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

Baroness Grey-Thompson Excerpts

2nd reading
Tuesday 2nd June 2026 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Grey-Thompson (CB)]

My Lords, I declare my interest as chair of the Aviation Accessibility Task and Finish Group. In July 2025, we produced an independent report. I thank the team at the Department for Transport, the members of the group and the industry, which was very open about how we can improve travel for disabled people. However, we found that not one airline or airport universally gets it right even most of the time. Our 19 key recommendations were made in the context of no legislative time, but I hope we now have a chance to impact what we do for disabled people.

After much consideration, the task and finish group looked at five themes: training, passenger information and communications, non-visible impairments, mobility aid design and handling, and tailored service and delivery. It became clear that there is a lack of data. It is hard to know how many disabled people fly annually, depending on the definition, but it could be around 1.5% of all passengers. The Library Note on this Bill, which was very helpful, said that the satisfaction rate for disabled people was only 82%. There is also a lack of data on when things go wrong. It is hard to know who to contact or complain to, how to resolve issues and even who has responsibility. Recognising that the industry has many moving parts, this Bill presents a significant opportunity to do something very different for disabled people.

We also know that there has been a significant increase in demand for assistance. We saw many airports and airlines trying to do the right thing, but the nature of the requests can be very variable. We recognise that what probably most people need is not assistance but wayfinding or help with bags. We need to think creatively about how that customer journey is carried out, even looking at airport design or gate allocation.

Through our work, we heard anecdotal evidence that the lanyard scheme has not always been used properly—stag dos arriving at the airport and requesting lanyards is not in the spirit of the scheme. I have seen people using an aisle chair to get on board and then seeming to walk off at the other end. I am conscious that there can be fluctuating conditions, but not having the right assistance puts huge pressure on an already strained system. One size does not fit all. A number of visually impaired people got in touch to tell me that, when they fly, they are continually told that they need to sit in a wheelchair and be pushed through the airport because that is easier for the staff, rather than doing it in a way that works for the disabled person.

A significant number of people wrote to me to say that various influencers have filmed airports, showing ways to cheat the system, which not only encourages people to think about creative ways to get through the airport, but has resulted in an increase in negative comments made towards disabled people who have genuine needs.

What also came through was that there needs to be a more streamlined method of booking assistance. This is very different from the railway industry, where you could potentially catch a later train or a later bus. There is a real challenge in managing expectation, providing assistance in a reasonable time and being clear about sorting things out when mistakes are made.

We also found out that a lot of the information was joined up. On a personal level, I never look at an airport website, but at one point I was a very frequent flier, and I have travelled through most UK airports. The actual challenge of booking assistance is too varied. For some airlines, it relies on the disabled person knowing a very vague assistance code, or when you get to the airport, you are asked all those questions again. It proves that the system is not working as well as it could.

While recognising that we have an issue with international jurisdictions and that we can control only some parts of the journey, I would also like to look at how we could influence more widely. A lot of the emails sent to me were about equipment being broken and, in some cases, destroyed by not being secured properly during the journey. One thing that the Bill will not be able to sort—but I had a huge number of emails about it—is the issues that passengers who travel with allergies face.

Recently, I had a number of emails from people who use colostomy bags or ileostomy bags, about how they are treated. Each person recognised that security is an important issue and that checks need to be done. One person who wrote to me recently, who flies a lot, said that the only way they are able to manage going through security is by taking their colostomy bag off just as they go through security, covering it up with tissues and tape, and then putting it back on when they go through the other side. That just does not feel appropriate at all.

I broadly welcome the increased powers of the CAA, but, like the noble Lord, Lord Harper, I would like to understand what the best route is to actually securing better treatment for disabled people.

Most of the emails I receive are about being left on a plane, or broken or missing equipment. We have all heard of the numerous tales of Frank Gardner when he has been flying. He has had incidents where his wheelchair was incorrectly tagged and staff were unable to locate it. He has had a couple of very high-profile cases. In May 2022, when it had happened numerous times, he said that disabled passengers appeared to be treated as the “lowest priority”. Sophie Morgan, likewise, a very well-known disability rights campaigner, suffered terrible experiences with damage to her chairs. But most disabled people do not have that platform. Athena Stevens’s chair was worth £25,000. It was irreparably damaged while travelling, which left her unable to travel independently. She estimated that the overall impact on her life and business reached £70,000, due to additional care, having to travel differently and lost work, but only limited compensation was made available. Maayan Ziv—a case in Canada—had a chair that was worth $30,000 and was severely damaged. This became widely known, because there was a lack of understanding of what a wheelchair means. It is not just a suitcase. It is not something that is very easy to replace.

I have had many experiences over the years, including one memorable time flying from Geneva through Charles de Gaulle to Birmingham. When it became clear that my chair was not there, I was asked by a member of staff whether had I ever tried to walk and whether I would like to try to walk. No, I cannot walk. The airline then tried to return two sleeping bags to me and argued that that was my lost property, even though they were clearly tagged to a different airport and another name. My day chair was found several weeks later in Dublin, and it came back to me in two pieces. It had literally been cut in half. It was suggested that I might like to try and duct tape it back together, which did not work. I wonder how much the airline industry is spending on repairs and replacements.

Another incident occurred when I was an athlete, flying with my racing chair—I always found it better to travel with my chair unboxed because they could see what it was. I was travelling with a very cheap pair of wheels, which got damaged, and the airline immediately jumped to replacing them and trying to offer me a very expensive pair of wheels. I was able to say that I needed a spoke key and 20 minutes. There needs to be some proper assessment of damage, ensuring that the level of liability is commensurate with the equipment.

We have to recognise that equipment is also changing. More people are using scooters than ever before, especially those with fluctuating conditions—they are much easier to travel with than an electric chair. Many noble Lords will see that I have a battery attachment that I use on my chair to get out and about around London. I have never tried to fly with it. We do have to explore the challenges of flying with much of this equipment, especially the safety issues; I know the ongoing work of the implementation group is looking at this. When a disabled person gets all the way to the gate and then finds that they are not allowed to fly—again, I recognise that there are related safety issues—it causes a significant number of problems.

We therefore need more data on the number of people who fly, what they require, and where things go wrong. Also, on wheelchair and mobility equipment protection, I would be very interested to see whether we could try to accurately report, publicly, the number of wheelchairs and mobility aids that are damaged, delayed or lost each year. We also need to look at how we can improve the enforcement and accessibility failures. In the task and finish group, we talked about specific penalties for repeated accessibility failures. That was not possible at the time, but I think it might be now. We should also look at the complaints process to ensure that it runs quickly and smoothly and is not leaving disabled people in situations where their complaints have timed out through no fault of their own.

I would also be interested in looking at requiring the CAA to publish a wider disability impact assessment before implementing significant new regulations. On airport assistance standards, the quality of assistance is variable across the UK. How can we establish minimum standards for passenger assistance, reasonable waiting times, staff training, communications support, and boarding and disembarkation procedures? It would also be very useful to have an update from the implementation group on the work it has been doing since July last year; that would help all noble Lords in addressing the Bill. Currently, everything is just a bit too ad hoc; it is quite difficult to travel as a disabled person, and we should be able to make that better.

I look forward to working with the Minister and his team to improve the Bill.

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

Baroness Grey-Thompson Excerpts

Committee stage
Tuesday 16th June 2026 Grand Committee

Moved by

[Baroness Grey-Thompson]

2: Clause 1, page 1, line 13, leave out “may” and insert “must”

[Baroness Grey-Thompson (CB)]

My Lords, I declare my interest as I was chair of the Aviation Accessibility Task and Finish Group, which published a report last year. I thank the officials at the Department for Transport for their support. The vast majority of the recommendations from that report are now amendments to the Bill. As of today, I have been appointed a board member of Active Travel England, and I also chair the Accessible Transport Policy Commission. We had a useful meeting this morning which looked in a UK context at disabled people’s experience of travelling. I understand that aviation is more complicated than that. The sheer difficulty that disabled people have in using any form of transport came out clearly in the meeting. I make reference to the Transport Select Committee’s report, Access Denied: Rights Versus Reality.

We have probably a once-in-a-generation chance to make a difference to how disabled people are able to access this industry. Since Second Reading, I have had a much-increased number of emails from disabled people who have had truly dreadful experiences of flying, and some of those will be picked up in the next group.

I have two amendments in this group, Amendments 2 and 16, which are in my name and that of the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton. They simply ask that we change “may make provision” to “must make provision”. “May” is too vague in this context, so we have a chance to make a change. The Minister will know from other debates that we have had around disability access, such as the debates around taxis, that it is hard enough when we are trying to enact accessibility legislation that was passed 30 years ago, let alone what we are trying to do now. There have been a lot of promises about what disabled people might have the opportunity to rely on. Unless we have a much bigger commitment to “must make provision”, it feels like we will be kicking the can down the road, as we have done with the rail industry and all the derogations around it.

I am more than happy to discuss a tighter range of regulations that the Secretary of State may make or to work across your Lordships’ Chamber. I am simply looking for assurance that there will be a genuine shift in how disabled people will experience air travel. Both this group and the next have a number of important amendments that both seek to strengthen the Bill and to provide more clarity for disabled people. For them, currently and so far, the experience is far too ad hoc. I beg to move.

[Lord Young of Cookham (Con)]

My Lords, Amendment 109 in my name aims to remedy a manifest injustice whereby the airlines have to pay for customer compensation when the fault lies not with them but with NATS. I am grateful to my noble friend Lord Kirkhope, who trailed this amendment in his Second Reading speech, but, in the time available, the Minister was not able to address it.

The problem manifested itself on 28 August 2023, when the air traffic system, managed by NATS, failed. An independent review was set up and its report gives the scale of the debacle:

“From CAA estimates, over 700,000 passengers were affected by cancellations and delays ascribed to the incident, including approximately 300,000 impacted by flight cancellations, approximately 95,000 by long delays (over three hours) and at least a further 300,000 by shorter delays”.


It went on to say that

“the incident on 28 August had substantial negative impacts on a large number of passengers, not only on the day of the outage but for several days afterwards, as it took until the following weekend for all the re-routed journeys to be completed”.

The review estimated the costs involved:

“Based on the information provided by the airlines most affected by the incident, the Panel has estimated that the costs to airlines were approximately £65m. In addition, substantial costs were incurred by passengers, airports, tour operators, insurers, and others. The Panel was unable to accurately quantify these costs. It is likely that the total cost was in the region of £75m to £100m”.


Finally, it said about passengers:

“Many passengers incurred costs which they could not recover, for example, the loss of pre-paid holidays, lost income from work to which passengers were not able to return, and other consequential losses. The total costs of this large group would be very difficult to calculate but is likely to have been many millions of pounds”.


However, when one reads the NATS annual report for that year, it puts a slightly different spin on the incident:

“A technical flight handling system issue in August necessitated a considerable reduction in flight capacity for a short period in order to ensure the skies remained safe”.


Noble Lords would expect that the guilty party, NATS, rather than the innocent parties, principally the airlines, would have to bear the costs—not a bit of it. The only cost to NATS was £1.8 million. In the words of the review, that was a

“relatively modest penalty associated with not meeting some of its performance … targets”.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill (Lab)]

I should just say that of course I respect the views of the noble Lord, Lord Empey, and if he looks at Hansard and considers what I said, I will similarly consider further what he said.

[Baroness Grey-Thompson (CB)]

My Lords, I thank everyone who has taken part in the debate this afternoon. I would just like to pick up on a couple of points relating to my amendments, and I will try not to run into the next group.

The noble Lord, Lord Empey, makes some valuable points about the drop-off charges. Although I have not had emails on that specifically to do with airports, disabled people have issues in terms of access and technology and might find physically paying some of these charges quite hard to do. Although we should be trying to get disabled people and everybody to travel to airports by public transport, that highlights a bigger set of problems that we have with wheelchair-accessible transport in this country.

An amendment was not passed on wheelchair-accessible taxis outside London. It might be quite hard, if you have a specially designed WAV with hand controls, to take it to off-site parking. So, if you then use transport around the airport, there is a whole issue with not being tied down in the buses to get from the parking to the airport. My husband is not a permanent wheelchair user, but if we are going on holiday, he will quite often take his wheelchair with him because he struggles to walk long distances. We would not be able to travel on the same bus together because of the current rules.

The noble Baroness, Lady Grender, raised hand luggage and made me think of a different aspect not raised today: travelling with medical aids. I have had some emails about that. Some airlines are great, do not charge and are very accommodating, and some are not. It might be a piece of equipment such as a hoist that needs to go into the hold, or something like a CPAP machine, which absolutely needs to be on board with an individual and which is safe to fly with. I think some of that might come into the training in the next group.

I bow to my noble friend Lady Finlay’s greater knowledge on air quality, but the Task and Finish Group looked extensively at toilets. That is outside our jurisdiction in terms of the design, but we could do so much better at the design of toilets. There are some really good examples. The airline crew should help disabled people to the toilet, but not in the toilet—absolutely not. However, because of the poor design of toilets on planes, most people, including myself, absolutely dehydrate ourselves before we fly to make sure that we do not have to use them, even on long haul flights, which creates a whole different set of problems for safety on board a plane. Any influence we could have on smart design—probably outside the Bill—would be very helpful.

I thank the noble Lord for his response; I understand what he is saying. I will be bringing possibly a different version of this amendment back. I do not think it is impossible to look at a form of words that is a tighter list. Maybe a new clause needs to be inserted to give disabled travellers more reassurance on what the Government are trying to do. But at this stage I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.

Amendment 2 withdrawn.

Moved by

[Baroness Grey-Thompson]

3: Clause 1, page 1, line 21, at end insert—
“(ca) about the liabilities of air transport services providers and operators in relation to the damage or loss of mobility aid devices, medical and life-sustaining equipment, ensuring compensation of a such loss or damage is commensurate with the full replacement or repair value of the equipment;”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment seeks to ensure that air transport service providers and airport operators are strictly liable for the full financial value of repairing or replacing any damaged or lost mobility and medical equipment.

[Baroness Grey-Thompson (CB)]

My Lords, this is a really important group of amendments, like the last one, and it needs some consideration. I support Amendment 7 in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Kennedy of Cradley, in terms of her work on allergies. The Task and Finish Group again looked at this and recognised that there were some challenges in what we can do about the complicated nature of international jurisdictions. I also strongly support the amendments from the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton.

In this group, we have to ask ourselves what we are trying to do in considering consumer protection. Looking at transport rights for disabled people, we should be guaranteeing freedom of movement, independence and, above all, dignity. When there is failure, one of the words that is frequently used by disabled people is dignity, which they feel has been taken away from them. So it is vital to reform a system that currently hinders disabled people from travelling.

--- Later in debate ---

Finally, I heard the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay of Llandaff, discuss a UK standard for landing rights. It is certainly a desirable aim, but she will appreciate the need to deeply consider how this might work and the effects on airlines of any such proposal.

[Baroness Grey-Thompson (CB)]

My Lords, this has been a large group of amendments, and I think the answer is probably somewhere in the middle. I remain unconvinced that the Bill, as it stands, goes far enough. I like the suggestion from the noble Lord, Lord Moylan, of government amendments. That might save quite a lot of time, as this would be something that I would want to push to a Division on Report.

The debate highlights some of the problems we have with international jurisdictions. We have not addressed people who want to fly in electric wheelchairs. That is above anything that we can do here.

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

Baroness Grey-Thompson Excerpts

Committee stage
Thursday 18th June 2026 Grand Committee

[Baroness Grey-Thompson (CB)]

My Lords, I will speak briefly to Amendment 80 in my name and that of the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton. Although this amendment sits in this group, there is considerable overlap with the amendments that I had on day one in Committee. This amendment would require the CAA to publish a disability impact assessment before implementing significant new regulations. The thought behind the amendment was to put disability rights higher up the priority list, while ensuring there is a better understanding of the needs of disabled people and that they receive both equal and equitable treatment. I am very interested in the Minister’s view on this amendment.

[Baroness Pidgeon (LD)]

My Lords, this is a substantial group that touches on the constitutional and regulatory framework at the heart of the Bill. Amendment 102, in the name of my noble friend Lady Grender, would change the power in Section 61A(7) of the 1982 Act to the affirmative procedure, in line with the recommendations of the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee. This House takes those recommendations seriously and I am sure the Government do as well. When Parliament is being asked to delegate significant rule-making powers to the CAA, the least we should expect is meaningful parliamentary oversight of that delegation. I hope the Minister can support this.

Several of the amendments tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Moylan, in this group probe the curious decision to describe the Secretary of State’s priorities and objectives as a document rather than guidance. He made some interesting points in that it has implications for the enforceability of the Bill. Amendment 83 asks that this document address connectivity between the nations and regions of the United Kingdom, which we strongly support.

Amendment 80, tabled by the noble Baronesses, Lady Grey-Thompson and Lady Brinton, would require a disability impact assessment before significant new regulations and speaks to obligations that should be automatic—these are not optional. We should not have to say, in this day and age, that disabled passengers and those with reduced mobility deserve to have their needs considered systematically before regulations are made, not just retrofitted as an afterthought once a problem emerges. Yet the experience of disabled travellers tells a very different story. We have seen wheelchairs damaged or lost in transit, and passengers left on aircraft without explanation or assistance, long after others have disembarked. We have seen accessible services withdrawn or downgraded, with no prior assessment of the impact on those who depend on them. These are not isolated incidents; they reflect a culture in which the needs of disabled travellers are treated as a secondary consideration, rather than an absolute core service.

A disability impact assessment requirement before significant regulatory change would begin to change that culture. It would require the CAA to ask the right questions at the right time, to engage with disabled people and their representative organisations and to put on the record its assessment of how proposed rules will affect those with protected characteristics. This is not just a bureaucratic issue. It is the minimum standard we should expect of a modern regulator. We on these Benches strongly support the noble Baronesses in pressing this point, and we look forward to hearing a response from the Minister.

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

Baroness Grey-Thompson Excerpts

Report stage
Monday 13th July 2026 Lords Chamber

If the Minister will bear with me, I want to use one very brief illustration of another government department that does this all the time: the Department for Work and Pensions. If, as a disabled person in a wheelchair, you say that you need flat access to your interview, the DWP does not guarantee it is available. This has been the case for years and it is still happening today. Because the priority is solely getting the person needing to be interviewed in front of the assessor, often people turn up and discover they cannot get to the room. Worse than that, they are then marked down as not having attended. That is the sort of leeway that is written into the use of “desirability” here in this amendment. I hope that the Minister can explain how the rights of disabled passengers will not be affected by the use of that word in the new clause inserted by Amendment 24.

[Baroness Grey-Thompson (CB)]

My Lords, I will speak in support of Amendment 6, to which my name is attached, and the amendments in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton. As noble Baroness, Lady Kennedy, said, I chaired the Aviation Accessibility Task and Finish Group

Those who have allergies do not easily fit into the current system of support going through airports. While it is better understood in the outside world, I think that within the aviation industry there is still a very long way to go. This is a case which is literally life and death. As the noble Baroness, Lady Kennedy, said, we have to ensure that people are able to travel safely and easily. I very much look forward to the Minister’s explanation of government Amendment 19. As the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, said, to some extent it crosses into the next group.

Since our last debate, I have been contacted by several people who have been separated at the airport from the people they need around them. There was one instance where a young woman was separated from her family. She can communicate only by an iPad and needs family support to operate it. She was left in an absolutely terrifying situation, where she felt she had all her communication ability taken from her. We cannot continue to let that happen. It simply needs a little bit of empathy, some support and thinking differently about how we do this, because it is about getting people on and off aircraft as easily as possible.

As the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, said, we have to look at lived experience. Organisations will contribute towards the consultation, but we need to listen to some of the absolutely horrendous experiences that disabled people have; they do not complain because it is too difficult to do so—which fits into the next group. We do not get to hear about some of those stories and those cases, until we actually sit in your Lordships’ Chamber. I support the amendments in this group and look forward to the Minister’s response.

[Lord Moylan (Con)]

My Lords, if the House will indulge me, I will speak now rather than at the end of the debate, because I have amendments in this group and other noble Lords may wish to comment on them after I have spoken to them.

Before I come to those amendments, I will briefly refer to two others. First, I express my support for the amendment tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Kennedy. I am pleased that she seems to have reached an accommodation with the Government.

Secondly, Amendment 71, in the Minister’s name, removes the cap on compensation for loss of wheelchairs. However, it is important to note that, as I understand it, this applies only to domestic flights. The reason it has no international effect is that matters such as compensation are subject to an international agreement administered by the ICAO, which is based in Montreal, and would, I suspect, require all parties, or at least a majority of parties to the treaty, to make that amendment. I want to hear that the Government will make this a priority and a commitment on their part. Even though it might take 20 or 30 years to persuade everyone to change their mind, I want this to be a goal for the Government and for it to be on their agenda at every meeting of the ICAO until, gradually, things are chipped away at and they get somewhere in the course of time. Unless the Government start, they will never get there, so it would be very good to hear the Minister say that he is going to start.

I have three amendments in this group. The noble Baroness, Lady Grender, in saying that she could not support my Amendment 4, somewhat gave the impression that I had invented the target of reducing the costs of regulation on business by 25%. That is the Government’s target. The only purpose of my amendment is to oblige the Government to achieve their own target in the aviation sector. If the Government say they do not want to accept the amendment—I understand that Governments do not like having their hands tied—will they at least say that that is still their target? Will they say that it is the policy of Ministers to make that reduction in the aviation sector, that civil servants in the Department for Transport are under clear instructions to achieve and deliver that reduction in costs, and that the Civil Aviation Authority will have it as a primary objective? If they did, I would regard the purpose of my amendment as having been met. I hope the Minister will say that.

My other two amendments are technical. Amendment 21 would amend Amendment 19, in the Minister’s name, by deleting one word from it. The effect of Amendment 19 is to require consultation. It is a good amendment and I welcome it; it responds to the debate we had in Committee. It requires consultation by the Secretary of State when exercising his powers under Clause 1. However, it goes on to say that this obligation to consult relates only to matters in subsection (3), paragraphs (a) to (e). It is only those matters that arise under the subsection that are the subject of consultation.

Cunningly, I noticed that if you take out “concerning” and replace it with “not excluding” then you would bring the whole of Clause 1 into scope, allowing the Government to consult on other matters that are dealt with by the clause, not simply those mentioned here. That would be an improvement to the Minister’s amendment. It would not in any way damage or wreck the Minister’s amendment but would welcome and try to improve it. My amendment would allow the Government to keep their focus on the five items mentioned in Amendment 19 but would provide the scope and a statutory basis for consulting on the other matters as well. I hope the Minister will be willing to accept it.

My Amendment 26 might be regarded as slightly more controversial. It relates to government Amendment 24 and proposes the deletion of “in particular”. The noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, has an amendment in relation to this government amendment, which she has already spoken to. I will explain what I am trying to achieve. The amendment puts clear blue water between me and what the noble Baroness, Lady Grender, said in her opening remarks. The thrust of her argument is that there should be no regression from standards for consumer protection in the future—bear in mind that this whole argument is about consumer protection. That is a very bad principle.

This new clause effectively introduces what the noble Baroness is looking for, in that it is a non-regression statement on consumer standards. It then says, “In particular … disabled persons”, but it actually covers everybody, because disabled people are picked out only “in particular”. I do not think we should introduce a non-regression standard. It is simply the case that what counts as consumer protection changes over time and things that might be important to consumers now might be less important in the future. If we had non-regression of safety standards, we would still have men with red flags walking in front of motor cars, but things change and things are adapted. What matters to consumers also changes, and sometimes trade-offs are necessary.

The effect of removing “in particular” from the Government’s amendment would be to retain the non-regression clause in respect of disabled people—and having listened now and in Committee to the noble Baronesses, Lady Brinton and Lady Grey-Thompson, I have no hesitation about the rightness of doing that—while removing the effect of a non-regression clause in relation to those who are not disabled.

Although that means that I disagree with the noble Baroness, Lady Grender, that is what political difference is all about. We are in favour of a commercial and flexible approach to aviation, which is, after all, one of the few genuinely private and successful enterprises that we have in this country.

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Baroness Grey-Thompson (CB)]

5: Clause 1, page 2, line 3, leave out paragraph (e) and insert—
“(e) establishing minimum standards to provide assistance to disabled persons or persons with reduced mobility, including but not limited to—(i) mandatory accessibility and disability awareness training for all personnel;(ii) requirements for the safe handling, storage and return of mobility aid devices and medical and life-sustaining equipment;(iii) the collection and publication of data regarding the damage, delay or loss of mobility aids devices and medical and life-sustaining equipment;(iv) standardised levels of accessibility for all digital communications, including websites, apps and emails;(v) the implementation of the “One Click” standard to enable straightforward access to key information;”

[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.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Grey-Thompson (CB)]

My Lords, I thank all noble Lords who have taken part in this group. I also thank the officials who worked on the task and finish group and on the Bill.

The reality, as a disabled person, is that you must know all the rules—every single one of them—whether the rules of an airport, an airline or different jurisdictions. Jumping on and off a plane is not so simple. I learned a very long time ago to book my flights with airlines where there is a tight turnaround. There is then a chance that you might get off, since leaving you on costs them quite a lot of money. I also learned never to move from my seat, because they are not allowed to move you without permission. I do not move from my seat until I have line of sight of my own wheelchair, because as soon as you are off the plane, you have lost every bit of power that you have in the system. It is a great shame that the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, has to travel with the IATA rules, which nobody should have to do. However, again, that is the reality of what it is like.

The noble Lord, Lord Holmes, talks about experiential support. We need to look at this slightly differently. If, during the 2012 Paralympics, we could get thousands of disabled people going through one airport, on and off, in a couple of days then we should be able to do it the rest of the time. I know that it increased staff and did lots of other things, but how disabled people were treated at that point was amazing. The noble Baroness, Lady Hoey, is right that there has been a big increase in requests. We need to be smarter about how people are supported. Anyone who is disabled or who has flown has seen people who required support to get on a plane but were able to skip off at the other end. That cannot be the right way to do it. I certainly do not think that charging passengers is the right way to do it, but we must think differently about what end-to-end support looks like.

On batteries, the Minister offered a meeting for interested Peers. The sub-group of the implementation group is working very hard on batteries. It is co-chaired by David Leighton and Tony Jennings. It would be worth setting up a meeting with the interested Peers as part of that. I will closely watch the consultation and the meetings, but I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.

Amendment 5 withdrawn.