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

Baroness Brinton Excerpts

Report stage
Monday 13th July 2026 Lords Chamber

[Lord Redwood (Con)]

My Lords, this is a very strange Bill; it is a Bill in search of a purpose, which proposes and transfers substantial powers to a regulatory body but which gives us no road map for how those powers are going to be used. In the debates we have had so far and in the amendments we are looking at this afternoon, it is inevitable that there will be amendments to try to give the Bill a purpose, to limit the use of the powers, because their use has not been explained, and to get some better regulation directly into the Bill, given the absence of any suggestion for improvements in the legislation that we have before us. That includes some very good proposals that we will come to later to improve the lot of disabled travellers, for example. I can understand why people want to get something worth while into the Bill, which is otherwise this rather strange transfer of powers, in order to be able to trust this independent body. We know that there is no urgency about this because we know from the impact assessment that there will not be any costs or benefits for the foreseeable future, and that the CAA will be given about a year after the successful passage of the Bill, if it goes through, to contemplate and review.

I support my noble friend because he is trying to give the Bill an overriding purpose, which should be entirely at one with the manifesto, the plans and the stated intentions of both the outgoing and the incoming Prime Minister and the Chancellor of the Exchequer. I think we all agree, across parties, that it would be good if our economy grew faster than it has been growing since the great crash of 2008-09. Surely we can all see that this requires a sector-by-sector response, as well as changes in general economic policy that are not the subject of this debate.

My noble friend is right to try to make growth and competitiveness the twin aims. I suspect that the Minister is very sympathetic, but he will need to get colleagues and others to co-operate in speeding up work to try to ensure that the aviation sector—which is normally a fast-growing, modernising, important sector, particularly in an island country that needs good transport links—is one of the attractive means of increasing our activity and our growth, creating more and better-paid jobs.

This legislation covers issues that could make a very material contribution to that faster growth. It covers the question of airport slots. Will there be more of them, and is there a policy to try to create more capacity? What is the Government’s view on airport expansion? Will there be more expansion of smaller and regional airports to take some of the strain off the main centre in London? What is the plan for London, and when will we have the very large number of slots expanded? It is clearly under great pressure of demand.

Regulations on charging are mentioned but not detailed in this legislation. We have already heard from my noble friend about the possible tax charges on certain types of business premise, but we really need to hear from the Government what the charging policy is going to be for scarce airport space, particularly in London, where we are becoming uncompetitive against Schiphol, Paris, Frankfurt and some of the other continental airports that are our natural competitors. If you become not very price competitive, you start to lose the interlining and air-switching business, which can be handled by a big intersection airport such as Amsterdam just as well as it can be handled by Heathrow. We need a bit more guidance on how these regulations might develop and be included.

I urge the Minister to take off one or two of the veils and give us some idea of how these policies on improved regulation for the cost of use of airports, the amount of airport space, the allocation of slots and the general conduct of air traffic in our country might be deployed. I find it odd that, two years into a Government with a very strong majority and a strong mandate for quite a limited manifesto, they do not seem to have those burning desires, for example, to get our aviation sector really growing quickly. They are not answering the questions about these very basic things. How much airport space? How do you allocate the slots? What is the pricing? How much support do you give to the industry? What will the regulatory impact be on that industry? We all want safety regulation and good regulation so that the customer gets a decent deal, but we do not want so much regulation that it throttles the industry here and an extremely mobile and fast-moving industry can shift its assets the following day to another hub airport somewhere else, taking a lot of the business away.

[Baroness Brinton (LD)]

My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Moylan, for Amendment 1, but I express concern that it and Amendment 3 are in conflict in their proposed new subsections (1)(c) and (1B)(c). The reason for that was amply explained by the noble Lord, Lord Redwood. He started by saying that this Bill is one in search of a purpose, but went on to say that we are going to improve the lot of disabled people, among other things. I am very grateful that he said that, because proposed new subsection (1B)(c) in Amendment 3 asks the Secretary of State to make it an absolute priority to consider the impact of the regulations on

“the burdens imposed on air transport service providers and airport operators in complying with the regulations”.

Part of the journey of disabled people in buying a ticket, going through various airports and actually flying is that most of the providers would say that all provision for disabled people is a burden. They try to minimise everything they can. Does the Minister agree with me on that? Perhaps the noble Lord, Lord Moylan, also might like to address that when he comments at the end.

[Baroness Grender (LD)]

My Lords, I turn to the first group of amendments, Amendments 1 and 3 tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Moylan. I thank both Front Benches for having met us over the past few days in the run-up to Report. All the insight, information and conversations have been very much appreciated. I admire the attempt of the noble Lord, Lord Moylan, to insert an overarching economic growth purpose into the heart of the Bill, which I see as a valiant attempt. I hope that he will in turn look kindly on some of my valiant attempts in further groups.

As he rightly says, the Government should be stretching every sinew to pursue growth, as we did in the wake of the economic crash of 2008 and the extremely difficult days of the coalition Government. I had the enormous privilege of being what one might describe as an unelected bureaucrat, sitting in Cabinet meetings and watching those proceedings. Not a week went by when economic growth was not discussed, and that was a good thing.

Technically, unless I have misread it or misunderstood it in Committee, this is primarily a safety and consumer protection framework, with slots and modernisation as part of it. In mandating that the Secretary of State have regard to promoting economic growth when regulating passenger rights under Clause 1, I worry about subordinating the safety and dignity of the travelling public to the commercial margins of what the noble Lord, Lord Harper, described in Committee as a low-margin industry. It is vital to reflect through this Bill, as we talked about in Committee, the low margins of ordinary passengers who must jump through hoop after hoop to get what is by rights their compensation and, in turn, bear the financial consequence and burden. That is what worries me.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Kennedy of Cradley (Lab)]

My Lords, in speaking to my Amendment 6, I declare my interest as chief operating officer of Natasha’s Foundation, the UK’s food allergy charity. I thank the noble Baronesses, Lady Grey-Thompson and Lady Brinton, for adding their names to the amendment and the noble Lord, Lord Moylan, for his support on this issue.

As we discussed in Committee, there are far too many barriers to air travel for people with medical conditions, non-visible disabilities and allergy—in particular, food allergy. Amendment 6 asks the Government to recognise this and to ensure that these passengers are covered by the Bill so that they can travel more safely, more easily and with greater confidence. The Government have rightly said that aviation must be accessible to all passengers, and all noble Lords will welcome that.

However important statements of intent are, it is action that matters. Although it is not perfect, that is why I support government Amendment 19, as it should put in place the building blocks for action by the Government that should lead to action by the aviation industry. In supporting it, I want to press my noble friend Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill on four areas. The first is the timeframe for the consultation. I strongly support Amendment 20 from the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, which would remove what I might call the “We are able to drag our feet” caveat—my words, not the noble Baroness’s. The consultation in Amendment 19 does not have to start for a year and could last for years. The caveat risks giving the impression that the Government intend the consultation to take a long time. I am sure that is not the intention. Therefore, can my noble friend Lord Hendy indicate how long the Government expect the consultation to take and commit to a meeting two months after Royal Assent so that officials can update all interested noble Lords on their plans?

Secondly, and I am sure other noble Lords will echo this, can my noble friend outline how the consultation sits alongside the excellent work of the Aviation Accessibility Task and Finish Group chaired by the noble Baroness, Lady Grey-Thompson? That group met for many months and brought together people with disabilities and medical conditions, including allergy, consumer representatives and the airline industry. Its final report made 19 practical recommendations. The implementation of those recommendations must continue at pace. Many do not require legislation. They require clear guidance, effective policy and willingness from the airline industry to deliver that change. To that end, will my noble friend Lord Hendy arrange a meeting for noble Lords with the co-chairs of the Aviation Accessibility Implementation Group to discuss what can be done now, without waiting for legislation, to improve air travel, especially for passengers with allergy?

Thirdly, from recent conversations with officials and other legal professionals, it is clear that the interaction between the Equality Act and aviation-specific regulation is complex. Regulation 1107 covers disability assistance in air travel, while the Equality Act may apply to allergy and other medical conditions that fall outside that regulation. For example, an airline’s allergy policy could potentially amount to indirect disability discrimination or a failure to make reasonable adjustments if it places passengers with allergy at a particular disadvantage without objective justification. The legal position for passengers and airlines needs clarification. I ask my noble friend Lord Hendy to seek that clarification from the relevant Ministers on how the Equality Act applies to air passengers with allergy and other medical conditions. If there are gaps between the two legal frameworks and legislation is needed to provide greater clarity or protection, can my noble friend confirm that this will fall within the scope of the consultation under Amendment 19?

Finally, I thank my noble friend Lord Hendy for writing to the FSA to clarify the application of Natasha’s law to airlines. When a response is received, whatever the answer, further discussion will be inevitable. If the food labelling rules do not apply, we need to understand why and whether there is a gap to close. Again, I hope that will be part of the consultation under Amendment 19. However, my hope is that they apply, and therefore we need to understand how the FSA, the CAA, passengers and allergy charities can help ensure the rules are properly applied. I therefore hope that my noble friend will be willing to convene a meeting with interested noble Lords, the FSA and other relevant organisations on Natasha’s law and airlines.

Amendment 6 is about ensuring that passengers with medical conditions, including allergy, are not invisible within the aviation accessibility framework. I welcome the progress we have made, both inside and outside the Chamber, and the government amendments in this group. I look forward to my noble friend Lord Hendy’s assurances on the four points I have raised.

[Baroness Brinton (LD)]

My Lords, I am grateful to the Deputy Speaker for pointing out that Amendment 25 appears in both this group and the next. I plan to speak to it in the next group. I had hoped that the Minister, the noble Lord, Lord Hendy, might have spoken to his Amendment 18 and to his Amendment 19, to which I have tabled amendments in the next group, in which the noble Baroness, Lady Grey-Thompson, also has amendments. Since that has not happened, I will speak to my amendments to his amendments in this group, although I may also briefly cross-reference them in the next group. But it would be unfortunate if they were debated completely separately.

I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Kennedy of Cradley, for her contribution, and I absolutely support everything that she said. I have seen the consequences at a Lib Dem party conference event where there had been some nuts, not at that event but in the same room at a previous event, and a person reacted very badly. Clearly, Natasha’s law must be implemented and, if the current regulations do not do that, there must be further regulations to make sure that that happens.

I have one amendment in this group, Amendment 22, which seeks to ensure that a disabled or elderly person who travels with a carer is not separated from their carer while they are receiving assistance at the airport. I echo the points made by my noble friend Lady Grender on the importance of how we treat carers more generally.

Since Committee, this issue was brought home to me particularly a fortnight ago in Heathrow terminal 2, where a very elderly couple were waiting. She was in a wheelchair; he was not. They were both concerned about their journey. They were told by the assistance person, in somewhat terse terms, that the assistance person could not take both of them through together, and so the husband had to go back and make his own way through security on his own. He was not even given the usual option of following behind. His wife looked very distressed by this, and he had to reassure her that he would see her in a few minutes. Such behaviour by the assistance staff was uncalled for. The staff member did not even ask whether the husband was able to go through security on his own; nor did she ask whether the wife was okay with that. Had one of them had memory loss—and I suspect that one of them had—this would have been really distressing and difficult. The staff member saw only a wheelchair and an excess person trying to streamline their journey. That is why Amendment 22 is important.

I noticed something else in the “cripple ghetto” in Heathrow terminal 2—I steal the term used by the noble Baroness, Lady Grey-Thompson, but anyone who goes to the assistance area, which I think is a temporary area, knows exactly what it is like. To talk to people waiting there, people have to talk round corners, which is not very clever. More importantly, there is not one space for a wheelchair; I thought that I had found one, and sat there, and then watched as wheelchairs without people in them were wheeled past me and over my toes on one occasion. It was actually the route for other wheelchairs, not mine.

All of this fits very much with my noble friend Lady Grender’s concerns, in Amendments 8, 10 and 11, about people with care-giving duties being provided a remedy for a particular journey through an airport. As I have said, assistance staff should not make assumptions about the non-physically disabled person travelling as a carer.

The Minister’s Amendments 18 and 19 set out the arrangements for a consultation on the protections that should be in place for people with disabilities, reduced mobility and nut allergies, and who should be doing what. Again, I am very grateful for his response on this between Committee and Report. However, as he knows, I have some very specific concerns about the wording, which I raise in Amendments 20 and 23, which seek to amend his Amendment 19, and Amendment 25, which seeks to amend his Amendment 24.

Amendment 20 proposes to leave out the words in brackets at the end of subsection (1) of the new clause inserted by Amendment 19, which state

“(but the Secretary of State need not complete the process within that period)”.

I think that is a real threat that the whole process might be thrown into the long grass, and I hope that the Minister can reassure me that that is not the case.

Amendment 23 seeks to amend subsection (4)(c) of the new clause to be inserted by Amendment 19, by leaving out the word “or”, which appears at the end of line 26, and replacing it with “and”. Retaining “or” would mean that a Secretary of State could choose either not to consult groups representing disabled passengers or not to consult the individual passengers themselves. It may be that consultation needs to cover the lived experience of individuals as well as hearing from the strengths that are available from disability groups. It would be a shame if that were really “or”; let us hope that “and” is possible.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Grey-Thompson (CB)]

My Lords, in speaking to my Amendments 5 and 9 in this group, I thank the other noble Lords who have signed them. I intend to be brief because there has been some crossover with the last groups. I thank the Minister for his time and availability. He has managed to assuage some of my concerns. My amendments in this group are around appropriate training on how to assist disabled people, the storage and handling of mobility equipment, data gathering and complaints.

To refer back to the previous group, while there may be rules and procedures in place, disabled people still experience way too many difficulties trying to get on or off an aeroplane. It is also too difficult to complain. Quite often, passengers are passed around: when they buy a ticket, they think the contract is with the airline, but when things go wrong it can be a combination of the airline, the airport and the crew that does the handling. If there is one thing I hope for from this, it is for disabled people to stop being patronised when they fly. That would be a big step forward.

It was helpful to listen to the Minister on government Amendment 19 and the consultation. The reality is that disabled people have quite a high expectation, but we have to be realistic. Some of the things that we really need—appropriate compensation if mobility equipment is destroyed or goes missing or is not tied down in planes—relies on international jurisdictions. I ask the Minister to keep that level of pressure up. We could do better—throughout the whole world, actually—in how disabled people are treated. Complaints should not be so complicated, and it should not take so long or be so difficult to get compensation or to get equipment repaired.

From personal experience, I would say that Schiphol and London City are the best airports in the world—other people may have a different experience of that. The voice of disabled people is important and we should be learning from the best, so I will be watching the consultation closely. The industry can and should do better. I look forward to listening to the Minister’s comments on the government amendments in this group. I beg to move.

[Baroness Brinton (LD)]

My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister and his officials, who have met with us to discuss issues relating to standards to provide assistance to disabled people throughout their journey and why this desperately needs to be remedied formally. I signed Amendment 5, tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Grey-Thompson, which specifies a minimum standard for training and service delivery.

I have spoken at length, not just in Committee and at Second Reading but on other Bills and in other debates, about the different approaches taken to the batteries in a wheelchair when you get to check-in. That is one of the areas on which there really needs to be training. When check-in staff do not understand the difference between lithium batteries, which you can and must carry on yourself, and acid batteries—I have two bus batteries on my chair—then you have got a problem, because you cannot have a sensible conversation. That sort of training is vital. Part of the problem is that the moment you start to very politely question the person who is asking, you are deemed to be a trouble-maker and everything goes downhill from there.

It is part of most disabled travellers’ experience to be told repeatedly that they are wrong. I have absolutely found this, even when I was last at Heathrow, a fortnight ago. Staff just knew better until I produced the IATA regulations and showed them chapter and verse on batteries, at which point they had the grace to apologise— but sometimes, they have not done so. I may be very odd, but I always have a copy of the IATA regulations with me.

Amendment 5 would ensure transparency in service delivery, through

“the collection and publication of data regarding … damage”

done to

“mobility aids … and medical and life-sustaining equipment”.

I pick up on the point I made in Committee, when I laid amendments to formalise an informal arrangement for the UK Government’s role in ICAO, which was mentioned in the previous group. It is absolutely vital that the Montreal agreement is reviewed and that the responsibility for regulations is removed from IATA. I find it mind-numbingly astonishing that the trade association for the aircraft carriers is also responsible for the regulations. In no other area would we allow that to happen. ICAO has a key role. I am sorry that it has felt that it did not need to push to act as anything more than a support group for disgruntled people. It needs to go further. It is vital that the Montreal agreement is reviewed and that responsibility for regulations is taken away from IATA.

Finally, Amendment 25 seeks to amend the Minister’s Amendment 24 in this group on matters to which the Secretary of State must have regard. Lines 5 and 6 of the Minister’s amendment refer to

“the desirability of strengthening the rights of persons who purchase or use air transport services”.

We had this debate before, but I know that the Minister will respond to this amendment. I am really concerned; the word “desirability” is or should be redundant. At worst, it weakens the position of disabled passengers, because it sets disabled rights in the wider context of everyone who purchases or uses transport services. As I said earlier, that is dangerous, and I hope the Minister will really try to remedy this. I am worried that it will create a worse problem than we have now—and what we have now is not good enough.

[Baroness Kennedy of Cradley (Lab)]

My Lords, I rise briefly to support Amendments 5 and 9, to which I was delighted to add my name.

In truth, we live in an era of rapidly advancing technology, when other industries are bending over backwards to ensure their staff are trained to deliver a high level of quality service with an attitude of respect, and when digital means of communication are being used in abundance to ensure that customers have information that is clear and easily accessible. It is shocking to me that an amendment like this is necessary to ensure that the aviation industry steps up and does what should be standard practice to support disabled people—but it is necessary. The reality is that services for, and the treatment of, disabled people in the aviation industry are woefully inadequate—and they do not have to be. We know the issues and we know what needs to change. We now need to find the legislative framework to deliver that change. I look forward to the Minister’s reply.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Foster of Oxton (Con)]

My Lords, I support the comments made by the noble Lord and the noble Baroness about the rigorous way that any airline in this industry monitors the air supply in their aircraft. But we need to give some context on this subject. A number of years ago, there were some instances with the BAe 146 aircraft type. This was well known in the industry, and there appeared to be health issues among pilots who flew on that aircraft for a period of time.

I am former crew, and spent 25 years on aircraft—some of them a lot older than the aircraft these days and less sophisticated, I suspect—but I am not dismissive of the fact that this subject has to be taken seriously, and neither is the aerospace sector. I worked closely with the aerospace sector: I was head of European affairs for the aerospace and defence industries for four years when I was in Brussels, and I had obviously been with British Airways for many years before that, and had dealt with all these issues as an MEP. I take it seriously. However, we must not worry passengers, predominantly, or make crew worried about going to work. The maintenance standards obligations for the airlines are sophisticated, and they have legal requirements to follow them. The timing for aircraft servicing is extremely rigorous and, if an airline was not doing that job, I assure you that it would not have certification for very long.

Although I agree and take on board that this is a serious issue, it needs to be considered in a proportionate way. People will be watching this on BBC Parliament or parliamentlive.tv—if they are not doing something that is more interesting fare—and we do not want to frighten the life out of people who are going on holiday or doing business. There is a gentle conversation to be had about this, notwithstanding the authorities’ responsibility to ensure that flying is safe and that the environment that the crew and cabin crew work in, and for passengers, is as safe as can be.

[Baroness Brinton (LD)]

My Lords, this group addresses the most profound structural shift in this Bill: the delegation of aviation rule-making to the Civil Aviation Authority. We are pleased to see that Amendment 62 now carries the Minister’s name, alongside that of the noble Lord, Lord Moylan. This is a vital victory for parliamentary scrutiny. The amendment mandates the affirmative procedure for regulations, specifying the limits of the CAA’s new rule-making powers, ensuring that this House retains its right to debate and approve the scope of what is delegated.

We similarly welcome government Amendment 58, which requires ministerial directions to the CAA to be laid before Parliament. For too long, the single guiding mind of the aviation sector has operated one step removed from democratic oversight. However, we must go further to prevent the creation of an all-powerful and potentially unaccountable regulator. We support the spirit of Amendment 57 from the noble Lord, Lord Moylan, which would remove the CAA veto over the Secretary of State’s statement of priorities. It is a constitutional nonsense to suggest that a Minister must secure the agreement of the body they are intended to oversee before setting their strategic objectives.

We support government Amendment 56, which correctly identifies that the Secretary of State must retain responsibilities for matters of public interest, including environmental protection and the needs of disabled passengers.

Regarding technical safety, we offer our strong support for Amendments 34 and 37, from the noble Lord, Lord Empey, and the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay of Llandaff. The monitoring of aircraft cabin air for carbon monoxide and other toxins is not a luxury; it is a fundamental safety requirement. If we are to grant the CAA more agile powers to update safety rules, those powers must be used to address the very real concerns of flight crew and passengers regarding air quality.

Similarly, Amendment 66, from the noble Lord, Lord Empey, regarding the enforcement of flight time limitations, is essential to ensure that operational efficiency never comes at the cost of pilot fatigue or of public safety.

Let us all ensure that, as we delegate these powers, we do not defang the regulator or emasculate Parliament. We must fill this skeletal Bill with the furniture of transparent reporting and mandatory safety reviews. I urge the House to support these measures to ensure that the UK remains a safety-led aviation hub that respects both the expertise of the regulator and the sovereignty of this House.

[Lord Moylan (Con)]

My Lords, the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay of Llandaff, and the noble Lord, Lord Empey, raised important points that can only arouse the sympathy and interest of all Members of your Lordships’ House. Cabin air quality is crucial to safety. Without committing myself to the wording of either amendment, I do not think that this subject can be allowed to rest today. The Government will have to commit to come back to it in a credible and convincing way.

The noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, is correct in saying that this group is largely about administrative matters related to Clause 8. Although we have tended to focus so far, quite properly, on the consumer protection parts of the Bill, in Clauses 1 and 2, we are now coming to that part of the Bill where the Civil Aviation Authority is authorised to make rules. These rules were previously made either by statutory instrument or by means of European Union legislation. The complaint from the Department for Transport is that it does not have enough time to do the statutory instruments and that it is all too much, so could we not, by statute, give the power to the Civil Aviation Authority to make these rules for it. I am not making that up. That is actually the complaint that has been made: that there are too many statutory instruments, so the department wants to give them to the unelected bureaucrats, regulators and so on—especially as it is not receiving new regulations from the European Union any more, which would be a different matter.

Many of the amendments in this group are about that administrative process and trying to reverse some of the original draft of the Bill, giving these powers without any accountability to the Civil Aviation Authority. I thank the Minister for his letter on this and for engaging in the concerns that were raised in Committee on this point. I also welcome the fact that the Government have tabled amendments to give effect to the recommendations of the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee. In Committee we were clear that the Bill should set out the principles underlying the exceptions to delegated rule-making, and government Amendment 56 now seeks to do that.

Government Amendment 58 addresses an important scrutiny point by requiring directions for the CAA to be laid before Parliament. I am also grateful to the Minister for adding his name to my Amendment 62, which ensures that the Secretary of State’s power to define exceptions to the CAA’s rule-making powers is subject to the affirmative rather than the negative procedure.

I turn to Amendments 59 and 60. If the CAA is to make detailed aviation rules directly, industry must be able to find, understand and rely on the rules in force. The Bill says that the CAA may publish its rules. It really is not good enough to say that it may publish its rules; these amendments simply say that it must. It will not have to publish them in hard copy—they can be published on the internet—but even if the rulebook is very thick, which the noble Lord told us in Committee was the case, it must be possible to publish it and keep it up to date. Otherwise, how can anybody be sure that they are actually keeping the rules?

There is part of Clause 8 that really upsets me, and I am quite upset about it because I think it is a constitutional outrage. It was referred to by the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, and it is on page 12, where new Section 61F is being added to the existing legislation, the Civil Aviation Act 1982. It says, in relation to these new rule-making powers:

“The Secretary of State must issue a document that … sets out the Secretary of State’s priorities and objectives … and … deals with matters relating to the exercise of the functions”.


That is good; I am all in favour of it. The document, by the way, is going to contain guidance. It says quite clearly, in subsection (2), that it will contain guidance on consultation, for example, and

“guidance about how the CAA should interpret and apply the environmental principles”,

and so forth. I imagine that is statutory guidance. But it then goes on to say:

“The Secretary of State … may not issue the document without the agreement of the CAA to the contents of the document”.


I think this is absolutely unprecedented. In Committee, the Minister said it was a new way of working; it certainly is. He said it was more like a contract. I think this is very misleading.

It is perfectly possible for the department, or the Secretary of State, to enter into contractual-type arrangements with the Civil Aviation Authority. I have no objection if they do that. Contractual types of arrangements exist in various parts of public life. It might contain key performance indicators. It might contain all sorts of things; I am not going to attempt to enumerate them. It would say, “This is your task, this is what we expect from you, this is what you are going to do in exchange for the funding” and so on. That is a contract—I understand that—and it is not precluded by this. But overarching all that, there must be a power, always, for an accountable Minister to issue guidance to an arm’s-length body or executive agency, to issue binding statutory guidance, without having to seek its agreement to the contents of the guidance first. Otherwise, where does ministerial accountability come in?