High Speed 2 (Economic Affairs Committee Report)

Lord Monks Excerpts

Thursday 23rd January 2020 Lords Chamber

[Lord Monks (Lab)]

My Lords, as a former member of the Economic Affairs Committee, I continue to appreciate its work. It has been a forensic and challenging commentator on HS2 in recent years. This report, like its predecessor, shines a pretty sharp light on the many questions that continue to dog the HS2 project. To emphasise the point that the chairman, the noble Lord, Lord Forsyth, made, it does not call for the abolition of the project; it calls for a reassessment of certain aspects of it. That is an important distinction that may have got lost in some of the debate recently.

From my point of view, we are where we are. HS2 has started: the first phase is under way and 9,000 jobs are supported by the project. Early works are under way at the London terminals and elsewhere on the HS2 line to Birmingham. Billions have been spent and more are committed, so to scrap it now, as many are arguing, would represent a failure of epic proportions. This is not a white-elephant project, as some have suggested; it is not Concorde, or something relevant to only a tiny proportion of the population. This is a great north-south railway that could last 100 years or more, just as the Victorian railway network has done, and be a great national asset. To look just at what the project is costing now without looking at its lifespan seems very foolish.

It is not an alternative to investment in northern and Midland rail links. We have heard some interesting remarks about their limitations. As a Mancunian, I am only too well aware of the bottleneck at the Oxford Road/Piccadilly station. But, as the four metropolitan mayors said in the Sunday Times last week:

“Modern railways such as HS2 and Northern Powerhouse Rail are the single biggest means to transform jobs and opportunities for people in the Midlands and the north.”


The danger is that the reviews and debates will go on and on, and that the political will is going to fade, which in time will lead to the cancellation of the project. That is a real danger as we undertake this debate. The noble Lord, Lord Framlingham, is right in one respect: he senses that the political wind may be blowing his way at present.

Can we do major infrastructure projects in this country or can we not? HS2 is a test of whether we can—and, like the committee, I am very concerned about spiralling costs. I can well understand that this is eating into public support for the project.

[Lord Framlingham]

I want to dispel the idea that I am in any way against large infrastructure projects. I am just against nonsenses.

[Lord Monks]

That is where we disagree. We are all against nonsenses, by the way—on that we agree—but a railway open to all, going from the north of England to the south, seems to me anything but nonsense. It is a great national asset and I would have thought that the noble Lord would recognise that.

When we look at costs, I know that France is a larger and less populous country than us, with less opposition. But the advocates of HS2 have a real question to answer: why can France do these things so much more cheaply than we can? One thing I wonder about is the labour market that surrounds these projects. It is populated by armies of consultants and self-employed workers. The main contractors have very few directly employed people working for them for years, in a loyal and determined way. It seems that when we undertake these kinds of projects, it is well worth looking at the labour force and how it is organised.

I want to emphasise, however, that people in the northern sections should not be treated as second-class citizens. If there is an idea, as is rumoured in the current review, that we will get away with a cheaper, mixed, existing mainline hybrid scheme north of Birmingham, that would be very much resented in the northern parts of this country. They would feel it very strongly.

As I mentioned, the UK’s record on large-scale infrastructure management is not good. The Olympics were a conspicuous exception; on the other hand, Crossrail is a nightmarish example of the kind of problems that we have. But if we do not attempt these things, and if we do not seek to improve and learn from the way others do them, we will never do better—and we will not do better by cancellation or dithering or perpetual review. We must get away from that.

It is important to emphasise to those who have raised environmental concerns that the new line would be, on balance, a great environmental advantage over the years. I know that there are problems with the route and woodlands, but taking things off the roads and away from the air seems to me to be important. The noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, has reminded us previously that HS2 would free up the existing lines to run more local and freight services. The Government have made many promises to the north about fresh infrastructure investment. If HS2 is collapsed, who in the north or Midlands is going to believe any of these promises? The Government need to keep their word, hold their nerve and complete HS2—all of it—as soon as possible.

Laser Misuse (Vehicles) Bill [HL]

Lord Monks Excerpts

Committee: 1st sitting (Hansard): House of Lords
Tuesday 23rd January 2018 Lords Chamber

[Lord Tunnicliffe]

My Lords, this group of amendments falls under two issues: one is control towers and control buildings, the other is what I call “to dazzle or not to dazzle”. Amendments 2, 6, 8, 10, 12 and 14 refer to the former—I accept that they also refer in part to dazzling or not dazzling—and I tabled Amendment 3, which is directly on the dazzle issue.

I think everybody involved with the Bill supports the central idea that we should prohibit the shining of lasers at aircraft because of the associated risk. Beyond that, there has been a degree of mission creep. The Government’s piece of mission creep has been to want to apply this to all vehicles—fair enough. The aviation lobby’s mission creep has been to want to apply it to control towers—fair enough. When you have had those pieces of mission creep, it is reasonable to apply it to control buildings, although I would be more supportive if there were concrete examples.

We in general support the thrust of the amendments, but I am slightly uncomfortable, because they start to nudge up against the concept of lasers as weapons. The Government must take on board the concept of the use of lasers as weapons in society in general and study this worrying development. That relates to matters such as importation, the crime of carrying such a weapon, and so on. But we do not want to confuse the Bill by going into that territory. I hope that the Minister will take that concern back to her colleagues. I believe that there is already work in BEIS taking place.

To dazzle or not to dazzle is all about gaining a successful prosecution. Our amendment increases the probability of successful prosecution, because it does not require the court to have, completely misquoting Elizabeth I, a window into men’s minds. In other words, the court does not have to prove what people were thinking when they did it. I know that there is general discomfort about strict liability offences, but the issue here is about balance. It boils down to: for what other purpose, having regard to the defence in Clause 1(2), would anyone shine a laser at a vehicle other than to dazzle and distract? That simplicity pushes one towards taking away the dazzle and distract requirement for successful prosecution. I shall deal with my amendment at the appropriate time.

[Lord Monks (Lab)]

My Lords, first, I declare my interest as president of the British Airline Pilots Association. I want to speak briefly to Amendment 14 which, as the noble Baroness, Lady Randerson, said, overlaps with others in the group. On all sides of the House, we are trying to protect not just pilots and the drivers of vehicles but those who control traffic, especially those in control towers at airports. Laser pointers can be a very offensive weapon and their dangerous use should be regarded as rather similar to waving around a gun or other offensive weapon. None of us is under any illusion; the Bill will not be easy to enforce, but it needs to send a strong message about what is acceptable and what is not. I think that it does that but I hope that we can tweak it a bit so that it strengthens that message. The amendments are all designed to add weight to the Bill’s central message on that score.

The noble Baroness, Lady Randerson, spoke about air traffic control, and I will not repeat what I hope were her persuasive points for the Minister to consider. I would just add that such is the range of modern laser pointers that they can reach control towers in controlled areas remote from perimeter fences. Controllers at some distance could be affected by dazzle and distraction in the same way as pilots. As we know, and as has been said, their role is crucial in scanning the airport. Those of us who have had the privilege of joining them in their control rooms have seen that they look physically as well as at the screens; they look at the ground as well as up in the air. They check for obstructions and any hazards that might impede landings, in particular, but check other movements as well.

As such, it is incumbent on us to try to ensure that they are protected as much as possible from thoughtless or malicious laser use. We are coming close to zero tolerance when it comes to laser users flashing them about when people are moving vehicles and aeroplanes.

[Baroness Sugg]

My Lords, I will first speak on the amendments which propose removing the need to dazzle or distract from the offence. The principal focus of the Bill is to protect transport operators and the general public. While this amendment seeks to help to address the problem, the Government believe that it goes further than is appropriate. The Government aim to be proportionate when we create new criminal offences and we do not want to penalise behaviour that does not present a risk to transport safety. The offence we are creating would specifically address the risk of harm as a result of shining a laser which dazzles or distracts, or is likely to dazzle or distract, a person physically operating a vehicle.

These amendments would go further than that by criminalising activity where there is no risk of harm. The proposed offence would cover shining or directing a laser when it is,

“likely to dazzle or distract”.

This will mean that prosecutors will not necessarily need to prove that the shining of a laser actually dazzled or distracted the person in control of the vehicle, only that it was likely to and therefore potentially risked public safety.

The question was raised about how difficult it would be for the prosecution to show that the person in control of the vehicle was dazzled or distracted. In most cases, we would expect evidence to be available from the person who had control of the vehicle that they were dazzled or distracted. A statement directly from the victim would be strong evidence on this point. On that basis, the Government are not convinced that removing the need to demonstrate that a person has been dazzled or distracted would be proportionate to capture the type of activity we want to deter.

Moving on to the amendments seeking to make it an offence to shine a laser at traffic control installations, I am grateful to all noble Lords who have spoken on this amendment, which clearly has a lot of support on all sides of the House. The Bill has been drafted to deal with the safety risks faced when a laser distracts or dazzles the person in control of a vehicle and therefore does not currently include non-vehicles such as traffic control installations. When we look at laser attacks in aviation, the vast majority of incidents reported are targeting aircraft—1,200 in the last year alone—whereas the number of reported attacks on air traffic control towers averages out at around three per year. That said, air traffic control personnel have an important responsibility in controlling and monitoring the movement of aircraft taking off, landing and manoeuvring on the ground, so I recognise that a laser attack on a person carrying out those duties clearly presents safety concerns and could endanger aircraft.

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Lord Monks]

15: After Clause 1, insert the following new Clause—
“Parental responsibility
A person commits an offence if—(a) the person knowingly or recklessly permits a child or young person in the person’s care to shine or direct a laser beam towards a vehicle which is on a journey, and(b) the laser beam dazzles or distracts, or is likely to dazzle or distract, a person with control of the vehicle.”

[Lord Monks]

My Lords, I tabled this amendment because we know from the evidence that we have been able to discern in this area that many of the perpetrators of the misuse of laser pointers are children and young people. They have seen “Star Wars” and lots of other sci-fi blockbusters; they have played computer games where lasers of one form or another are the weapons of choice of many of the protagonists; and they are fascinated by the power of the new technology. Items such as these, although still quite pricey, come to hand relatively easily and are getting cheaper and are more readily available.

Picking on vehicle drivers, especially pilots, seems to be the fashion at the moment. With this amendment, I seek to stress the responsibility of parents and other adults who buy laser pointers as presents for their children, and to send a message that it is not acceptable to then allow them to proceed unsupervised around the neighbourhood. Lasers are very dangerous for children to have and very dangerous to pilots and other vehicle drivers, such as train drivers.

I raise this issue in the context of the Bill to send a firm message to adults that they have responsibilities. I know that the question of the extent to which children or their parents are responsible for things is a tangled area, but it seems to me that I have the balance about right. The amendment proposes to set out that parents have responsibilities in this area and that they cannot wash their hands of incidents involving children for whom they are responsible.

[Baroness Randerson]

My Lords, I was pleased to add my name in support of the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Monks. As he said, the age profile of offenders tends to be quite young and the amendment reflects the fact that young people are often unaware of the danger and gravity of what they are doing. I made the point earlier today that the fact that lasers are often mislabelled emphasises that it is difficult for people to know the strength of the laser they are using.

The Minister wrote to me in response to points I raised at Second Reading and pointed out that lasers are often bought by young people and children on holiday abroad, and that this is frequently the way in which they come into the country. This emphasises the importance of the underlying points the amendment seeks to make—the issue of parental responsibility and the importance of educating parents in the dangers of lasers. In that way we will educate generations of young children.

[Baroness Sugg]

My Lords, parents are not held directly responsible for the criminal acts of their children and I am not aware of any circumstances in our criminal law in which an adult who knowingly or recklessly permits a child or young person to commit an offence is itself an offence.

Punishments such as the local child curfew or a child safety order can be given to children under the age of criminal responsibility who break the law. The order means that a child can be placed under the supervision of a social worker or a youth offending team worker to ensure that the child receives protection and support and is prevented from repeating the offence. Children between 10 and 17 can be arrested and taken to court if they commit a crime, although they are treated differently from adults.

Parents and guardians can be held responsible if their child repeatedly gets into trouble or if the parent does not take reasonable steps to control their behaviour. They could be asked to attend a parenting programme, sign a parenting contract or be given a parenting order by a court. A breach of a parenting order is a criminal offence and can result in a fine of up to £1,000 or community service.

On education, the Government are working on a programme of education which will include a specific programme for schools to target young people and to educate them on the dangers of lasers.

The Government’s view is that the current youth justice system is sufficient to deal with this issue and it would not be appropriate to make an exception to the usual practice. I hope the noble Lord will withdraw his amendment.

[Lord Monks]

My Lords, I draw attention to the term,

“the person knowingly or recklessly permits a child or young person”.

That is a high hurdle. It is not visiting the sins of the child on the parents but specifying the faults committed by the person who provides the laser. However, in the circumstances, I am certainly prepared to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment 15 withdrawn.

Laser Misuse (Vehicles) Bill [HL]

Lord Monks Excerpts

2nd reading (Hansard): House of Lords
Tuesday 9th January 2018 Lords Chamber

[Lord Monks (Lab)]

My Lords, I am pleased to follow the Minister in discussing this matter. I start by declaring an interest as the president of BALPA, which has been campaigning on this issue for some years and is delighted that this House is now legislating to deal with what is a major challenge for civil aviation and other transport sectors, although civil aviation is perhaps the most affected. I am also delighted to be joined in this debate by the noble Lord, Lord Balfe, who is the vice-president of BALPA. We work across the House on matters such as civil aviation safety. The noble Lord has worked tirelessly with BALPA to get where we are today, and I am very pleased to work with him on this.

The Government are to be congratulated on bringing forward this Bill and on taking action more generally, as the Minister explained, on the threat posed by the misuse of laser pointers. This action is very timely—even, perhaps, overdue—as we have known for some time that laser pointers are becoming ever more powerful and cheaper and are being used surprisingly often to dazzle drivers of vehicles. Misuse seems to have been increasing, with three to four attacks daily on UK-registered aircraft and 96 attacks on train drivers reported in the recent period.

Lasers can be powerful weapons in the wrong hands and, as the Minister said, they often get into the hands of children larking about and thinking it is fun. As the Bill proposes, lasers need tougher control and regulation and a strong message needs to be sent out that it is totally unacceptable to misuse lasers in the way that some people are doing. The new offence in the Bill should make prosecution easier and punishments more appropriate. Existing laws are limited in comparison.

I am pleased that the Bill is being complemented by other government action. I note that in the past few days the Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy has announced that it will clamp down on the importation of high-powered laser pointers. This too is a very welcome step and should help cut the number of laser attacks on vehicles. The proposed clampdown includes schemes to tighten border controls, give more expertise to local authorities and work with manufacturers and retailers to improve the labelling of laser pointers, to point out just how dangerous they can be if misused. Work is also going on with online retailers to try to make sure they use some discretion in their distribution methods. Raising parental awareness of the risks associated with laser pointers will also be very important. These are not toys for children to use to emulate the latest sci-fi blockbuster—they are highly dangerous, and can be as big a threat as a gun in the wrong hands.

There will be a chance in Committee to review some of the Bill’s details, especially whether the offence should perhaps be more about shining the laser itself and not require proof that people in charge of the vehicle were dazzled. That issue was debated in the other place and no doubt will receive some attention in Committee here. We need to examine this point, which led to some differences in the other place. There may not be any differences in this place yet—I am not sure—but I would certainly be interested at some stage in the Government’s view on that.

It is a general welcome from me for the Government’s moves at present on this subject. Now is the time to move forward quickly on this issue, to stop the misuses of laser pointers and to give this Bill a fair and supportive wind.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Balfe (Con)]

My Lords, I also begin by declaring my interests as the vice-president of BALPA. The noble Lord, Lord Monks, said some very kind things earlier. I have known him now for over 30 years, and I do not think we have had a cross word in all that time, and we have often worked together.

[Lord Monks]

I used to vote for the noble Lord.

[Lord Balfe]

He used to vote for me, indeed. Now, fortunately no one ever has to vote for me again.

I congratulate the Minister on bringing forward this legislation. It is much appreciated and it is necessary. As a number of noble Lords have said, it is a work in progress. This will always be a work in progress as technology is constantly lapping around and moving us forward. Fortunately, speaking at this point in the debate, a lot of things have already been said, so I do not need to repeat them.

I say, first, that I welcome the statement from the Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy about clamping down on unsafe lasers. As has been mentioned, Public Health England recommends a limit of one milliwatt, and I believe that at some appropriate time, we should look at whether there can be some restriction on sales of lasers beyond this strength, particularly since quite a bit of evidence has been adduced and brought forward to show that lasers are often mislabelled; indeed, many people have no idea of the strength of the lasers they are using. They are now both powerful and cheap, and we need to have a look at the incorrect labelling of some of them.

I have also had drawn to my attention the fact that we tend to think of lasers affecting big jumbo jets flying into major airports. This is part of the story, but another part of it, as with drones, is the danger to helicopters. In 2016, 10 medical helicopters were the subject of laser attacks, as were a number of police helicopters. With helicopters, it is a much more dangerous situation in a way. It is the same with drones. A helicopter is much less protected and much less able to withstand an attack.

I have four questions that I should like to put to the Minister, not because I expect an answer tonight but because I would like her to look at them in developing and bringing this legislation further forward. The first is the definition of a journey as it applies to an aircraft. The contention is that a journey is best defined from the points of what is called “doors closed” to “doors open”. When a door is closed, the aircraft is officially on its way, whether it is being pushed back or using its own traction to get to where it takes off, or whether it is on its way down the runway—there are a number of instances, but the fact is that the doors are closed. That is repeated, in reverse of course, when it lands. It has not completed its journey until the doors are open; until then, it can always be moved and it can always be the subject of further developments. I should like the Minister to look at the definition of a journey as it applies to an aeroplane.

The second thing is the level of parental responsibility. We have to make sure that it is not a defence to say, “Oh, it was Jimmy who was shining it”. Obviously, you cannot say, “Last week, when he was not with you, your son shone a laser at someone and you’re responsible”, so there is a need to look at this. I do not have the solution, I am afraid, but I have the problem to address to the Minister of the extent to which underage persons can be made the liability of their guardians or parents.

The third area is the powers to find out whether people have a laser—in other words, what is known by the rather emotive term of “stop and search”. Clearly, this is a much wider issue, because you cannot have one law for lasers and another for knives or other offensive weapons. But it is something that needs to be considered. I point out that, with regard to airports, there is a separate security procedure whereby anything deemed dangerous can be removed at the security barrier. It would seem sensible that there should be the same level of security for people going on the roof or to viewing areas as there are for people passing through the airport itself. Can the Minister look at the extent to which security at airports could be bettered?

Finally, we have the question, again from aviation, of air traffic control towers, which are also part of the structure of flying but are clearly not vehicles. Can the Minister look at whether shining a laser at an air traffic control tower and air traffic controllers should in some way be brought within the Bill? At the moment, it applies only to moving vehicles which, as far as airports are concerned, does not include the air traffic control tower.

With those words, I close by welcoming the Bill and what is in it, realising that all these measures have to go forward and will be subject to revision as time moves on. I hope we are starting at least to tidy up one small and essential area of our safety in this area.

Employment Tribunals Act 1996 (Tribunal Composition) Order 2012

Lord Monks Excerpts

Wednesday 28th March 2012 Lords Chamber

[Lord Whitty]

My Lords, I support both amendments, but I will concentrate my remarks on the second. In one sense, I apologise to the Minister for repeating some points that I made in the Moses Room. However, I find that his response—in the Moses Room, here today and in correspondence—does not address the issue that I raised. He claims that he is not basing the assertion that the raising of the threshold will increase the propensity to employ on anecdotal evidence. Yet he does not adduce any statistical evidence. The crude evidence is that the last time the threshold was lower, there was an increase in the propensity of employers to employ. That can be dismissed on the basis that it was part of the business cycle, but I am sure that the noble Lord’s department has statisticians who could take out that effect. We have, as the Minister proudly claimed, had some provision on unfair dismissal for 41 years, introduced in the 1971 Act to which those of us who were in trade unions at the time were, in general, opposed. However, the Government of the day thought that some balance was needed in terms of the attack on trade unions that that represented and individual employee rights. Therefore, they rightly inserted the right to claim against unfair dismissal.

Since 1971, either the threshold or the scope of that right has changed five or six times. There are therefore clear points where a change in the legislation could be related to the change in employment patterns. The Minister and his colleagues have failed completely to adduce any of that evidence and present it here today. Instead, they continue to rely on anecdotal evidence. When we were in the Moses Room, I put this down to listening too much to the saloon bars of the Home Counties; we may since have learnt that it may have been raised in the private dining room of No. 10. Either way, it is not statistical evidence. It is anecdotal and it is not proven that that is how employers actually behave. Until the Government prove that, they have not got to base 1 for justifying the macroeconomic effects of these changes.

For Joe Public sitting on the Clapham Omnibus, it is a pretty counterfactual argument to say that the best way of creating jobs is to allow employers to sack people more easily. Some economics is counterfactual, I agree, but without statistical evidence, it is difficult to argue in favour of these changes. That evidence has never been there. In the mid-1990s, there was the famous case of Seymour-Smith and Perez, which went all the way up to the European Court, about indirect discrimination in terms of the higher threshold. I am not arguing that case now, but I am saying that in the course of it, every court at every level, from the High Court right up to the European Court of Justice, accepted that the Government had not proven that, whether or not this was indirect discrimination, there was a bigger good in that more employment had resulted from an upward movement of the threshold. The Court of Appeal said that,

“nothing in the evidence, either factual or opinion … obliges … us to draw the inference that the increase in the threshold period has led to an increase in employment opportunities”.

That was the case 17 years ago. In the intervening 17 years nobody has proven to my satisfaction that the connection is there. The evidence was not there then and it is not there now.

There is a wider context to this, too, as my noble friend Lord Borrie has indicated. This may be the first of many changes in employment law that the Government are bringing forward, and their intention is probably to do so under statutory instruments. I appreciate that it is the convention of the House that we do not vote against statutory instruments, and we are not doing so today. I have a slightly different view, because in the list of government defeats under the previous Government, the first two were against me, so I do not have quite the same compunction as other colleagues. However, if a central tenet of primary legislation is undermined by a series of statutory instruments as the beginning of this series suggests it will be—3 million people taken out of the protection that primary legislation allows—and that continues, we have to look at the way in which the Government are using statutory instruments. I say no more on that.

The other, wider, point, as my noble friend Lord Beecham said, is that we are talking about a vulnerable subset of the population—people who have been employed for a relatively short time, most of whom, regrettably, do not have the protection of trade unions—which is excluded from the basic right not to be unfairly dismissed. This is part and parcel of other legislation which the Ministry of Justice rather than BIS is bringing forward. We have excluded from access to legal aid not only issues of employment but of housing, social security, industrial injuries, for the most part, and industrial diseases—all of which disproportionately affect the most vulnerable elements of our society.

In his opening the remarks, the Minister said that it is vital that the justice system is fair, independent and must not be compromised. I agree—but if you cannot get before a court or a tribunal in the first place, however good and balanced the court and tribunal systems may be, you are being discriminated against. The combination of taking away employee rights in this legislation and taking away access to legal aid in the Bill we regrettably passed last night is a severe restriction of the access to justice.

I fear that those of us who hoped for a relatively liberal Secretary of State at the Ministry of Justice, and a very liberal Minister in this House from that department, will be disappointed. The Ministers’ epitaphs will be that they excluded significant sections of the most discriminated against population from access to justice. That is a bad epitaph for both the parties opposite. I hope that this legislation will not be an additional contribution to that negative effect.

[Lord Monks]

The difficulty with making changes through statutory instruments is that they convey the impression that the changes being made are minor and of a technical nature. However, these changes are not technical and they are certainly not minor. As the noble Lord, Lord Whitty, said, 3 million people will be taken out of the scope of unfair dismissal legislation and protection. That is a major change which will have a major impact on the British labour market.

Why is this happening? The justification from the Government is that it will aid job creation. Have any employers said, “If you make that change, we will take on more people”? Have they given any undertakings or promises? Of course they have not. This is all in the impressionistic world and it is a matter of conjecture whether anything will change. I do not believe that it will have anything other than the most marginal effect on employers—and I know a lot of employers—but it will have more than a marginal effect on those 3 million workers, or at least some of them. In most jobs—there may be exceptional ones—you do not need more than a year to check whether or not a person is suitable. Probation periods are rarely longer than one year.

Nor is an employer likely to be found guilty of unfair dismissal if a worker does not first achieve and then maintain the required standards of competence or behaviour. Provided that a warning is given, the employer will not make the minor procedural mistakes that the Minister warned about in his moving remarks. I do not mean “moving” in an emotional sense—I wish to make that clear—but in moving the Motion. Bad employers are being given carte blanche for an extra year and the effect will be a rise in insecurity and grave injustice.

Cutting the role of lay members is not a minor issue—this is a step towards a tribunal becoming a full court, with a judge on his own. That will be a daunting prospect for many applicants, which is softened at the moment by the fact there are lay people with some understanding of their world of work. That is not a criticism of judges, for whom I have a lot of time generally, but we will miss a tremendous amount of experience in tribunal hearings because of this change.

As others have said, these may be the first two steps in implementing some of the ideas that are circling around the Beecroft report. We have not seen the report yet, but this venture capitalist has been let loose like a bull in a china shop in the delicate field of employment law. I ask the Minister for an assurance that if any changes are to be made in the future in employment law, they will not be smuggled in through the statutory instrument route but will be a matter for primary legislation so they can have a proper debate and proper exposure in this House.

Aviation: UK Civil Aviation

Lord Monks Excerpts

Monday 23rd January 2012 Lords Chamber

[Lord Monks]

My Lords, I start by declaring an interest as president of the British Airline Pilots Association, which organises for about four out of five of Britain’s pilots. Of course, the debates about civil aviation are very much moving centre stage in many ways. We have heard different views from different corners of the House during this debate. I put myself on the side of those who say this industry is a success story for Britain, or it has been so far. It represents 2 per cent of GDP and something like half a million jobs directly and indirectly depend upon it. When it is not working properly, whether that is due to snow or Icelandic volcanic eruptions, you can see the effects on our national life. My question to the Minister is: what more can be done to recognise the importance of the industry?

We know about the capacity constraints, which my noble friend Lady Gibson referred to. I am afraid that those who are opposed to airport development have got to recognise that the demand for air travel is going to grow substantially over the next period. Capacity is going to grow either here or in Amsterdam or maybe Paris or Frankfurt. Those airports are gearing up for this growth and are no less environmentally conscious than we are—probably more so, particularly as far as Schiphol is concerned—so let us not think that they are polluters or carefree people who would besmirch the environment. It is very important, in this exercise that the Government have started, that we get a clear idea of the timetable for decisions soon. Whether they are in favour of expanding Heathrow, which I tend to favour, or building a new airport elsewhere, the key thing is that somebody has got to bite the bullet and take decisions.

The other point I would like to make briefly is concern about pilot fatigue. As the pressure for turnarounds and on planes and crews becomes greater as demand for air travel grows, airlines are putting pressure on some staff, particularly the pilots at present. As some of you will know, proposals from the European Aviation Safety Agency on pilots’ hours would relax the present UK standards, which are pretty strict and I think exemplary, and align us with American standards. Usually I am on the pro-European side of these arguments, but on this particular one I do not want to see any watering down of the standards that have applied in Britain rather well. Pilot fatigue is still a problem. You hear some horrific stories when talking to pilots, and it is important that we take this issue seriously. I am interested in the Government’s view on these EU proposals and how the EU can be persuaded to level up rather than down.