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

Debate between Lord Empey and Lord Harper

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 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.

Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill

Debate between Lord Empey and Lord Harper

Committee stage
Friday 27th February 2026 Lords Chamber

[Lord Empey (UUP)]

I accept that that may well be the case. I am simply referring to what was in Hansard in 2021. The noble Lord may have changed his mind, as we all do over our lifetime, and rightly so—if you have a completely solid view of everything throughout your life, it is not a good thing. I am not in any sense trying to demean his position in any way; he is a very highly respected member of your Lordships’ House. My point is that his reference to the euphemism is still valid in my view.

Coming to the nuts and bolts of how things would work in practice, at Second Reading of this Bill, and indeed in previous iterations in which I have had any role, I drew attention to one of the key issues: changing the nature of the service that we are funding. If we decide as a Parliament to make assisted dying, or whatever phrase one wishes to use, a legal activity, that does not necessarily mean that the National Health Service has to pay for it. Can you imagine the finance committee of a trust discussing its budget and getting into an argument? The sums may be modest, but to even put something such as that in this context, when we are talking about life and death, is fundamentally flawed, morally and in every other way. The noble and learned Lord needs to reflect on some of these matters.

[Lord Harper (Con)]

I am grateful to my noble friends Lord Moylan and Lady Fraser for tabling these amendments. They have put forward some important questions which are worth raising explicitly with the sponsors of the Bill, so that we can hear what their intentions are and how they have reached those conclusions.

I have a number of concerns in this area, which I will set out. On a previous day, the Minister currently on the Front Bench confirmed, when we were debating resources, that if Parliament were to pass this Bill then the Government would ensure that all the requirements in the Bill were funded. That is perfectly right and proper. It was clear from that debate that there was no guarantee of any extra resources and that therefore money would be reprioritised—not just in the National Health Service but in the courts’ budget, given the impact that this Bill would have on the courts. That has clearly been reflected by what Stephen Kinnock said in evidence and by the Health Secretary, who commented on the need for prioritisation.

I do not make as much of the cost of this as some people, because I accept what the noble and learned Lord, Lord Falconer, said on a previous occasion. Compared with the NHS’s overall budget, the cost of providing this service is relatively modest. I have a different concern, which is twofold. First, as has been raised already in the debate, it would be perverse if Parliament were to pass this Bill and the taxpayer were to fully fund an assisted suicide service when it only partially funds palliative care. That would set out a very weird set of priorities and choices to the country—that the taxpayer should fully fund helping to kill people and not fully fund helping them to live well.

My question to the Minister—which does not trespass on the Government expressing a view on the Bill—is, in the event that Parliament passes the Bill, and the Government rightly ensure that it is funded, will the Government ensure that palliative care is fully funded by the taxpayer? This is not a question about taking a view on the Bill; rather, it is about making sure that when the Government publish in the autumn—this is why doing it in this order is not helpful, because we are not going to hear about palliative care services until the autumn—they will fully fund those services so that the taxpayer will ensure that any individual facing a choice has a proper choice and, if they choose palliative care, they will have care fully funded by the taxpayer in the same way that they would have a fully funded assisted suicide. If you do not fund it on that basis, you are not providing people with a proper choice. That is a question for the Government to answer.

Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill

Debate between Lord Empey and Lord Harper

Committee stage
Friday 30th January 2026 Lords Chamber

[Lord Harper (Con)]

The noble Baroness makes a very good point which illustrates the importance of being able to ask people questions directly rather than hearing reports of what they have said or seeing it on a video call. That is the importance of in-person conversation and the ability to ask questions and hear answers so that you know what people actually think. I think the noble Baroness has illustrated and evidenced my point extraordinarily well, and I am grateful for her intervention.

At the beginning of this, the noble Baroness, Lady Gerada, referred to medical assessments. She is right in saying that many of them can be done very well remotely. I think that is excellent. I am a great supporter of technology. We do not all believe in quills and pens, and I do not think the noble Baroness, Lady Pidgeon, was entirely suggesting that we were. She might want to reflect on that remark and whether it was entirely well-intentioned, given what the Chief Whip said to us about treating everyone with courtesy and respect. I support the use of technology where it is appropriate.

The problem here is that the noble Baroness, Lady Gerada, said that we can all rest assured that doctors would never view this as a routine exercise. The problem is that in other jurisdictions there is quite a lot of evidence that they do. While it is true, as the noble Baroness, Lady Blackstone, said, that the vast majority of doctors will approach this in absolutely the right way, I am afraid not all doctors are perfect. There was an example yesterday of a paediatrician at Great Ormond Street who had an appalling record. We have to make sure that the law makes sure that patients are properly protected in all cases, not just in the vast majority of them. Where I disagree with her slightly is that this is a policy decision, not a medical decision. Whether assessments should be face to face, either in every case or that the presumption should be that they are, is a policy decision, rightly for Parliament, not for clinicians. It should be informed by listening to clinicians, but it should also be informed by listening to evidence from the patient experience, so ably set out by the noble Baronesses, Lady Smith and Lady Berger.

The noble and learned Baroness, Lady Butler-Sloss, gave her own testimony that she has had to make decisions in these cases, and I was very struck by her view that we should certainly have a presumption that these decisions should be taken face to face. I was very struck by listening to her on previous occasions. Her experience on these matters carries a lot of weight. I also listened very carefully to the noble Lord, Lord Carlile, when he set out the GMC’s advice. Decisions for patients with a terminal illness about a course of action that will lead to the end of their life seem to me to fall squarely within the set of cases where you would want a face-to-face appointment, but equally I felt there was good counsel for us and challenge from the noble Baronesses, Lady Jay, Lady Pidgeon and Lady Blackstone, to think of the patient, the person who has the terminal illness who wants a decision. They were right to challenge us on that.

That is why I think, if we look at the balance of amendments in this group, they are very helpful because they set out a span of choices for your Lordships, from saying that every decision has to be taken in person, which I think would be wrong for the reasons that the three noble Baronesses set out, that you have to look at the patient’s views, but equally, I think the present wording is too loose and does not set out a presumption that they should be face to face. I would be very grateful to hear the view of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Falconer, on where he thinks he is likely to settle because that will be helpful for all of us when thinking about whether we have to table further amendments. It seems to be a presumption that it is face to face, but with a very limited set of circumstances where it can be not face to face. But we should not accept the presumption in a patient-centred model that the patient always has to go and see the panel or the doctors. It should absolutely be, particularly because so many people in these circumstances are going to be in poor health, that we think of a system that makes sure that when it comes to the panel at least one member of the panel, the independent person, is physically present.

That is important. These amendments touch on two parts of Clause 17. The first is subsection (6), which states:

“The duty under subsection (4)(b) to hear from the person to whom the referral relates does not apply if the panel is of the opinion that there are exceptional circumstances which justify not hearing from that person”.


That means there are circumstances where the panel does not have to hear from the person at all: not by videolink, not in person, not by pre-recorded video, not at all. That was confirmed to me when the noble and learned Lord, Lord Falconer, and I were doing a media programme—I think it was “The Week in Westminster”—where I challenged him on this. He confirmed that there were circumstances in which a decision could be taken for someone to seek assisted suicide and the panel would never have to see them at all. I do not think that is right.

The other subsection these amendments touch on is subsection (5), which states:

“Where the panel considers it appropriate for medical reasons, it may make provision for the use of pre-recorded audio or video material”.


That was inserted in the House of Commons by a Back-Bench amendment. It was not very well debated. The fact that it is pre-recorded means that it gets rid of any opportunity for questioning or challenge. The problem I have with the language there is that it says “medical reasons”, it does not say “medical reasons pertaining to the patient”. This is my last point—

[Lord Empey (UUP)]

We are forgetting that we can use the telephone in this circumstance. It is not even that you would have sight of the person, but you could have a pre-recorded telephone call.

[Lord Harper (Con)]

I am grateful for that. The final point I want to make is that we had experience during the pandemic of too many vulnerable people, people with learning disabilities, having “do not resuscitate” notices put on them by doctors. I do not want to see a system where, if we had a similar circumstance again, these sorts of decisions would be taken remotely at speed. We know from our deliberations in this House, and it is my experience in the other place, that there is no substitute for doing these things face to face where you can challenge people, ask questions, put people under that challenge and get good answers to make good decisions.

I commend this group of amendments to your Lordships, and I look forward to hearing the response of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Falconer.

Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill

Debate between Lord Empey and Lord Harper

Committee stage
Friday 23rd January 2026 Lords Chamber

[Lord Empey (UUP)]

I have to say that that was not my intention—the noble and learned Lord knows that perfectly well. I raised the point merely to indicate the length of time that this is taking and that a lot of the proposals and amendments on the Marshalled List could be addressed if we had amendments put forward by the noble and learned Lord, which he indicated in an email last week would be forthcoming. They are not here.

[Lord Harper (Con)]

I think that the reason why the noble Lord, Lord Birt, has put down these amendments is that it is not clear, from what the Government have said or what the Bill says, where this service is supposed to be—I see that the noble Lord, Lord Birt, is nodding at that. If the sponsor of the Bill had set out in the Bill more detail about how it would work and where it would sit, if there had been a proper process, many of the amendments from people with concerns would need to have been tabled and we would be moving faster. It is because of that gap and that failure, which is the sponsor’s responsibility, that this is taking a long time. It is necessary scrutiny to get the Bill right. That is what the public would expect of us.