Debates between Lord Trefgarne and Lord Jenkin of Roding during the 2010-2015 Parliament

Civil Aviation Bill

Debate between Lord Trefgarne and Lord Jenkin of Roding
Monday 2nd July 2012

(12 years, 4 months ago)

Grand Committee
Read Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Jenkin of Roding Portrait Lord Jenkin of Roding
- Hansard - - - Excerpts

I should like to be reassured that the noble Lord, Lord Davies of Oldham, does not seek to insist that everyone must stand in the same queue for check-in. If you buy a first-class ticket, many airlines have special check-in counters for such travellers. That seems entirely appropriate and entirely different from going through immigration, either outwards or inwards. The amendment specifically mentions check-in. However, it seems entirely appropriate that if you buy a first-class ticket you can go to a first-class check-in desk and not wait as long as you would if you had bought a standard fare.

Lord Trefgarne Portrait Lord Trefgarne
- Hansard - -

Perhaps the noble Lord will tell us how he proposes that disabled people should be handled. They often have special provision at airports, which is necessary and very proper.

--- Later in debate ---
Lord Trefgarne Portrait Lord Trefgarne
- Hansard - -

I am bound to tell the noble Lord that his answer has been wholly unconvincing on this matter. I hope he will undertake to reconsider and bring forward amendments if he thinks fit at the next stage.

Lord Jenkin of Roding Portrait Lord Jenkin of Roding
- Hansard - - - Excerpts

When my noble friend started his reply by talking about the amendment being too extensive, I thought he was going to move on to say that a redrafted one that was not quite so widely drawn might meet with his approval. As my noble friend proceeded, however, that possibility seemed to disappear over the horizon until we got to the end when he said that he will continue to discuss this with his right honourable friend the Minister of State at the Department for Transport. I hope that will be a serious reconsideration. This is not a frivolous point and it is not covered by saying that the Competition Commission could dismiss appeals as being frivolous or pointless.

Of course, the financial markets would be totally spooked by the threat of an interruption which, as the noble Lord, Lord Soley, said, might last for more than six months. They would not be prepared to go on lending and the whole investment programme would be threatened. This could not be in the interest of passengers. I understand that my noble friend has to be cautious about what he says, but when he said at the end that he would not reconsider it but would discuss it with the Minister of State, I paid more attention to the second point than the first. Perhaps we are making progress. If it is a question of drafting something that removes the risk only so far as is necessary, I am sure that the lawyers working for BAA—perhaps with the department lawyers or parliamentary counsel—would be able to find a form of words. In the mean time, Ministers must be willing to recognise that this problem has to be dealt with and cannot be put off.