Air Traffic Management and Unmanned Aircraft Bill [HL]

Debate between Lord Tunnicliffe and Lord Kirkhope of Harrogate

Committee stage & Committee: 1st sitting (Hansard): House of Lords & Committee: 1st sitting (Hansard)
Monday 10th February 2020 Lords Chamber

[Lord Kirkhope of Harrogate (Con)]

My Lords, I disagree with Amendment 2 because narrowing the Secretary of State’s powers would not be desirable. I know that the powers under discussion relate directly to the modernisation programme, but they should be maintained permanently regarding the control of airspace. The CAA is not a good place for these matters to dwell, particularly as the Secretary of State is of course accountable to Parliament—so there is a way in which the Secretary of State can be challenged, which is rather more democratic and relevant than a narrowing of the powers. We do not want a shift in the balance of power from the Secretary of State to the CAA. That point goes for Amendments 2, 3, 8 and 9.

Amendment 4 refers to a consultation process and appeals. As we know, there was a very effective Aviation 2050 Green Paper last year, which was a mammoth consultation. The consultation here proposed might duplicate the effort that has just gone in and could be a waste of resources. Aviation interests would be consulted in any event, but I am not sure that an initial consultation, as envisaged here, would be helpful.

Some airfields are obviously commercially able to find the resources to be involved, but some are not. It is, therefore, important that smaller airfields are looked after. Amendment 6, which would ensure that smaller airports have appropriate funding, is important and should be supported. Amendment 7 would allow a system of compensation to be set up, to cover the cost of airports being compelled to make changes. That seems reasonable, as airports are commercial entities.

[Lord Tunnicliffe (Lab)]

My Lords, for the convenience of the House, I draw attention to the penultimate line on the front page of today’s list, which states that the target for the day is to complete Amendment 23. That means that we are not going to do drones today. No Member has moved from their seat; never mind.

The essence of this group of amendments, with which I broadly agree, is to prevent mission creep. Having sat on the Front Bench opposite, I recall that whenever you create a right for the Government to do something or other, civil servants will creep up to you and say: “Make sure it is not restricted, because you might need it.” I fear that, far too often, they do.

The Minister wrote to me and several other noble Lords. On the second page of her letter, under the heading “Proportionality”, her second sentence states:

“It is the government’s intention that, at least initially, the powers to direct in clauses 2 and 3 would only be used by the Secretary of State in relation to ACPs that have been identified within the airspace change masterplan, currently being developed by NERL through the Airspace Change Organising Group (ACOG) with a view to incorporation of the masterplan into the CAA’s airspace strategy”.


I read the whole sentence for the avoidance of doubt. The words that sprung out at me are, “at least initially”. Further on in the letter, the Minister seeks to soften those words with a series of intentions. However, intentions are not law: they are the words of the Minister. If she repeats those words into Hansard they become a little more useful. Nevertheless, there is a serious issue with that part of the Bill ending up in mission creep. There are so many things for which the CAA or the Government might wish to use these powers.

I share the view that the task in front of those who are trying to deliver the programme is such that consultation—ideally on the face of the Bill, as put forward by Amendment 4—would be useful. It would certainly be useful to hear the extent to which the Minister can assure the House about consultation. On the appeals procedure, I refer again to the noble Baroness’s extremely useful letter, in which she says:

“There is no formal appeals process against an ACAA decision relating to individual ACPs. CAP1616 is a fully transparent process in which consultation and engagement exercises are run throughout.”


With the greatest respect, a consultation and engagement exercise is not an appeal. Because of the extent to which this process is entirely within the CAA’s ambit, one can see a situation where, without some hook in primary legislation, small fish in this sea could find themselves swamped. A formal appeals procedure somewhere in the Bill might usefully add to it. I hope that the Minister will be able to react to those ideas.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Tunnicliffe]

My Lords, the amendment would require publication of a report on aviation emissions. Although this information is already available, the report would ensure that it was presented in such a way as to comply with the Aarhus convention, which considers steps to reduce emissions.

According to the Government, the Bill will enable sustainable growth in air travel. In light of climate change, there is of course a debate as to whether it is right for the Government to increase air travel—or, at least, whether they should explain how they will ensure that growth is sustainable and how they intend to offset emissions. The Government should make emissions information readily available and allow for greater accountability over their policies to reduce them.

A key section of the Aarhus convention is about access to information,

“the right of everyone to receive environmental information that is held by public authorities … This can include information on the state of the environment, but also on policies or measures taken, or on the state of human health and safety where this can be affected by the state of the environment. Applicants are entitled to obtain this information within one month of the request and without having to say why they require it. In addition, public authorities are obliged, under the Convention, to actively disseminate environmental information in their possession.”

I beg to move.

[Lord Kirkhope of Harrogate]

My Lords, why do the proponents of the amendment believe that this is the right legislative location for it? Perhaps I am missing something, but should it not be looked at as part of the Environment Bill that will come before us in due course or in some other capacity, rather than in the tight confines of what we are debating today? With great respect, I do not think that the noble Lord has explained precisely where it fits into these proposals.

[Lord Tunnicliffe]

I apologise for that. I just feel that the issue of the environment is so important that one should take every reasonable opportunity to raise it. One area where we all know that environmental information about emissions in this country is deficient is the acknowledgment of aviation and maritime impacts. This is clearly an aviation Bill, so it is reasonable to make the inquiry at this point.

Electronic Money, Payment Services and Payment Systems (Amendment and Transitional Provisions) (EU Exit) Regulations 2018

Debate between Lord Tunnicliffe and Lord Kirkhope of Harrogate

Tuesday 6th November 2018 Lords Chamber

[Lord Tunnicliffe (Lab)]

My Lords, I thank the Minister for introducing these SIs. They are two of the 70 that we have to deal with and it is a rare privilege to do so in such a crowded Chamber. Normally, the noble Lord, Lord Bates, and I are allowed the privacy of the Moses Room along with one representative from the Liberal Democrats and no others. During debate on an earlier SI, I talked about the value of these meetings, because at the end of the day the Minister knows, as do I, that we will not oppose these statutory instruments. However, I made the point that they create a record that might help the people who use the regulations to understand them. However, so far this SI presents the biggest challenge when it comes to understanding, and my further comments might reveal that I have totally failed to understand it. I look forward to the tutorial in the Minister’s response.

My understanding is that the sorts of things we are talking about are BACS, CHAPS, LINK, the NICC, Mastercard and Visa Europe. I understand that these are regulated in the United Kingdom by the Payment Systems Regulator, which works to a set of standards, directives or frameworks that are the UK manifestation of EU directives and so on. Therefore, my first question is: who will set the standards after exit day? I think that the Minister said that it would be the FCA, but does that mean that effectively, wherever there is a reference to the EU, this SI takes it out and puts in the FCA?

Then we have the complication of who sets the standards for EU firms trading in the UK. Once again, I assume that that is a passporting issue that will die on exit day if we have no alternative agreement. Therefore, what does the instrument do for EU firms after exit day? The Minister says there is a temporary regime, but could he perhaps expand a little on what it does? As I understand it, the temporary regime is time-limited, so what happens at the end of the temporary period? I did not get the sense—as the noble Baroness, Lady Kramer, did—that it was extendable.

Turning now to SEPA, it seems that the Government’s aspiration is to retain membership of it, even if there is no deal, but this is slightly different from the pure no-deal situation, in the sense that it will require international agreements between the UK and other SEPA members. Could the Minister expand a little on how the SI facilitates such agreement? More importantly, could he explain the consequence of no agreement? It is, presumably, theoretically possible that we will not be able to achieve a third-country—or whatever the right term is—membership of SEPA. What will that mean, in practical terms, to UK citizens in their day-to-day lives and their desire to use various means of transport in EU countries?

I turn now to what I loosely call the big picture. If we get a Brexit deal, as I understand it, we do not need these SIs. They are essentially no-deal SIs, but I cannot see in them how they are revoked. Are there articles deep in these pages that allow the SIs to be revoked? The commencement paragraph actually specifies the time when they become active. I will now make my standard moan on these occasions: that there is no impact assessment. The value of impact assessments, quite apart from the actual numbers, is that they usually speak in fairly plain language about who is affected and the level of impact on those institutions. Can we try to ensure that the promised impact assessments for these SIs are available before we debate the instruments themselves?

Because I could not understand the SI in any depth, I worry if it really is just about translating three or four simple ideas into fact. I notice that it is 24 pages long. It strikes me that it is like a bit of computer software, with lots of lines. As we all know from our experience with Microsoft, every now and then it does not get it right. What systems do the Government have to assure themselves that these SIs actually work? While they seek to introduce a number of relatively straightforward ideas—I hope they are; I hope not to be told that I have none of it right—they take an awful lot of articles to do that. Is there a checking mechanism to make sure they work? They are going to have to work at a moment in time. If they do not, the chaos could be frightful.

I repeat my request, to which I have not yet had an answer from the last set of SIs, that those of us involved—I am sure my Liberal colleagues would agree—have a fully updated and amended copy of the Financial Service and Markets Act 2000. We are often told to go to commercial copies of these things. There is a commercial organisation—called Westlaw, I think—and I looked up the Financial Services and Markets Act in its system. Because it records every change since the year 2000, the document is 1,569 pages long. I put it to the Minister that that is not user friendly.

Finally, I echo the welcome for this SI from the noble Baroness, Lady Kramer—

[Lord Kirkhope of Harrogate]

I am sorry to intervene, but the noble Lord is making a point about an impact assessment. If he looks at page 27, he will see that there is a specific reference to an impact assessment. However, I will say that, when I tried to find it on the appropriate website this morning, it was not there.

[Lord Tunnicliffe]

I thank the noble Lord for that.

The Minister knows exactly what I am going to say. On page 6 of the Explanatory Memorandum, paragraph 12.6 and beyond states:

“An Impact Assessment will be published in due course on the legislation.gov.uk website … The Treasury’s decision to publish the regulations without a final Impact Assessment aims to ensure that industry and regulators have as much time as possible to familiarise themselves with the regulatory changes”.


The reason the Minister and I are familiar with those two paragraphs is that they have appeared in every Explanatory Memorandum on Treasury SIs so far; and on every SI so far, the Treasury has failed to produce an impact assessment, despite the fact that it is promised in the body of the document. For the life of me, I cannot see why it would bother, given that we will have approved the SI by the time it arrives.

Let me turn back to the good news for the Minister. We are certainly not going to challenge this SI. I echo the view of the noble Baroness, Lady Kramer: it is good to see, as far as one can because of the sheer complexity of it, that it sticks with the Government’s commitment to make only the necessary changes to have a smooth transition. I cannot detect any effort from the Government in this SI to try to introduce any policy changes.