, will have on the profession. As I see it, it would completely change the status of a doctor and the doctor-patient relationship.

How often have we said that, in order to provide a lethal dose or drug, the best medical person to judge that is somebody who knows the patient because no two patients are the same? Even then, that is no guarantee because you have to have some people who are specialists in the delivery of certain substances. Even then, as we have heard from the noble Baroness, Lady Masham, when people deliberately set out judicially to end a life, it turns out to be a mess. By introducing an independent element, the amendment at least separates out from this process the role of the carer and the medical profession up to that point. That is extremely advantageous. Simply to assume that we can subcontract to a profession that does not want this, against its will and without even having a discussion on it, is presumptuous, to say the least.