My Lords, this Bill represents and achieves an astonishing transfer of power away from Parliament and away from the scrutiny that your Lordships and Members of the other place have customarily brought to regulation and legislation pertaining to the field of civil aviation. Some of this is a necessary transfer of power to the Minister since we have left the European Union. One bears in mind that much of the regulation in the field of consumer protection was made by the European Union, but that is no longer the case and any changes that we might want to make to it now need to be made by a different mechanism. This Bill provides that mechanism, but it does so in a way that is not adequately scrutinised by Parliament. The Bill does other things, one of which is that it makes a massive and unprecedented transfer of power to the Civil Aviation Authority. We will discuss that in a later group and we will want to probe it, because it will be wholly outside the remit of parliamentary scrutiny.

Those are the key constitutional and legal issues, it seems to me, at the heart of the Bill and we must probe them forcefully, even though I completely understand that other noble Lords will bring forward particular measures that they feel would improve the operation of civil aviation. Those are, for the purposes of this Bill, secondary, because the intention is that this Bill does not make those decisions; it is to provide a framework to allow them to be made by other routes. The crucial thing is ensuring that those other routes are under proper parliamentary control.

My Amendment 1 would insert a purpose clause. I know that Governments do not particularly like purpose clauses; they do not want to disclose to the rest of the world and to Parliament what they are actually trying to achieve with a piece of legislation. None the less, I put one in to probe the Government on what they are trying to achieve with this. The Government’s own impact assessment says that the Bill is designed to

“unlock the benefits of airport expansion … help the UK aviation sector to grow … reinforcing the UK’s global leadership in aviation”.

If that is in fact their purpose, I do not see that they can object to a clause that says as much in the Bill, which is the effect of my Amendment 1.

The amendment would insert a purpose clause stating that the Act should

“promote the international competitiveness of the United Kingdom aviation sector … support economic growth”

and

“protect the rights and interests of consumers”.

They are not in conflict with each other, and they should not be treated as if they are. A strong aviation sector needs passengers to have confidence in their rights, but it also needs airlines, airports and investors to have confidence that regulation will be proportionate, predictable and pro-growth. Amendment 23 is intended to make sure that, when the Secretary of State makes regulations under Clause 1, the impact on growth is considered at the start, rather than as an afterthought.

In other words, Amendment 1 would apply to the whole Bill, and Amendment 23 seeks to apply the same effect to Clause 1, which relates in particular to consumer rights. It is obviously vital that consumers are properly protected, but they should be protected in a way that supports demand for aviation, encourages investment and allows aviation businesses to grow. The Government have repeatedly said that economic growth is their number one priority. I fully realise that, depending on the day of the week, there will be a different number one priority. But, at various times, growth has occupied that slot, so the Government should be prepared to apply that test to the regulations made under the Bill. The amendment is simply asking the Minister to take seriously the economic consequences of the powers that they are seeking.

Amendment 24 concerns alignment with EU law and international standards. I was appalled when I read the large final-stage impact assessment document. By page three it is already talking about aligning with European Union legislation. We know that the European Union at the moment is in the midst, or maybe approaching the end, of a contested argument about changes to consumer protection rights. We can take it, with some degree of certainty, that there will be changes to aviation consumer protection rights in the European Union as a result of those discussions.

Already, the department is thinking not what is best for Britain, what is best for the growth of the aviation sector, nor what is best for passengers. It is simply thinking the way it has thought for 47 years: what are we going to do to align with the European Union? To prevent that from being the lodestar of how regulation develops in the future, Amendment 24 would put in certain trip-wires in any case where the intention is to align with European Union regulations. I object to the assumption that the United Kingdom’s ambition should be merely to mirror what the European Union does next.

Amendment 25 concerns the Government’s own target to reduce the administrative cost of regulation on businesses by 25% by the end of this Parliament. That is a noble ambition, to which I can give every level of support. It is an ambition where it is difficult to see, even though the Government have now been in power for about two years, that progress has been made in those first two years. The Public Accounts Committee has warned that the Treasury and the Department for Business and Trade do not have a robust plan to deliver the 25% reduction in administrative burdens. It has also said that the Treasury does not even know if the Government are on track.

In light of that, it is important that in any Bill that is to do with business, there is a requirement that the Government meet their own target on the reduction of the effects of regulatory burdens. Of course, it is open to the Minister to say that that is no longer the Government’s target, and that would be an interesting policy development. But if it is the Government’s target, it is about time that they started meeting it. This amendment is aimed directly at that.

These amendments are not about weakening passenger rights. They are about making sure that passenger rights sit within a regulatory framework that strengthens the aviation sector rather than holding it back. I beg to move.

My Lords, I will speak to Amendment 113. It has been on a bit of a circuitous tour of groupings, but I am pleased to say that it is back in group 1. I declare my membership of the Aircraft Owners and Pilots Association. I am vice-president, and I apologise for not mentioning that at Second Reading.

My Amendment 113 is very clear. It seeks to require the Secretary of State and the Civil Aviation Authority, when exercising functions under this Act, to

“have regard to the need to promote and encourage general aviation”.

To achieve this, the Secretary of State and the Civil Aviation Authority

“must consult such persons representing general aviation as they consider appropriate”.

Given the importance of the general aviation community within the UK aviation sector, one would have thought that it would have at least merited an appearance in the Bill, but no. There is not even the tiniest of mentions.

The Minister will recall that, at Second Reading, my noble friend Lord Kirkhope and I spoke passionately about the relevance of general aviation. I even asked questions of the Minister, to which his response was:

“The noble Lord, Lord Davies of Gower, asked about general aviation. This Government support general aviation. They see the connection, particularly with training pilots and so forth, and will continue to maintain their interest in general aviation. They note the importance of general aviation in airspace modernisation and will continue to consult it”.—[Official Report, 2/6/26; col. 827.]

I was very grateful for that short response. However, I am not persuaded as to how this will be achieved. Indeed, it takes two to tango, and I am not currently convinced that, for general aviation, what is on offer at present sufficiently demonstrates that the DfT and the CAA are willing dancing partners.

There is also a belief—I have heard it said—that this is not an appropriate Bill in which to raise the issues of general aviation. I disagree vehemently with that notion. The Bill is clear in its intention: it is a Bill

“to make provision about airspace change, air traffic and air navigation services”,

which are parts that GA is very interested in, and

“to confer power on the Civil Aviation Authority to make rules”

and

“to make provision about aviation offences”,

which GA is extremely interested in and subject to the effect of. These, I suggest, are extremely relevant to general aviation, and we need a recognised voice.

As a vital part of the aviation community, general aviation plays a hugely significant role. I pointed out at Second Reading that, at the last count, it contributes £4 billion to the UK’s economy and supports some 40,000 jobs. Yet it is treated as a peripheral, regarded as nothing more than hobby flying. The current Government, unlike the previous one, do nothing to recognise the value of the sector, having disposed of the general aviation unit within the DfT—an issue I asked for confirmation about at Second Reading, but I did not get a response. Martin Robinson, the chief executive of the Aircraft Owners and Pilots Association, put it well when he said that general aviation

“should be recognised as a strategic national asset and … should be reflected in the Secretary of State’s priorities for the CAA”,

but there is not a mention of it in the Bill.

General aviation underpins much of UK aviation. It is where most pilots begin their careers and is the first step on the ladder to becoming a commercial pilot or an aero engineer. General aviation supports business aviation, the emergency services, aerial surveying, engineering skills and a whole lot more. Yet, as I have said, there is no mention of it in the Bill. Again, I am reminded of Martin Robinson’s words:

“The challenge is not hostility so much as a persistent institutional mindset that prioritises airline operations, major airports, and commercial air transport”,

leaving general aviation struggling to be heard. Although I am afraid that the worm is making a very strategic turn, to be ignored in a Bill of such importance is foolhardy and contradicts any aim of making the UK the best place in the world for general aviation as a flourishing, wealth-generating and job-producing sector of the economy.

My amendment is well intentioned. If we are to create an environment which enhances safety and encourages compliance then, without the voice of general aviation being heard at the top table, we are likely to endure overly complex regulation, which will create unnecessary barriers, particularly for smaller organisations with limited resources. I urge the Government to accept my amendment, and I commend it to the Committee.

My Lords, I start with an apology. I could not be here for Second Reading because I was gale-bound on the Isles of Scilly due to the failure of the air services. Therefore, it seems an appropriate time to look at the whole subject of general aviation, as the noble Lord, Lord Davies, said, to see what can be done. I have been lobbying hard for improved navigation and improved services to the Isles of Scilly, where I live most of the time, for about 10 years; I shall come to that in later amendments. It is 10 years since we left Europe with Brexit and cancelled our membership of EGNOS, which I shall come to later.

It is important that general aviation is included in the Bill, and I support much of what the noble Lords, Lord Davies and Lord Moylan, have said. I am not sure about the European Union amendment, but we will come on to that later. It is worth reminding ourselves that the long title of this Bill says that it is to:

“Make provision for the protection of purchasers and users of air transport and airport services”,

and it then mentions

“air traffic and air navigation services”,

all of which are part of general aviation, just as much as they are part of the rest of the aviation world. It is right to have something at the start of the Bill which demonstrates that this is an important subject which needs full consideration.

Much of what is in the Bill is really good, but, as the noble Lord, Lord Davies, said, all the issues relating to general aviation need discussing, such as training, access to small airfields—on the islands or different parts of the country—and how things compare with what has been going on in Europe. I support the amendment from the noble Lord, Lord Davies, and certainly part of the amendments from the noble Lord, Lord Moylan, and look forward to discussing these issues more in subsequent amendments.

My Lords, I declare my interest, as set out in the register, as non-executive chair of RVL Aviation. I strongly support the purpose clause which my noble friend Lord Moylan has set out because I think most of the discussion on the other amendments will look at passengers by talking about airlines and concentrating on the experience of passengers. I draw attention to the fact that his Amendment 1 also talks about the international competitiveness of the sector, economic growth and the rights of those who purchase air transport services. My understanding of his amendment and of Clause 1 is that the definition of air transport services is not just passengers but those people who purchase freight and cargo services. I see the Minister is nodding assent.

That is important because it is critical to the growth of the economy. Air freight accounts for over 40% of non-EU trade by value, even though it is only about 1% of freight by volume. That is incredibly important to the overall economy, especially for some sectors, such as pharmaceuticals and high-end manufacturing, where we are particularly competitive, and it contributes to our balance of payments. An amendment that means that Ministers, when making regulations, have to ensure that our international trade remains competitive would be extremely valuable.

That is important, because the conversation about rights and the regulatory burden on airlines is often had while not thinking about the cost of those regulations. It does not mean that you do not make regulations if they have a cost; it just means that when you think about regulating, you have to think about the cost, look at the benefit and balance those two things. You also have to look at them cumulatively. My noble friend Lord Moylan touched on that when he talked about the Government’s target to reduce the cost of administrative burdens by 25% over this Parliament.

It is worth putting on the record—this is why the competitiveness of the sector is important—that overall, in 2024, European airlines had a net profit margin of around 3.9%. They are also expected, once all the results are in, to have had a net profit margin of around 4.4% in 2025, with a profit per passenger of around $8 or $9. I accept that that varies hugely by carrier, but it means that we have to think carefully about the costs that we load on to the industry so that we ensure that it remains competitive for both freight and passengers.

Does my noble friend agree that, as the European Union has said, for European airlines the cost of regulation to date is approximately €8 per ticket?

I note that point; it is important when you look at the margins. It is clear that relatively small changes to the regulatory burden will have a direct impact. Businesses with relatively low margins have a relatively low ability to absorb those extra costs, which means that they flow through on to ticket prices and fall on passengers and those who use freight services. The briefing from Airlines UK, which I suspect all Members have received, makes the point that the cost remains the single biggest barrier to flying, which is why it is important that we keep the cost burden as low as we can. Pricing people out of flying is not, ultimately, very sensible.

Let me touch briefly on the other amendments tabled by my noble friend Lord Moylan. Amendment 23 is specifically about the desirability of promoting economic growth. The Minister was nodding but it would be helpful if, when he responds, he sets out that that encompasses not just passenger transport but freight providers. A significant amount of freight goes in the belly of passenger planes, of course, so those two services are absolutely interconnected. It would be helpful if the Minister could confirm that.

On Amendment 24, I strongly agree with my noble friend. This seems a very unobjectionable amendment to me. In effect, it would ensure that Ministers have to be transparent. It would not mean that they could not align our regulations with those in the European Union, but it would mean that they have to think about why they are doing it first. It would also mean them having to set out their rationale for us all to see and having to be transparent about the costs and benefits of doing so. There may be good reasons why we may wish for our rules to be aligned with those in the EU, in which case Ministers should have no problem with setting out the rationale for doing so and why they have decided to make the changes that they have, so that we can all see them.

I agree with my noble friend Lord Moylan that what we do not want is an automatic, knee-jerk approach where, as soon as the European Union changes its rules, we assume that we have to change ours as well, even if we are not clear about the benefits and costs of doing so. This is a transparency measure, basically, and I cannot think of a good reason why the Minister could not accept it—or why, if he does not think that it is drafted well enough, he could not come back on Report with a similar amendment of his own.

My final point concerns the Government’s target to reduce the administrative costs of regulations. I am not sure what exactly they are using as the definition of “administrative costs” but of course—I am not going to rehearse this argument now—this Government have already increased the costs for businesses significantly through the Employment Rights Act. Their own impact assessment said that that Act had a cost to businesses of around £5 billion. It means that, if they are going to reduce the administrative costs for businesses by 25% over this Parliament—I assume that that is a net reduction—if they increase costs in one area, they will have to reduce costs by more than 25% in other areas in order to hit the overall cost reduction target of 25%.

Again, this is a transparency measure that insists that the Government have to track how they are doing against that target and whether they are on track. If we are two years through a five-year Parliament, we should be able to look at the 25% target; that is roughly 5% a year and, if the Government have not already reduced costs and are not on track to reduce them by 10% by this point, they clearly do not have a hope of doing so by the end of the Parliament. This is a welcome piece of transparency, which is why I support it.

Finally, I think that my noble friend Lord Davies is right explicitly to flag the importance of general aviation, not just to the very significant number of people who use general aviation services, both purchasing services and flying themselves—it is also a very important sector in generating pilots and those who are skilled in aviation services, which then goes into the wider sector. An explicit recognition of the importance of general aviation, reminding people of its importance, is very welcome, and his amendment has served us all by putting that on the record.

My Lords, I start with a couple of declarations of interest. I am a current pilot of light aircraft. I also own and operate an aircraft and am a member of the Light Aircraft Association, and I have worked and continue to work extensively in the civil aerospace, defence and related fields, supporting those industries. Many decades ago, I was a Minister for Aviation. There are no new issues, perhaps, apart from the effects of withdrawal from the European Union 10 years ago. I sympathise and empathise with the Minister, and I shall of course be very supportive.

At this point, I would just like to make two points, or perhaps three. First, I apologise to the Committee for my absence at Second Reading. However, as I was not a Member of the House of Lords at the time, perhaps the Committee will excuse me and allow me to speak.

I make what is perhaps a rather generic point at the outset. We are considering important affairs with this Bill. The UK has a strong reputation for regulation in the aviation sector, with the reputation of the Civil Aviation Authority being very high in the UK and internationally. Of course, aviation is an international activity and I think that we need to tread extremely carefully when it comes to regulation in this field. Yes, when I was in government there was a transfer of competence, in the technical sense of that term, to the Commission and of course, since that position has been reversed, there has been a transfer of competence, again in the technical sense of the term, back. But we have tremendous skill in aviation regulation in this country and we need to be extraordinarily cautious when looking at such issues as design of aerospace and others. The law of unintended consequences is at play.

On a specific point, relating to my noble friend Lord Davies of Gower’s amendment, there is a curious grouping of general aviation with the overall purpose of the Bill. Notwithstanding that, we have a strong GA sector in this country, despite the costs of operating in the UK and despite the weather that we deal with here. General aviation is important; it is not always the highest-profile issue to government and regulators, but it is important. It is important on its own merits and important as a feeder of pilots, skills and engineers into the broader sector. If we lose or damage that, it will be very difficult indeed to recover.

The noble Lord, Lord Davies, has done the Committee a service by emphasising the importance of general aviation. It is very wide: from training, police helicopter operations, offshore operations and the plight of small airfields, it is a broad subject. But it is important and we must not just view aviation in this country as airline-related, which is incredibly important. It is much broader than that, and I look forward to the deliberations of the Committee as we progress through the Bill.

My Lords, this is Committee and I do not wish to talk about amendments that will come later, but I want to support my noble friend Lord Davies as another pilot and the honorary vice-president of BALPA.

I raised general aviation with him at Second Reading and I am waiting for answers from the Minister. There will be a specific amendment a little later in today’s proceedings, and I hope my colleagues who have spoken so far on general aviation will be here later to join me when we get to it. In the meantime, I fully support Amendment 113 and look forward to the Minister’s response to my noble friend.

My Lords, I support the amendments from my noble friends Lord Moylan and Lord Davies of Gower. This is not a failing market. This is a highly competitive environment, where both domestic and international competition are working aggressively to make it a challenge to run an airline or a freight airline in today’s world.

The need for extensive government regulation, therefore, is limited and questionable. We are not trying to solve a massive problem. There are, of course, specific issues. We will hear more, for example, about disability rights, where, yes, of course we should make sure that airport operators in particular deliver the right environment for disabled people. But first and foremost, we must ensure that the Government do not interfere in this marketplace in a way that damages the competitiveness of one of the UK’s most important economic sectors. That is why my noble friend Lord Moylan is absolutely right. As we go through this debate—not simply on these amendments but on the Bill as a whole—the Minister needs constantly to have in mind the need not to cramp the style of our sector by overregulation, and, where he is regulating, to explain why, otherwise he will not have the support of this Committee.

Finally, on general aviation, the comments made so far are absolutely right. There is a genuine issue around the future of general aviation—the loss of smaller airports, for example, to planning pressures and planning opportunities, and those who own them trying to make money out of them. General aviation needs to be looked after in this country because at a time when, as we hear, there is a growing shortage of young up- and-coming pilots, general aviation is an essential way of developing the skills that we need for the future. It is not simply a way for a few rich people to have a good time.

My Lords, Amendment 1 and Amendments 23, 24 and 25 are in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Moylan. As we noted previously, the Bill sets out the framework but leaves a great deal of detail to be determined later, so we welcome these amendments. We have consistently argued that such an approach risks leaving both passengers and Parliament with too little certainty about how the regime will operate in practice. We see these amendments as useful in probing how that framework might be strengthened.

Amendment 1 raises an important issue around transparency and consumer protection: the case for clearer comparable information at the point of sale. In our view, it should be pursued and I look forward to discussing my noble friend Lord Russell’s amendment, which aims to strengthen the Bill in this area, in the next group.

Equally, how compensation is delivered remains a live and important concern. The current system too often places the burden on passengers to navigate complex processes to secure redress. I say to the noble Lord, Lord Harper—I am sure we will keep coming back to this issue of a low-margin industry—that a different way of viewing this is that if £1 million is not returned to a whole group of consumers by a low-budget airline over a long period, it is, in effect, using families who cannot afford it, or can ill afford it, almost as an overdraft facility with no interest. Getting the balance right on that will be important as we investigate some of the amendments and get into the detail.

On Amendments 23, 24 and 25, we find ourselves in close alignment with the noble Lord, Lord Moylan. As the Bill proposes to confer significant new functions on the Civil Aviation Authority, it is right to consider how those powers are to be exercised and scrutinised. A more centralised regulatory role must not come at the expense of transparency, or indeed parliamentary oversight. The noble Lord and I have discussed this issue, which is that unless there is a threat, with teeth, to move a fatal Motion on a piece of secondary legislation, there is a tendency for Governments to plough on regardless—also regardless of previous colours, I would just say. If we are concerned about secondary legislation—and we are concerned about this—there needs to be clarity about what we would do with it. I hope we can get into some of the detail on that.

On Amendment 24, later we propose two amendments that explore a high common denominator between UK 261 and EU 261, and we look at shadowing EU 261. I entirely hear what the noble Lord, Lord Moylan, says about there being no ownership of who has the best, so we want to pursue, on behalf of industry and customers in the UK, what is the best. That may be EU 261, as revised when it cuts, or it may not.

Overall, these amendments highlight two issues. We consider fundamental the need to embed meaningful consumer protections and the need to ensure proper accountability in the exercise of new regulatory powers as the Government move to address the post-EU powers gap. It is essential that this Committee is not asked to accept a blank cheque approach. I therefore look forward to hearing the Minister’s response as we all warm to this theme throughout the rest of today.

My Lords, I will stay on group 1, on growth and competitiveness. I will just add a brief word endorsing the comments of my colleagues on this side of the Room: whatever decisions we come to on detailed changes to legislation in this Committee, we need to remember that we are part of international law. We comply with the Montreal and Chicago conventions, and we comply with all the rules covered by IATA and ICAO, so whatever we do cannot be done in isolation—whichever area we debate and come to conclusions on over the next couple of days. I just say to my noble friends and the Minister that this has to be at the back of our minds when we determine anything that we do. What we should not do is come to conclusions whereby we end up putting through regulations that are wholly anti-competitive for the UK airline industry and not compatible either to third-country carriers who come to the UK, as we do not have, in most cases, any extra territoriality rights to impose certain rules or regulations. I just say that as a thought, and I am sure we will have very interesting debates on the amendments laid down.

My Lords, I am grateful to have the opportunity to discuss growth in the aviation sector and I thank the noble Lords, Lord Moylan and Lord Davies of Gower, for their amendments.

This Government’s primary mission is to deliver the highest sustained growth in the G7. Aviation has a vital role to play in achieving that ambition as a key enabler of international trade, investment and job creation across the United Kingdom. As the noble Lord, Lord Harper, said, that includes freight traffic as well as passenger traffic. Aviation is a dynamic, primarily private sector industry. Our regulatory framework must strike the right balance, supporting the sector to grow and innovate, while ensuring strong protections for consumers.

In addition to this Bill, we are taking forward a wide range of work to deliver this. We are modernising our airspace to improve efficiency and to ensure that it can meet the demands of the future. We are embedding a pro-growth approach across our regulatory system. Through the future of flight programme, we are creating the right conditions for innovation, unlocking the economic benefits of new technologies such as drones. Alongside that, airport expansion is an enabler of growth, subject of course to the relevant planning processes. As I set out at Second Reading, this Bill is separate from those processes. This approach will support a thriving aviation sector, strengthen our economy and deliver for passengers.

I turn now to the specifics of the amendments in this group, beginning with the amendment seeking a purpose clause. While I support the intention to drive growth, I do not consider this amendment necessary. Economic growth, investment and competitiveness, which we confirm will be delivered in relation to both passengers and freight traffic, are core to how we approach reforms in this sector. The Secretary of State already takes these matters into account as part of wider government policy and decision-making. She communicates such priorities, including the vital importance of economic growth, to the CAA annually. In practice, this amendment would place a statutory duty on the Secretary of State to have regard to these specified objectives when exercising the powers in the Act. While that might appear helpful, it risks narrowing the focus to a defined list of considerations.

These objectives, though important, cannot be exhaustive. Notably, they do not include safety, which is a fundamental objective of both the aviation sector and this Bill. Setting out only a limited set of considerations would prevent flexibility to balance a broader range of factors as circumstances require. I also note that the noble Lord’s explanatory statement suggests that this duty would extend to the Civil Aviation Authority. That authority is already subject to the statutory growth duty, which requires it to have regard to economic growth in a proportionate way. Ultimately, we believe that it is right that decisions taken under the Bill remain flexible, proportionate and responsive to the evidence, rather than being constrained by specific duties set out in primary legislation. I hope that the noble Lord will withdraw his amendment.

I turn next to the amendment on the promotion of economic growth under Clause 1. Any regulations laid under this power would be subject to growth assessments. These are a central part of policy development and ensure that full consideration is given to growth throughout policy development. Officials will also undertake an options and impact assessment, which requires careful consideration of the impact on business, as well as the impact on trade and investment, the ease of doing business in the UK and further economic growth. As this amendment would duplicate existing government obligations and processes, I cannot support putting it in primary legislation.

I turn to the amendment on alignment with international legislation and air passenger rights. The policy process for developing secondary legislation already includes a full assessment of the potential impacts on business, passengers and government, as well as justification for why government intervention is required. Supporting documentation for secondary legislation would set out the reasons for regulations being made. We will come to other amendments on this subject later, as the noble Baroness, Lady Grender, referred to. This amendment would duplicate existing processes and thus I hope that the noble Lord will not press it.

Finally, I turn to the amendment on regulatory burdens on business. I emphasise that the Government are already committed, across the whole of government, to reducing the cost of regulation to business. That is being taken forward in a co-ordinated and systematic way, including through regular reporting on changes to the administrative burden of regulation, which is collated and published across government. Indeed, as the published impact assessment makes clear, the overall effect of the Bill’s measures on an industry with the margins noted by the noble Lords, Lord Moylan and Lord Harper, is expected to reduce costs to business over time, particularly through improvements to the safety rule-making framework, which will provide greater clarity, consistency and efficiency.

I want to press the Minister on my noble friend Lord Moylan’s Amendment 25. I completely understand why the Minister has taken the view that he has about not wanting it in the Bill. I do not expect him to be able to set this out today, but would he be able, perhaps when we come back for the second day of debate on Thursday, to set out for the Committee how the department is doing on its bit of hitting the Government’s target of reducing the administrative burdens on business by 25%? It would be helpful to know how the department is doing. I am sure that it is being tracked, because to hit that target there would have to be some metrics, and it would be helpful if the Minister could provide those to the Committee on Thursday.

I will certainly see what information I have, and whatever I have I will tell him about on Thursday.

My Lords, I note that the Minister quotes the Delegated Powers Committee favourably. I hope, therefore, that he will be willing to accept, when we come to it, my later amendment, which gives effect to the recommendation of the Delegated Powers Committee that certain powers in the Bill be constrained. We will debate that, as I say, at a later stage.

I am grateful to noble Lords who have spoken on these amendments. I say a particular word of thanks to my noble friends Lord Davies of Gower and Lord Goschen for their contributions on the general aviation sector, which, as they say, is not always remembered with the prominence due to it. I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Grender, for the support that she found able to give to my amendments in general and to raising a case that we will pursue. I thought that the Minister might have been able to agree with my amendments in the same way, but he was not. He found somewhat footling reasons for saying that they were unnecessary. That only makes it more likely, I am afraid, that we will return to them on Report.

I am persuaded that when the Minister says that he is committed to a competitive and successful aviation sector, he is right. But he is not the only voice in Whitehall. That is why these amendments are so important. I do not imagine that the Minister was consulted when the Chancellor of the Exchequer decided to impose bone-crunching increases in business rates on the aviation sector that he wants to see remaining internationally competitive. I do not know the extent to which the Minister is consulted when DEZNZ—I hate that expression —is pushing for ever-increasing drop-off charges at airports. This is something that we will discuss again in considering further amendments, which clearly imposes a cost on flying for ordinary families, and is intended to do so, and which can only damage the aviation sector and make it less competitive. I was disappointed by what the Minister had to say. None the less, at this stage I beg leave to withdraw my amendment, although I expect to return to the matters on Report.

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.

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”.

Will my noble friend allow me to help him a little? He may have heard of a company called Network Rail, which, if my memory serves me correctly, must pay compensation to train operators if it goes through the kinds of failing that he has identified. Were he to know anybody who used to chair Network Rail, he might have an interesting point to make.

My noble friend is a mind-reader; I was going to refer to Network Rail in about 40 seconds. As I said, as far as NERL’s ownership is concerned, it is different, but that should not preclude it having to pay up for claims.

The review then produced another pretext, which, again, does not stand up to scrutiny. This is what it said:

“Such a liability would probably lead to a substantial increase in the annual costs of the ATC”—

air traffic control—

“service, which could in turn lead to increased costs to airlines and passengers”.

What happens at the moment? The compensation liability rests with the airlines and, as such, it has already caused increased costs to passengers. If the airlines did not have the liability their costs would go down, but if NATS then passed back all the increased costs we would be back where we started. Crucially, that assumes that the regulator, the CAA, would allow the costs to be passed on by NATS to customers, instead of taking it out of profits. If, as happens with the water companies, costs were not passed on to consumers but funded out of profits then costs to the airlines and passengers would actually go down, not up—the opposite of what the review suggested.

I come to my noble friend’s intervention. The Minister will understand and, I hope, sympathise with the case I am making because of his previous responsibility for Network Rail. If, as my noble friend said, a passenger is delayed, the train operator pays the compensation. If Network Rail was responsible for the delay, it then reimburses the train operator. That is as it should be, and it is exactly what should happen in air transport. A failure in traffic control is paid for by the traffic controller. My amendment is supported by IATA, which actually wants to go further. It would like the amendment to be extended to airports and other parties that provide air services that can cause disruption yet are not liable for passenger compensation. Airlines currently pay all passenger compensation regardless of who is at fault—for example, the power failure at Heathrow last year.

To sum up and use management jargon, we need shared accountability across the value chain. I hope the Minister can respond positively to the case I have made and put right this manifest injustice.

My Lords, I will speak to my Amendment 9, which seeks to strengthen the consumer protection provisions at the heart of the Bill. This amendment would insert two paragraphs into Clause 1. We believe that both are desirable and necessary if this legislation is to deliver meaningful change for the travelling public. The first would add the requirement for

“standardised, comparable information at the point of sale”.

Anyone who has purchased an airline ticket recently will be familiar with the booking experience. I will not go through all the painful detail but suffice to say that, by the time you come to the payment page, the fee you are charged bears little resemblance to the one that first encouraged you to make the booking.

That is not an accident; it is intentional. It is a business model that has moved, frankly, from the sublime to the ridiculous. For example, at the moment, the CMA is investigating Ryanair’s mandatory charge of £8 each way for the privilege of sitting with your own children. It is a business model that harms consumers, distorts competition and corrodes trust in the aviation sector. Airlines that compete fairly on total price are undercut by those which strip out every possible cost, just to put them back in. We do not tolerate these practices in other markets—imagine for one moment that the same situation was in place when you were doing your online grocery shopping. It means that consumers cannot make rational or informed choices. Again, that is the intention. Families on modest budgets find themselves paying significantly more than they had intended to.

My amendment would address this directly by requiring airlines and all ticket sellers—I emphasise all ticket sellers, whether the airlines themselves, online travel agents or price comparison websites—to display the total price up front, including all fees, taxes and unavoidable charges. We believe this is not a radical proposition. It is not difficult for the airlines, if they are selling direct to consumers, or their agents to comply with. Most consumers reasonably believe that this is the case already, so this amendment aims to make it so.

The second element of the amendment concerns passenger rights. When a flight is delayed or cancelled, or a passenger is denied boarding, they are entitled to certain protections, and rightly so. But the evidence consistently shows that a significant portion of affected passengers do not know what those rights are and that airlines do not always volunteer that information. My amendment would require this information about passenger rights in disruption scenarios to be provided clearly at the point of sale, not buried deep in terms and conditions in the small print, and accessible only to those who know how to look for it.

Thirdly, the information element concerns environmental impact. Consumers are increasingly seeking to make informed choices consistent with their values. Aviation, as we know, is a significant contributor to greenhouse gas emissions. While the sector as a whole must decarbonise, individuals, too, wish to understand the environmental impact of their individual journeys. Standardised carbon footprint information at the point of sale would enable informed choices. It would also in time, we hope, drive competition on environmental performance, an outcome that we argue would drive consumer-led carbon-reduction measures.

The second part of the amendment includes mandatory minimum compensation standards and, critically, automated payment mechanisms for flight delays, cancellations and denied boarding. The right to compensation for significant disruption already exists in law. Yet, year after year, consumer bodies and passengers find that it is not happening. They are waiting long times and often having to go to court and take legal action. That is an unacceptable situation.

The solution that I have proposed is an automation system to make sure that, where delays happen, there is an automatic payment so that you do not have to go through a complicated process to do it. The airlines have all this information. They know who is on their planes, they know who is not, they know when they are delayed and they know when compensation needs to be paid. We do not believe that this requirement would be too onerous on the airlines. It would simply make it a more efficient, fair and effective system.

We welcome this Bill. We recognise the consumer protections, but we feel that they need to have real bite. That is what my amendments seek to do. Our worry is that, if we do not put stronger protections in the Bill, we will simply have gestures towards consumer rights without actually putting them in statute. With the inclusion of these amendments, we would take concrete steps to make sure that we are acting in the passengers’ best interests in making these systems fairer and more efficient.

My Lords, I will speak to Amendment 41. The question of responsibility for drop-off charges was mentioned in closing by the noble Lord, Lord Moylan. This has become a new and evolving tax in the last few years and it is quite substantial. Edinburgh Airport is now charging £8.50 for somebody to be dropped off. Our major airports, Heathrow and Gatwick, are around the £7 to £8 mark, and other airports around the country have various levels. What effectively is happening is that the sharp increase in business rates applied to the airports has been passed on to a passenger being dropped off at the front door.

This has a huge impact on the potential for growth. It has an impact on the cost of doing business in this country and on the cost of travel. While it might be nice to say that we would like as many people as possible to go to airports by public transport, the realistic situation is that there are many airports around the country where the practicalities of doing that are very limited, particularly if you live outside an urban area. We have to take these charges into account. It seems to me that more and more airports are making more money out of drop-off charges and car parking than they are out of running the airports. While I do not want to see the model of airports made less competitive, the fact of the matter is that this is a tax on travel and a tax on business. There are many parts of this country where, if you are going to do business, there is little alternative to using aviation. I think that is a very important point and I would like the Minister to address that.

The other issue I want to raise relates to Amendment 40 and air quality on aircraft. Obviously, we all fly, some of us more than others, but thousands of people work in the airline industry and are in aircraft all their working days. There have been cases, because the air supply in most aircraft—although changes and improvements are being made—comes from the turbines, of seals failing from time to time in those turbines and oil being vapourised and fed into the cabin, where it is visible. What worries me is that there will be many times when it is not visible. What is the Minister’s response to that? Who is monitoring this and at what levels? Are the levels reviewed and are any checks being carried out on those who work in the airline industry as to whether their health is affected by long exposure?

I declare that I am president of the CO Research Trust and a member of the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee. The Minister has already referred to our report. I am also one of those people who responds when there is a call for a doctor on a flight, and some of my experiences lead to my support for Amendment 36 —in particular, two aspects of it.

I shall deal with my Amendment 14 first. It aims to address potentially toxic dangers sneaking into the air that we breathe, as has already been mentioned. We must have an unconditional duty to protect human life. The silent threat has mostly been ignored; that is the risk of a plane’s cabin air containing contamination by carbon monoxide and hydrocarbons. Carbon monoxide is colourless and has no smell, yet it is highly and rapidly toxic.

In much of the commercial fleet, pressurised air for the cabin and other parts of the plane must be kept frost-free, and that air comes directly from the engine compressors. It is called bleed air. When engine seals are broken or even have a micro-crack, synthetic oils and hydraulic fluid leak into this air flow. When subject to extreme temperatures, the fluids become neurotoxins, which are then inhaled, and that constitutes a cabin fume event. The neurological and respiratory symptoms are often short-lived and fade, but they can be far-reaching. They include things such as dizziness, headache, muzzy thinking and even shortness of breath and nausea—but, very occasionally, it may lead on to much more serious issues. Carbon monoxide binds to haemoglobin, which it does much more quickly than oxygen, so in effect it suffocates our vital organs.

Even at low levels of exposure, passengers can feel unwell, but for the pilots in charge of the plane, hypoxia is potentially a threat to aviation safety, nationally and internationally. Filters exist, such as the HEPA filters, which can block around 99.97% particles, including viruses, but they are useless against gases, which just flow through them.

In 2007, the Committee on Toxicity examined several reports on cabin air sampling on a selection of normal flights, showing very low levels of contaminants. It concluded that cabin air quality globally conforms with standards. However, it stated that

“uncertainties remain, and a toxic mechanism for symptoms cannot confidently be ruled out”.

A 2017 study by the European Union Aviation Safety Agency pointed out that

“there is no contaminant-free indoor environment. The aircraft cabin is no exception. However, due to the exceptional high air exchange rates in aircraft, the cabin air has been proven to be less polluted compared to normal indoor environments”.

So far, so good. The 2018 guidance on cabin fumes from the International Federation of Air Line Pilots’ Associations states:

“When a fume event occurs, cabin air contamination can cause short-term physical effects which may compromise flight safety. Sufficient scientific concern exists requiring more studies in order to determine any short and long-term effects of fume exposures”.

It is worth noting that the Civil Aviation Authority does not officially recognise aerotoxic syndrome, but Unite the Union and other unions are pursuing legal action over airlines’ duty of care and campaigners have called for an independent inquiry. Fume events are indeed rare, affecting only about one in 10,000 flights. Newer aircraft designs, such as the Boeing 787, utilise bleed-free technology, which draws air directly from outside rather than through the engine turbines. However, these planes represent only around 1,175 planes of the approximate 30,000 commercial aircraft in service. Most aircraft pre-date or did not incorporate that design.

The reality of our skies is interesting. Heathrow registers about 1,300 flights a day and Gatwick over 700—let us round that to around 2,000 flights a day. Mathematically, if one fume event occurs every 10,000 flights, the risk is about one a week over London, ranging from very minor to potentially serious. Currently, we rely on the human sense of smell to detect a fume event, and crew report the typical smell of dirty socks or burnt oil. However, the human nose cannot detect carbon monoxide, which is what caused the tragic crash of the Piper Malibu that killed Emiliano Sala.

In 2025, the CAA mandated that certain small piston engine light aircraft carrying passengers must monitor carbon monoxide. This leads to my amendment. If monitoring is vital for the protection of the users of small light tourism aircraft, on what grounds do we fail to offer the same protection, and de facto guarantee of safety, to hundreds of passengers confined in a commercial airliner? The technology already exists. Airbus is collaborating with the Fraunhofer Society to develop mass spectrometry systems capable of pinpointing the source of these pollutants with extreme precision. Our legislation should mandate every air transport service provider to install, maintain and operate continuous active monitoring systems for carbon monoxide, in particular, and hydrocarbons in the cockpit and passenger cabins.

Notably—I believe this is directly relevant—the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee, of which I am a member, gave the view that

“the power in section 61A(7) of the Civil Aviation Act 1982, read with section 61A(1), is inappropriate because its effect is to give the Government unconstrained power to decide which operational and safety aviation rules will be delegated to the CAA and consequently made without Parliamentary process; and to ensure Parliament is properly able to scrutinise the scope of delegation of rulemaking to the CAA: the power … should be amended to make clear the principles underlying the exceptions to delegated rulemaking; and that power should be subject to affirmative procedure”.

I hope that the Government will amend the Bill accordingly. Otherwise, we will have to bring this back on Report.

Very briefly on Amendment 36, there is a risk of deep vein thrombosis in passengers. It can result in a fatal pulmonary embolism. It may well often be linked not only to the passenger’s own propensity to have a blood clot but to whether they are in an inappropriate seat to meet their medical needs and the seat pitch is inappropriate, particularly on very long-haul flights. I have had to look after people on the floor of an aircraft, sometimes for many hours. It is extremely difficult to hear what is going on through a stethoscope, because the engine noise is so great that you cannot hear properly, and trying to take somebody’s blood pressure on the floor of a crowded aircraft is not easy.

The thing that concerns me even more than that is the provision of lavatories. I have had an incident on a long-haul flight of two young people with really catastrophic and probably infectious gastroenteritis, which meant creating a public health measure to seal off one toilet for only them to use and making up rehydration fluids to keep giving them all the way back to Heathrow. It meant that there were not many toilets for other passengers, but I certainly did not want other passengers to use the toilets that these two were using. One problem is that the lavatories in many planes are so small that if anyone needs assistance with toileting, particularly if they have a bowel problem of any sort, including a stoma, it is extremely difficult to be in that toilet cabinet to assist them. Amendment 36 is particularly important.

My Lords, it is a pleasure to take part in Committee on the Bill. As it is my first intervention in Committee, I declare my technology interests as set out in the register, variously as adviser to the Crown Estate, Endava plc, and Simmons & Simmons LLP, and as non-executive director of Avalanche (BVI) Inc and the Avalanche Foundation. It is also a pleasure to follow my friend the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay. The whole Committee and everybody should thank her for everything that she has done on flights in extraordinarily difficult circumstances. I support everything that she had to say on shortcomings and areas that need to be addressed which, as she clearly pointed out, could be addressed right now.

I also support the amendment from my friend, the noble Baroness, Lady Grey-Thompson; it must be agreed. I see precious little point in wasting any of the draftsperson’s ink on a “may” provision. “May” is “whenever”. We have seen from other legislation pertaining to disabled people that “may” is a hope that never comes to fruition, so “may” must be converted to “must”.

Similarly, I support the comments of my noble friend Lord Young of Cookham—he sounds even better when he is quoting himself from a previous Hansard. It seems extraordinary that the circumstances he sets out have not been addressed. They do not, in any sense, reflect what happens in the rail industry. As a corollary, I ask the Minister: as it works so well in the rail industry, would some systems such as Delay Repay not be a positive addition to the airline sector? Those payments can be rightly collected behind the scenes from the source of the problem, be it NATS or another service provider. Smart contracts could be deployed so that those payments are automatically made when such events occur.

However, there is a situation that we are seeing a creeping illustration of across a number of sectors, including in aviation, as my noble friend Lord Young set out. I will highlight what is happening in the financial services sector around fraud. Banks are on the hook for repayment and reimbursement for certain fraud events, such as push payments, whereas telcos or platforms, where the frauds may originate from, are currently not. I would be interested in the Minister’s comment on the sense that there is an increasing tendency for this, where, in reality, the costs and compensation should fall where the breach occurs. It is a very simple and well-established legal principle. I look forward to the Minister’s response to my noble friend’s excellent intervention.

My Lords, I signed the two amendments from the noble Baroness, Lady Grey-Thompson, in this group. As she said, they are pertinent to the next group, when we get into the detail. I just wanted to say, as the noble Lord, Lord Holmes, said, that going from “may” to “must” is extremely important. We all know that when Ministers have the option of doing “may”, it never, ever gets to the top of the urgent “must” list.

My Lords, I will briefly comment on some of the issues raised. We have to separate out the former regulation 261 on passenger rights for delays and cancellations from the very important report on the former regulation 1107, which the noble Baroness, Lady Grey-Thompson, has spent a great deal of time working on with passengers with reduced mobility. I certainly echo the points that she has raised.

Without going into detail on the late regulations 261 or 1107, one of the biggest problems is not that we need more regulations on passenger rights but that we need to enforce the regulations that are already in place. These are robust. I was involved in their conception in the European Parliament and they have been revised over the years. We need to be very careful that however they are amended in this Committee does not then cause some sort of conflict. We must have treatment of passengers abroad that would echo the treatment they would have in the UK. We cannot impose differences in regulation on third countries, so we have to persuade, through the international bodies, that we need a certain level of treatment for all passengers. As I said, on the old regulation 261, from a competition point of view, we need to ensure that a balance is struck, notwithstanding what the airlines are culpable for in terms of paying, so that the business runs accordingly and passengers are compensated appropriately.

I will comment briefly on my noble friend Lord Young’s comment on the delays caused through NATS and other providers. We looked at this some years ago when I was in the European Parliament. With the exception of force majeure—people recognise force majeure, where something happens and the airline or air traffic services have no control whatever, and they are pretty magnanimous about it—I wholly agree with my noble friend. It was something we tried to push. What we found, unfortunately, was that air traffic services and providers not just in the UK but across the EU were very reluctant to look at the third party where there was a responsibility for compensation to be paid back to the airlines where it had not been their fault. It is worth pursuing. It is a tough way forward; nevertheless, it is worth looking at.

Finally, the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay, is a great expert in these fields, with her medical background. If I recall, the initial problem with passenger air quality arose some years ago with the BAe 146 aircraft. The effects on the pilots went on for years. For reassurance—I declare an interest, having spent four years as the head of European affairs for the Aerospace, Security and Defence Industries Association of Europe—looking all these years on, the safety of and the quality of air in the aircraft that we produce today is really quite different from some of the older aircraft. Fortunately, as former crew on a lot of the older aircraft, I survived 25 years of air quality that was perhaps not great. It needs to be kept in perspective. It should be monitored, of course, but we should reassure the public that, when they fly on these aircraft these days, they are safe and extremely well maintained.

My final point concerns onboard facilities if people fall ill. Believe me, people like me have called for a doctor onboard in the past. It was not much fun when someone was lying on the floor and I, a mere first-aider, was trying to deal with them and keep them alive. It was not ideal. It is very difficult to see how you could rearrange the entire aircraft. Fortunately, a critical situation does not happen very often, but it is up to the airlines to ensure that the crew and everyone onboard are trained sufficiently, that they have the facilities, in terms of medical kits and everything else, and that, if something is extremely serious, the pilot and the captain have the ability to divert to another airfield to ensure that the passenger is looked after as quickly as possible. Those are my points.

My Lords, we support these amendments because they test whether the Bill does more than just create broad enabling powers. If we are giving the Secretary of State and the CAA new regulatory and enforcement functions, Parliament should also be clear about the statutory floor, the scope and the standards against which those powers are to be exercised.

We believe that Amendment 9, tabled by my noble friend Lord Russell, should be agreed to because it would insert a specific passenger safeguarding obligation to prohibit carriers separating children from accompanying adults. In doing so, it would remove a gap in the consumer protection framework and prevent airlines monetising what is, in practical terms, a safeguarding issue. It would also give statutory weight to the principle that family seating should not be treated as an optional extra, which is consistent with the Bill’s wider consumer protection purpose. Although we are aware of the CMA’s present investigation into Ryanair, we think that this an excellent opportunity to embed something in this legislation. We think that that is the right approach.

My Amendment 13 is technically important because it would refine Clause 1 by requiring air passenger rights regulations to standardise hand baggage dimensions by reference to recognised industry standards. This matters because the present position is too often defined by variable carrier policies rather than a clear statutory baseline, which makes the operation of Clause 1(2)(d), on price transparency, much harder in practice. A uniform volumetric standard would enable genuine, like-for-like comparisons at the point of sale. We all know people who have to hold three different sizes of hand luggage if they are using three different airlines. It just does not make any sense.

This amendment would still preserve commercial freedom because it would standardise the box but not the fee. It would also give the CAA an objective benchmark for compliance and enforcement, which is preferable—we can all agree on this, I think—to relying on what is, after all, very patchy guidance or post hoc disputes at the gate. We have all seen those, I am sure.

My Amendment 20 would provide a non-regression safeguard as domestic aviation consumer law replaces assimilated EU-derived protections. The amendment would require the Secretary of State to ensure that new regulations are at least equal to, and ideally better than, the protections that are already in place. I mentioned this in our debate on the previous group. It would provide an important constraint on delegated power because it would prevent the framework being used to dilute rights over time. It would also convert what is currently a permissive approach into a continuing duty of review, which is a sensible way to ensure that consumer rights do not fall behind evolving standards.

Amendment 36 would give the Bill a more coherent accountability structure through providing a passenger charter—I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay, not only for her support but for bringing to life the realities of being on a plane in some difficult circumstances. At the moment, the risk with the Bill as it stands is that powers exist in principle but passengers have no clarity or codified statement of what service standards they can expect or how failures will be remedied. Embedding a charter with objective performance measures and a defined redress framework would make the regulatory architecture more intelligible and more enforceable. That said, I recognise that the Minister has set out the challenge to us about being more specific about this passenger charter and we will continue to attempt to do that, including in the run-up to Report. I thank him for the ongoing discussions about that.

Amendment 2, tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Grey-Thompson, and my noble friend Lady Brinton, is also an important technical correction, because it would turn accessibility from a general policy objective into a legal duty. Disabled passengers should not be left dependent on guidance, voluntary compliance or uneven airline practice. A statutory obligation, accompanied by annual reporting, would create clearer lines of accountability for both operators and the regulator. That is especially significant where the Bill is otherwise expanding the CAA’s enforcement role. I thank the Minister again for his willingness to engage and discuss this issue with us behind the scenes. I feel that there is a door that is reasonably open to achieving some kind of understanding, particularly in this area and particularly in the light of the absolutely hair-raising stories that we all heard in the Second Reading debate.

I added Amendment 59B a bit late. It is—with apologies to the noble Lord, Lord Moylan—about echoing and shadowing EU 261. This is a probing and exploratory amendment, which goes to the coherence of the UK passenger rights regime at the moment, when the European framework is evolving and the Government are asking Parliament to confer broad powers on the Secretary of State. If the Bill is to modernise aviation consumer protection, it should not allow UK 261 to drift away from EU 261 without some kind of explicit policy choice or decision and clear scrutiny here in Parliament with a proper explanation.

The practical concern is straightforward. We know that EU 261 is making progress on embedding greater rights—for instance, about travelling with your child or about compensation after three hours’ delay. It would be useful to make sure that we mirror that, unless we can do better. That is in my other amendment, which is saying, “Let’s not do a race to the bottom; let’s do a race to the top of the highest possible standards”. That is why Amendment 59B should be seen as a non-regression and alignment safeguard, not a mere technical tidying-up provision. That said, I very much look forward to hearing what the Minister says in response.

My Lords, I will introduce my amendments in this group and will then make a few comments about remarks made by other noble Lords in the course of debate—not, I assure your Lordships, responding to every noble Lord who spoke, although it was a very valuable and interesting debate. I will speak first to Amendments 4, 5 and 30. I also have Amendments 38 and 39 in this group, but Amendments 4, 5 and 30 stand as a set that work together, so I will speak to them first.

Amendment 4 would require a review of hidden or undisclosed charges imposed on passengers by airlines or airport operators. I am singing from a similar hymn book to that used by the noble Baroness, Lady Grender, the noble Earl, Lord Russell, and others in trying to get to the heart of understanding how, cumulatively, passengers are being charged for various things. I have cast my amendment in the form of asking the Government to have a review. We all have anecdotal experience of this sort of thing. I booked some air tickets the other day. Of course, a very attractive price is offered, but by the time I have chosen the option that includes the suitcase and I have booked my seats, it is a bit more expensive than it started out.

My Lords, I wanted to let all the Members who had amendments speak first, notwithstanding the Front Benches. I just wanted to touch on one amendment where I think I can add some level of knowledge. I agree completely with my noble friend Lord Moylan about the way in which my noble friend Lord Young of Cookham set out his case with some charm and tenaciousness. However, I am afraid to say that I do not agree with the ineluctable logic. Let me just share with the Committee why.

I was in post when NATS had its failure and I will always remember getting that phone call telling me that something terrible had happened, with potentially millions of people whose holidays were going to get messed up. You pay a great deal of attention in that situation. I spent quite a lot of my time over that short period engaging with the aviation sector and ensuring that NATS, the airlines, the airports and everybody else worked incredibly closely together at pace to make sure that passengers had the least terrible experience possible in the circumstances.

Once the initial events had taken place and we had got everybody back to where they should have been, we considered—or I considered, as the then Secretary of State—exactly the point that my noble friend set out, about whether we ought to change the legislative regime around compensation. Superficially, there is a case for doing so, but let me deal with the reason why we decided not to.

The first point is that, if you look at the ownership structure of NATS, which I do not think that my noble friend touched on, almost half the business—49%—is owned by the Government or, in other words, the taxpayer. Some 42% is owned by a group of major airlines, 5% is owned by the staff through a trust and 4% by the company that owns Heathrow Airport. The conclusion that I came to was that, if you were to change the position so that NATS was responsible for paying compensation, almost half the bill would land on the taxpayer, just over 40% of it would effectively end up on a different group of airlines—not necessarily all the ones hit by it—and a little bit would effectively land on the staff. The conclusion that I reached was that that did not really get you to a significantly better place than the current position, accepting that the current position is suboptimal.

What made me think was that my noble friend set out the position with Network Rail, which is and has for a long time been completely owned by the taxpayer. There is a question about whether there is a purpose in doing that. The conclusion that we reached, and the present Government’s conclusion, is that we are not sure that the regime whereby Network Rail has to pay money to train operating companies is an effective lever in driving up standards. The conclusion that we reached, which the current Government are following through on and which we will be debating in due course through the Railways Bill, is that the way you get more effective working between the train operating companies and Network Rail is by bringing them together in what will be GBR. I am not sure, therefore, that getting the taxpayer to pay a chunk of money to airlines is the right way in which to deliver what we actually want, which is to stop these sorts of outages and disruptions happening in the first place.

NATS is a regulated business, so it has quite considerable constraints on how it acts, and the Government have a considerable say in how it operates because of that 49% stake and the Government’s role in nominating a number of members of the NATS board. Certainly, when the outage happened, I had a considerable say in putting pressure on the management of the company and appointing the person who conducted the review, effectively ensuring that the company took steps to make sure that that particular circumstance could not happen again.

I understand the case that my noble friend has made. I considered it at the time, but we did not think that moving from the status quo to that position was particularly compelling. I do not think that I have changed my mind on that, but of course I will happily take a question on it.

I thank my noble friend, who may have saved the Minister a bit of trouble. I will make just two points. First, as my noble friend said, the airlines are one of the major shareholders. The airlines support this amendment. I have a letter from IATA and I have seen correspondence from British Airways; they believe that this change should be made. The second point my noble friend made, which I have real difficulty with, is that the taxpayer picks up the tab when an organisation owned by the taxpayer makes a mistake. Look at the National Health Service, for example. What is happening here is that, where the taxpayer is on the hook, the Government have decided to penalise an innocent party, namely the shareholders of the airlines. As a Conservative, I cannot see how my noble friend began to defend that when he was Secretary of State. Had the incident happened 20 years earlier, when I was Secretary of State, I would have come to a different decision.

My Lords, before my noble friend responds, far be it from me to get between two former Secretaries of State for Transport before a Transport Minister comes to respond to either of them, but I want to check something with my noble friend Lord Harper. Is he suggesting, as a point of principle, that for any wholly or partly owned entity where the state has even a minor share, there should never be a question of compensation or liability for redress to be made by dint of whole, partial or even minority public share ownership of that entity?

No, I do not. The question I had to answer was that if you have a status quo and if you are going to make a change, you have to ask yourself, does the change drive an improvement in behaviour or outcomes? I simply was not persuaded that it would.

Picking up my noble friend’s point about perhaps having saved the Minister a bit of bother, I thought, when I was listening to him make his case, that there is, of course, the opportunity, when one is now both in opposition and on the Back Benches, to let the Minister do all the work. But since the event happened on my watch, as it were, and we put quite a lot of thought into whether we should make the change that my noble friend set out, and since the answers that he received from our noble friend Lady Vere of Norbiton when she was Aviation Minister were effectively on my behalf, I thought it would be a bit slopy-shouldered of me to sit here quietly, not say anything and not give the Committee the benefit of the thought process at least. Being slopy-shouldered has never really been my style, so I thought it was at least worth giving the Committee the benefit of the effort that went in on behalf of aviation consumers who were disadvantaged by this, the work that went on by the industry and the work that the Government did to try to put things right.

My final point is just to say that the industry—NATS, the airlines and the airports—demonstrated a remarkable ability to work together to serve the interests of consumers. The industry has a lot to be proud of in the way that it comes together when there are these difficult circumstances to serve the people who pay their wages.

Respectfully, before my noble friend responds for the Government, I point out to the Committee that it is a convention—I will put it no more strongly than that—that we let Back-Benchers come in before Front-Benchers. It rather dulls the flow of the argument if we go back from Front-Benchers to Back-Benchers. I urge all colleagues who want to make a contribution to do so before we get to Front-Benchers, because that generally aids the flow of debate.

My Lords, these amendments raise important questions about how we strengthen air passenger rights. As I said at Second Reading, the strong intention of the Bill is to increase protections. The Government’s approach is to build on a strong existing framework while preserving the flexibility to act where it is most needed and avoiding unintended or overly prescriptive requirements. Taking each amendment in turn, I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Grey-Thompson, for her excellent work on the Aviation Accessibility Task and Finish Group report and for her amendments seeking to ensure that regulations are made in relation to the areas listed in Clause 1. I am very pleased to see the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, in her place supporting that.

I confirm that the Government intend to make a serious change in the experience of disabled people when flying. The intention of this clause is to provide a non-exhaustive list of areas that can be addressed through regulations. While regulations exist in many of these areas, requiring regulations in all these areas may have unintended consequences. The list of areas currently included could be considered an exhaustive list and therefore prevent amendments on other areas of air passenger rights. Equally, it could require amendments where they may not be required.

This amendment would also require that any regulation made under this clause to address all the areas listed, which would not be necessary for every regulation made under the clause. I reassure the noble Baroness that many of the areas listed are already covered by existing regulations. The Bill allows us to strengthen and update those protections over time, while retaining the flexibility to act where it is most needed. I will discuss with her and others what the next steps will be, to give confidence that action will be taken in secondary legislation, because that is firmly the Government’s intent. That is a commitment to the noble Baroness and others, including the noble Baroness, Lady Grender, and the noble Earl, Lord Russell. I hope that the noble Baroness, Lady Grey-Thompson, feels able to withdraw her amendment.

I thank the noble Lord, Lord Moylan, for his amendment on price transparency. I reassure him that there is already legislation in place to ensure this. All mandatory fees, taxes, charges and surcharges must be included and broken down in the final price paid by the passenger. In addition, any non-mandatory costs, such as baggage or seat selection fees, should be clearly displayed during booking and should be on an opt-in basis, meaning that passengers select which options they want for their trip. The Civil Aviation Authority is already responsible for ensuring that airlines meet those requirements. In response to the noble Lord’s question, I note that the CAA publishes comparison tables for passengers on the charges and fees of different airlines and airports. Clause 2 will strengthen the CAA’s enforcement toolkit, enabling it to deal more efficiently with non-compliance.

I note the point from the noble Earl, Lord Russell, on the current issues with Ryanair charging parents to sit with their children. He will appreciate that I cannot comment since it is currently under investigation by the Competition and Markets Authority. For the reasons I have set out, I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Moylan, will not press his amendment.

I turn to the amendments from the noble Lord, Lord Moylan, on travel intermediaries. Consumers should be able to rely on fair and transparent information and functionality wherever they book air travel. I reassure the noble Lord that existing regulations already set out a code of conduct on computerised reservation systems. This seeks to ensure transparent, fair and non-discriminatory approaches for airlines and intermediaries. Should future reforms be necessary on this issue, they would be possible under Clause 1.

The noble Lord’s proposal for the CAA to produce a code on access to airline fares and booking systems for travel intermediaries concerns commercial arrangements between airlines and intermediaries, rather than air passenger rights. These are business-to-business matters for industry, with competition concerns best addressed through the existing body of competition law. It is also not clear that there is sufficient evidence of consumer harm to justify this level of government intervention. Although intermediaries play a role in providing choice to customers, it is not established that this is currently being undermined by a lack of transparency from airlines. Established transparency requirements are already in place, as I have mentioned. If evidence showed that further intervention was needed, Clause 1 powers could be used to consider that properly. For those reasons, I ask the noble Lord not to press his amendment.

I thank the noble Earl, Lord Russell, for his amendment seeking to expand Clause 1 to require upfront information at the time of ticket sales, as well as minimum standards and automated payments for compensation. In addition to requirements for transparency around pricing, there are also clear rules about the rights of passengers during disruption, including when compensation is payable. Clause 1, as drafted, can be used to strengthen these rights further, and we can discuss the Government’s intentions around this.

The noble Lord, Lord Holmes, asked about Delay Repay, which the previous Government considered under a past consultation. It was clear that there were both benefits and risks inherent in this approach, and several respondents noted that aviation is not comparable to rail due to the operational complexities in aviation. However, this could be considered through Clause 1 powers if necessary.

Work is already happening—I will not use the word “ongoing”—to increase transparency around the environmental impact of journeys. The CAA published a framework on implementing consumer environmental information for UK flights earlier this year. Airlines and other relevant organisations are expected to take adequate steps towards implementing this by April 2027. As a result, I hope that the noble Earl feels able not to press his amendment.

I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Grender, for her amendment, which would make regulations on consistent hand baggage sizing. Although I appreciate that this would give consumers consistency, it could have unforeseen consequences for passengers. I cannot, therefore, support this amendment. Aircraft have different overhead and under-seat storage capacities. Setting a standard size would necessitate using the smallest aircraft capacity, resulting in many passengers needing to use a smaller case or bag. Many passengers appreciate the flexibility of choosing add-ons, such as baggage, in order to be able to make decisions about how they travel in a way that works for them. This amendment could force more passengers to use checked baggage, which often comes with an additional fee and time inconvenience due to the need to drop off and collect bags. Moreover, there could be unintended consequences for passengers. I hope that this enables the noble Baroness not to press her amendment.

I now move on to the amendments relating to cabin air quality in the names of the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay of Llandaff, and the noble Lord, Lord Empey. All of us will of course be grateful to the noble Baroness and others for responding to medical incidents aboard aircraft; I am especially grateful to the noble Baroness for her knowledge of this subject, which is far more detailed than my own.

The safety of passengers and crew is vital. The department recognises and takes seriously the concerns raised around cabin air quality. The Government have commissioned independent studies and evidence reviews relating to cabin air. The most recent evidence review by the Committee on Toxicity concluded that

“the concentrations of the chemical contaminants … reported in aircraft cabin air are unlikely to cause adverse health effects in aircrew following acute or long-term exposures”.

Commercial aircraft are already required to meet and maintain a number of design requirements for certification, which include ventilation and cabin air flow. The Government are committed to keeping this area—in particular, the technological innovations described by the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay—under review. Operators are also required to report and investigate any incidents involving toxic cabin air. The CAA’s expert medical team regularly reviews every suspected cabin air incident and takes action if it identifies a concerning trend. I hope that this provides reassurance that there is a continuous mechanism to identify and investigate any cabin air issues; and that noble Lords will therefore feel able not to press their amendments.

I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Grey-Thompson, for her amendment relating to the enforcement of regulations. The Government will ensure that any regulations made under Clause 1 can be properly enforced. This will be enhanced by the CAA’s direct enforcement powers, which are being introduced via Clause 2. The purpose of Clause 1(3) is to outline the types of enforcement provision that can be made in regulations under Clause 1. Amending the wording from “may” to “must” would mean that any regulations made under this clause would have to contain all the enforcement provisions listed. This would not be necessary for all regulations made under this clause. Consideration of any enforcement provisions will be given during the policy development and secondary legislation process. This will be subject to appropriate and full assessment of the available evidence. For these reasons, I hope that the noble Baroness will not press her amendment.

On alignment with the EU, I agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Grender, that we must maintain a high level of consumer protections in aviation. Since leaving the European Union, the UK has had the flexibility to set its own approach. The power in Clause 1 enables the UK to keep pace with the EU and, where we choose to do so, to go further. As I have said, the intention of Clause 1 is to strengthen and enhance air passenger rights through secondary legislation. This is in line with the shared UK-EU objective, under the trade and co-operation agreement, to achieve a high level of consumer protections; it also gives us flexibility to improve on these standards over time. However, requiring all future reforms to be “equal or superior” to the current standards is subjective and could have unintended consequences.

Similarly, on the noble Baroness’s further amendment on automatic alignment with Regulation 261/2004, requiring the UK to mirror both the current EU framework and any future changes to that regulation, including those currently in course in the EU, would place a statutory obligation to follow EU reforms without discretion. Although we continue to monitor developments closely, it is important that the UK retains the flexibility to design a complex compensation regime based on the evidence, consultation and what works best for UK passengers and the aviation sector. Therefore, although I agree with the intent that the Bill is used to strengthen rather than reduce protections—and I believe that Clause 1 would allow for this—I would welcome further discussion on this. Meanwhile, I ask the noble Baroness not to press her amendment.

My Lords, there is the case of airports such as Heathrow—admittedly few in number—that are economically regulated on the basis of a regulated asset base. Assuming that it was approved by the CAA acting as economic regulator, a Heathrow investment in infrastructure would be added to the regulated asset base, and it would earn its return that way. It does not defray those returns on the grounds that it has income from shops, drop-off charges and so on; they are pure bonus to the shareholders.

I note the noble Lord’s point on Heathrow and other airports that have a regulated asset base. Airports must retain the ability to manage their own infrastructure. The Government’s role is to ensure that competition and consumer laws are protected and upheld. Ultimately, each airport operator must justify the charges they levy and show that they are fair, transparent and carried out with proper accountability. For those reasons, I hope noble Lords will feel able not to press their amendments.

I thank the noble Lord, Lord Young of Cookham, for his amendment relating to reimbursement for airlines if delays are caused by air traffic management, and I note the support from the noble Baroness, Lady Foster of Oxton, and others. Long delays and cancellations that are caused by air traffic management decisions are considered extraordinary circumstances under the current law, and therefore compensation is not due to passengers in those cases. None the less, the airlines are responsible for providing refunds, or care to passengers, such as meals and refreshments, when there are such delays and cancellations, provided certain qualifying conditions are met.

I note that National Air Traffic Services is subject to a robust regulatory regime overseen by the Civil Aviation Authority, and it includes performance targets linked to delays and a financial penalty mechanism when these targets are not met, meaning that NATS must reduce what it charges airlines in the following period. This is at least currently the effective penalty on NATS for poor performance.

I recognise that the noble Lord has diligently pursued this issue across the previous Government and this one. With relative joy, I have discovered how many previous Secretaries of State there are not only on the opposition Benches but in this Room. I am very grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Harper, for his explanation of what happened in the case that the noble Lord, Lord Young of Cookham, referred to. He supposes that I have some sympathy with the proposition that, somehow, the charges levied on Network Rail did not act as the incentive that they were supposed to. He is right, which is why the Railways Bill does not go in that direction. I am grateful to him—seriously—for explaining what decision he came to in that particular case, because he is right that the shareholding of NATS is very far from a conventional commercial company with a range of shareholders.

I hope I have never been grudging. I may—as the noble Lord, Lord Moylan, probably thinks frequently—be unpersuasive, but I think I owe the noble Lord, Lord Young, at least the courtesy of a meeting on this subject to understand better what he has said and to see whether the current Government’s position ought to be the same as what the noble Lord, Lord Harper, described in his Government’s case, or whether there is a persuasive case for change.

I thank the Minister for his response on Amendment 41 regarding drop-off charges. I understand the argument that an airport operator can manage its own property, but we have to distinguish between parking and dropping off. The dropping-off charge is almost a penalty for not parking. We also have to take into account the fact that these airports, by and large, are monopolies because of where they are: people perhaps do not have an option of going to another airport.

It is becoming a growing revenue stream and it can affect regional connectivity but also the economic model. It can put another charge on business, if that is what it is, or on tourism. I will look at Hansard and see exactly what the Minister said, but it is not a simple matter and I do not think it is an issue that will go away, because it is growing and growing. It started off at £1 and, as I said, in Edinburgh it is now £8.50. But what is the alternative for somebody going to drop someone off at Edinburgh Airport? Do they go to Glasgow Airport? It is a monopoly.

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.

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.

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.

My Lords, I apologise for not apologising, when I intervened on the last group, for missing Second Reading. I am very grateful for the Minister’s comments on my return after some ill health.

There are 36 amendments in this group. The vast majority relate to disability and accessibility, but there are some other key ones as well. It would be important not to lose sight of those, and I know that other speakers will cover them. I have supported Amendments 3, 6, 10, 15 and 19 from the noble Baroness, Lady Grey-Thompson, by signing them. They tackle the issues that the UK Government and the Civil Aviation Authority can make happen. I also commend her and her aviation accessibility group on their report last year and eminently sensible recommendations.

The noble Baroness, Lady Grey-Thompson, and I have both been in your Lordships’ House for over 15 years and we have repeatedly raised the issues faced by wheelchair passengers specifically, but passengers with other disabilities as well. I started using a chair when I arrived in your Lordships’ House, and I went to see the noble Baroness, Lady Campbell of Surbiton, and asked whether she could give me some advice on what to do, because I had some international conferences to go to. Unlike her and the noble Baroness, Lady Grey-Thompson, I did not have experience of this. She said, “Expect either damage or nonsense on every flight. Plan for it. Learn about what duties the airlines have, and have your evidence with you”. She was right. The expectation of the vast majority of people who are disabled is that air travel going to be difficult—and it usually is, even for those of us that now do it a lot. On every flight, I now have to carry photographs of my battery. I print out the International Air Transport Association—IATA—regulations relating to my wheelchair and battery, as well as the IATA regulations for cargo, which many airlines muddle at the airport, quoting the wrong ones back at you. I will say more on IATA later.

My Amendment 21 proposes regulations to provide an appropriate enhanced level of compensation for a disabled passenger when they have been left stranded without assistance or refused boarding because of an accessibility issue and how that claim can be made. I also read Samanta Bullock’s piece on LinkedIn and, although it is shocking, it is particularly shocking in that most people do not understand that the captain of the plane is the person who makes these decisions—including on batteries, by the way. The captain is able to decide, with no evidence whatever and no form of appeal, whether the passenger can continue. That is outrageous.

I remember flying to Stockholm for a conference about four years ago. I had a lithium chair that I was going to use for travel then, although I cannot use it now—taking lithium on aeroplanes is such a flipping nightmare. I used the same carrier coming back, and the pilot said that he was not prepared to accept lithium batteries on his plane—full stop. I got away with it only because I could show him my boarding card from the previous flight three days before and could say, “Your company has flown me here. Please fly me back”.

The consequences for disabled passengers—in Samanta’s case, she was bumped off a flight—are always much greater. It is not just being refused the flight; in a wheelchair, at short notice, you might need to find an accessible hotel room or accessible taxis, which the noble Baroness, Lady Grey-Thompson, referred to. All of those not only cost much more than the standard but are as rare as hens’ teeth.

My Amendment 29 proposes that the Government and the Civil Aviation Authority have a duty to ensure accessible air travel services and airport infrastructure systems, and ensure that disabled passengers and people with reduced mobility get support. It is not dissimilar to that of the noble Baroness, Lady Grey-Thompson; it is just slightly more detailed. Following the famous disability mantra of the noble Baroness, Lady Campbell of Surbiton—which she was speaking about decades before she joined your Lordships’ House—there should be nothing about us without us. So my amendment states that both the Secretary of State and the CAA must consult with disabled people and organisations, enforce minimum accessibility standards and—to complete the communications loop—publish annual reports.

My Amendment 37 proposes wheelchair passports for air travel. Over the past few years, the Department for Transport has discussed creating wheelchair passports, which would smooth the journey, with one brief check at check-in to ensure that both the wheelchair and, if relevant, the battery and the passport match. Once you have that passport, the details can be in the airport system and airline system for ever. However, the amendment also makes clear that the Secretary of State has to work with IATA—and, I hope, other nations supporting IATA—to make this happen, because it will never happen if only the UK does it.

I support Amendment 7 of the noble Baroness, Lady Kennedy of Cradley; the amendment on air quality of the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay; and many of the amendments of the noble Lord, Lord Holmes. I think we are all trying to do the same job—I will come to that. There is overlap between my amendments and those of the noble Baroness, Lady Grey-Thompson. The Government have to work to get to the heart of much of the problem. However, my amendments go further. Neither the UK Government nor the CAA have the power to change these problems across the world because the regulatory body for aviation travel is IATA. It uses the Montreal Convention of 1999, and yet it is also a trade body. Therefore, it is very difficult to make any change or progress when its stakeholders are the airlines that are not providing the service to disabled people.

However, since I laid my amendments, I was asked if I meant to put down the International Civil Aviation Organization rather than IATA. I did not, but it was a very helpful suggestion, because the International Civil Aviation Organization’s description of itself says that it is

“a United Nations agency which helps 193 countries to cooperate together and share their skies to their mutual benefit. Since it was established in 1944, ICAO’s support and coordination has helped countries to diplomatically and technically realize a uniquely rapid and dependable network of global air mobility”.

Therein lies the problem. There are no teeth anywhere. It cannot create regulations. It cannot instruct or penalise aviation companies. It can only diplomatically support its 193 member countries in co-operating with each other. Further, those 193 countries cannot regulate matters that happen in the air or in another country. The noble Baroness, Lady Grey-Thompson, referred to the problem: if they do so, it is valid in the UK only. I must say, I have hit a problem. On one flight I took, I was told, “Well, it didn’t happen with us. It was taken out of the aircraft and went elsewhere. It’s nothing to do with us”. In consumer terms, that makes it very difficult ever to get any satisfaction. We need these countries to start to come together, perhaps through the ICAO, to influence IATA to be much more active on its own regulations.

My Lords, I will speak to Amendment 7 in my name. I declare my interest as chief operating officer of Natasha’s Foundation, the UK’s food allergy charity, which was previously known as the Natasha Allergy Research Foundation.

At Second Reading, my noble friend Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill emphasised that the purpose of the Bill is to strengthen consumer protections and improve the passenger experience. He recognised the importance of accessibility and ensuring that aviation works effectively for all passengers. We have heard passionate speeches from the noble Baronesses, Lady Brinton and Lady Grey-Thompson. My amendment would not only address their issues around reduced mobility but would include non-visible disabilities and medical conditions, such as allergies, so that all passengers—including those with visible disabilities, non-visible disabilities and medical conditions, especially food allergies—can travel safely and with confidence.

I will focus on food allergy today. It is a serious medical condition, where a trace amount of an allergen can trigger a rapid and potentially fatal reaction. If someone is in the air and ingests the food to which they are allergic, they can be unconscious within 30 minutes. Whether they are on a short-haul or long-haul flight, they therefore experience serious difficulties. More than 3 million people in the UK—and around 220 million people globally—are living with a food allergy. This is not a medical condition the aviation industry can afford to continue to overlook.

UK tribunals have recognised that a food allergy can constitute a disability under the Equality Act 2010, where it has a substantial and long-term impact on daily life. Moreover, legal advice commissioned by Natasha’s Foundation concluded that Natasha’s law applies to pre-packaged meals served by UK airlines, and that airlines have a legal responsibility to provide allergen information under UK food safety law. However, in practice, that does not happen: Natasha’s law is hardly ever applied to pre-packaged airline food. Can my noble friend the Minister clarify the Government’s position on Natasha’s law and pre-packaged airline food? Does it apply, and if so—to illustrate the point raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton—who is responsible for ensuring that airlines comply with Natasha’s law and current UK food safety laws? That question covers both UK-based airlines and those that operate within our UK airspace.

As is it clear to many food-allergic passengers, despite the seriousness of their condition and the laws designed to protect them, allergen management is too often treated as an afterthought by the aviation industry. Passenger support is frequently inconsistent. Passengers encounter a reluctance to make reasonable adjustments or to provide any support to help them travel safely and with confidence. Passengers frequently report difficulties sourcing an airline’s policy on allergy. There is hardly ever a list of the support available to them, and it is not clear whether a plane carries spare adrenaline auto-injectors. Food-allergic passengers need to know that information, especially when research suggests that around one in 10 food-allergic passengers reports experiencing an allergic reaction when flying.

Passengers regularly ask the cabin crew for food ingredient lists on a plane. IATA states that the lists should be available to passengers, but they hardly ever are. Even when passengers do everything asked of them and pre-order a special meal, many find that it has not been loaded on to the aircraft, it has been mistakenly given to another passenger or, worse, it contains the food stuff to which they are allergic because there are weak controls over meal supply chains. Unless a provision such as Amendment 7 is added to the Bill, the lack of priority and attention given to allergen management on flights will continue.

The support for food-allergic passengers that we are asking for is not hard to provide, and it is not hard for the aviation industry to make a big difference. My amendment does not impose disproportionate burdens on the industry. It is largely about ensuring better training, information and communication, as well as compliance with the laws that already exist. In brief, Natasha’s Foundation has identified four areas where improvement is needed: leadership, training, policies and food. Airlines need to be asked to publish clear policies, setting out the support passengers can expect. They should be easily available on their websites, communicated before booking and throughout travel, and applied throughout the passenger journey. Simple adjustments, such as announcements on flights or time to pre-board to wipe down food trays, are easy to accommodate in the airline industry, but they are frequently inconsistent. A food-allergic passenger may request them, but that does not mean that the request carries through to the cabin crew on that plane, as they often do not receive the communication that someone is a food-allergic passenger.

All airline staff, as the noble Baronesses, Lady Brinton and Lady Grey-Thompson, said, should receive training. We would obviously say that that needs to be food allergy and anaphylaxis training, how to recognise an allergic reaction and how to use an adrenaline auto-injector. Spare AAIs should be carried on all flights and be available in many different sites across airports. Accurate allergen information must be available for all the food served on board. Natasha’s law should be applied and enforced, and cabin crews should have access to information about the food they serve.

All these recommendations are very much in line with the conclusions of the Aviation Accessibility Task and Finish Group, chaired by my noble friend Lady Grey-Thompson. Natasha’s Foundation thank her for her support, as we were very grateful to have the opportunity to provide evidence, and we were pleased that allergy was recognised in the group’s final report. The group’s recommendations on staff training, passenger information, communication and support for people with disabilities and non-visible disabilities, including allergies, is exactly as the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, said—we are all trying to do the same thing, because all these conditions need the same thing: information and training.

I therefore hope that the Government will look favourably on the amendment. I also ask my noble friend the Minister to take time to read, before Report, the report from Natasha’s Foundation, Flying with a Food Allergy, and agree to meet the foundation and others to discuss this amendment and the practical solutions that it contains to improve safety, build trust and enhance passenger experience, which is what the Bill should be about.

I thank noble Lords who have taken part in this debate so far, not least my friends the noble Baronesses, Lady Grey-Thompson and Lady Brinton, who have done so much for disabled people for such a long period of time, despite suffering indignity and discrimination on their own account, often when using various transport modes. It is impressive, and continues to be messaging that Ministers in any and every department should take more than a passing note of.

To take one tiny step back—here I am in danger of giving a bit of a Second Reading speech, but I promise noble Lords that it is purely Committee-stage chat—I want to talk about what is possible. So much of what has been discussed with regard to disabled people goes into the “too difficult” file, or somehow health and safety trumps the rights of disabled people.

At London 2012 we faced the world’s finest elite disabled athletes coming to London—and, whatever we did at the park, the venues, the stadium or the aquatic centre, imagine if we had not looked at the aviation experience, not least at the port of arrival for air, London’s Heathrow Airport. Noble Lords can imagine that whatever we did in terms of athlete experience in the venue and the village would have been as nothing; if we had not intervened, we would have had the world’s finest Paralympians coming to London, and their first experience of London 2012 would have been being pushed through the airport in an airport wheelchair, because it was said at the time that it was too difficult and operationally impossible to repatriate a person’s wheelchair to the door of the aircraft. We were fortunate that we had the power, the brand and the most immovable of deadlines of London 2012 to make that difference.

But the reality is that, no matter how good we planned that golden summer of sport to be, it is as nothing to ensuring, enabling and empowering all disabled people to assert their rights to travel with independence, dignity and respect, or, to put it another way, to have an airline experience equivalent to what a non-disabled person—lucky for them—can just experience and take for granted. I say “experience” because that, I believe, is the most helpful lens to get us to the right position on this. We should think about this experientially before we even make one operational decision in the Bill.

My Lords, I am absolutely delighted to follow the noble Lord, Lord Holmes, who has really put his finger on summarising all these amendments incredibly well. As you go through, you can look at each one as an individual case. Amendment 12 is about vulnerable people and where they are seated. Amendments 3, 6 and 15 are about being separated from medical equipment. Amendment 37 is about having a wheelchair passport. Amendment 45 is about unaccompanied minors and Amendment 48 is about offboarding times being reasonable. I will go back for a second to toilets on that one. It is appalling to leave people unable to get to the toilet after a flight and leave them on the plane for a long time. If they have an accident, what happens? All their clothes are somewhere else and they are left sitting on a wet wheelchair. It is absolutely appalling. I note that, on Amendment 58 and assistance dogs, it is important to remember that they also need to do a wee; it is not just the passengers.

I ask the Minister whether he sees it as possible with this Bill to set a standard that must be complied with if an airline has landing rights at a UK airport? If there is a standard that must be met, it could become very attractive to be using UK airports. It would seem to make commercial sense, and it could then apply everywhere. We have focused on Heathrow, but I live in Cardiff. It is a tiny airport, and we have a small number of flights, but everybody should still be treated with respect. One of those standards would simply be for people to deplane first, rather than last. That would make a big difference to people with a disability. The other passengers could jolly well wait five or ten minutes, having travelled for hours. I worry about the selfishness that sometimes we see displayed.

Also, when it comes to wheelchairs and wheelchair damage, we would not accept a passenger having their leg broken by travelling on a plane. As my noble friend Lady Grey-Thompson said, for her and other wheelchair users, their wheels are their legs. Similarly, for people using CPAP, their lungs cannot function without it. We are saying that it is okay to let somebody half-suffocate if they need CPAP, but you would not let somebody else half-suffocate. We have really mixed messages. Could the Minister possibly create a UK-wide standard that everyone with landing rights at UK airports would be required to meet, and, if they are repeatedly in breach of it, they might lose their landing rights? I am interested to know.

My Lords, I apologise to the Committee—I was in Yerevan in Armenia monitoring the election for the Council of Europe at Second Reading. This is the only intervention I shall make in Committee. I have done an observation role for the Council of Europe for the last 10 years, and among the airports and countries I have visited are Basel, Malta, Crete, Rome, Athens, Riga, Tbilisi, Frankfurt, Budapest, Monaco, Venice, Ankara, Amsterdam, Istanbul, Gdańsk last year, where I met Lech Wałęsa—he is still going strong—New York, Oslo, Helsinki, Charles de Gaulle, Seville, Sofia, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Montenegro, Saint Petersburg—I am banned from Russia now—Monaco, Bulgaria, Vilnius, Minsk and Kiev, before the war. I do not have the authority of noble Lords who have moved their amendments but, by God, I have the experience of 100 check-ins and 50 hours of non-stop hassle.

I support the content of nearly all the amendments in this large grouping, but particularly Amendments 1, 6, 21 and 48. The Minister will say that we do not need any of them, since he has a general power in the Bill to make regulations in Clause 1(2)(e). That is okay as far as it goes, but we need to spell out the areas and aspects of disability on which we need regulations made. We should not leave it to officials in the department at some time in the future to come up with some regulations which may not be a priority for disabled passengers.

Let us take the problems wheelchair users suffer in chronological order. At least 48 hours before we travel, we fill in the airline forms about the chair—its weight, dimensions and battery type. Airline forms are all different and some misdescribe the type of battery, and ask if there is an open cell one, which was abolished about 20 years ago. We tell them whether we can walk a little bit and whether we need a chair down the aisle or can manage a few steps. British Airways are quite good with its forms. That is all good stuff, but I can tell this Committee with absolute honesty that at every single check-in I have done, not one word of what we fed into that computer is on the check-in computer. All the information they have is that the passenger will have a wheelchair, and the only training they seem to have is to ask about lithium batteries. Airlines are right to be paranoid about lithium batteries, which must never be put in the hold. Every time I check in, the check-in person says to me, with a look of panic, “Are they lithium batteries?” I say, “No, they’re sealed, non-spillable, dry cell”, which is an official category on the form. The next question is, “Can they be taken out”? I say, “No, they are bolted in. Only lithium batteries are removable”. That is usually challenged with the question: “Why not take them out”? I explain that they are bolted in and not removable, and they weigh 8 kilograms each.

Wow—how much blood has to boil before this is dealt with? It was striking at Second Reading to hear these stories, and striking that a lot of them came from behind the Minister on the Government Benches. In a sense, that gives me a little hope that there is enough political will and heft here that something can be done. From meetings that we have had with the Minister, I think there is political will here.

We cannot ever hear these stories again without having taken this opportunity and this moment to do something. It is beyond shocking that this happens. It should never happen, but, in a modern age, today, that this is happening on a regular basis is beyond the pale and needs to stop. Whatever support the Minister requires to get this over the line, I know that my noble friend Lady Brinton, the noble Baroness, Lady Grey-Thompson, and the noble Lords, Lord Holmes and Lord Blencathra, are powerful advocates who can help deliver on that.

We support the amendment by the noble Baroness, Lady Kennedy. I have two amendments in my name, one of which is about an accompanying adult with a child. This is an incredibly important issue. We recognise that there is one bad actor at the moment on this and that the CMA is looking into it. That said, embedding this in the Bill would give the reassurance that families need and deserve. When I was talking about this amendment with my noble friend Lady Brinton, she pointed out that it is not simply families who get separated from their children; people get separated from their carers—when you go searching, you find that there are plenty of examples of that. Again, surely this is a small change that can and should be implemented.

I am incredibly hopeful that there is an opportunity between this Committee and Report to do some serious and significant work, to make use of this Bill to ensure that we never have to hear of this appalling treatment ever again.

My Lords, it has been an important, valuable and moving debate. I do not have anything to add that would be helpful to the Committee, except to say that we must all take account of the important stories of people’s real experience, which are illustrative of what so many others have to face.

I said at Second Reading that I hoped that there would be sufficient unanimity on these issues and that the Government themselves would bring forward amendments around which we could rally. The advantage of that would have been that any government amendments would be workable and acceptable, so we would have been able to rally around something that worked rather than struggling as Back-Benchers, with the modest support we have, to devise something and impose it on the Government, which is always unsatisfactory in a certain sense. Unfortunately, the Government have not come forward with amendments, but there is still an opportunity for them to do so on Report. If they do not, I am sure that there will be a wide range of amendments that will almost certainly go to a Division. I do not see that they are going to be defeated, given the attitudes that have been expressed by noble Lords across the Grand Committee.

I urge the Government that it is in their interests to seize this issue and run with it. If they did so, I think that the whole Committee, across parties, would rally round them.

My Lords, I am grateful to noble Lords for their thoughtful and powerful contributions on accessibility and consumer protection. The noble Baroness, Lady Grender, is right that we should not have to hear these stories. Some of them are simply dreadful, and the worst thing is that they are only examples.

The Government share the objective behind the amendments that disabled passengers and others who need assistance should be able to travel by air with confidence, dignity and appropriate redress when things go wrong. It is for those reasons that the Government established the Aviation Accessibility Task and Finish Group. I have already welcomed the report of July last year from the noble Baroness, Lady Grey-Thompson.

Before turning to individual amendments, I should make one point that applies to very many of them. Clauses 1 and 2 are designed to provide powers to strengthen passenger rights and enforcement. The Government’s view is that detailed requirements relating to passenger rights are best developed through secondary legislation, following consultation, evidence gathering and impact assessment, rather than fixed in primary legislation now, when the time to do those things is insufficient. I ask noble Lords to keep these common factors in mind as I progress but, to be clear, I will gladly meet interested Members of your Lordships’ House to discuss each individual amendment and describe further the Government’s intentions. To gently contradict the noble Lord, Lord Blencathra, Ministers will have influence on what is brought forward in the regulations; it will not just be civil servants who propose. However, I will be asking noble Lords not to press their amendments, for the reasons I will set out.

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.

My Lords, we come now to a debate about the mechanics of the Bill, and it involves a considerable amount of detail. We are focused on the purposes of Clause 1 and 2. The purpose of Clause 1 is to give the Secretary of State the power to make regulations about the consumer protection of air passengers. As we know, those regulations have until recently been made by the European Union. It is right that the Secretary of State should be given those powers. The Secretary of State is accountable to Parliament and to the public, which is all to the good.

We object to the fact that so many of those regulations are to be made by the negative procedure. I know that at Second Reading, the noble Lord, Lord Tunnicliffe, said that it did not matter either way, but it does matter to us as Members of your Lordships’ House that statutory instruments of importance, especially those making regulations to do with consumer protection, should come forward as instruments under the affirmative procedure. We have amendments to that effect in this group. As things stand, the only instruments that would come under the affirmative procedure, as the Bill is written, would be those creating criminal offences. The Government, at least, accept that. But the others, which are matters to do with consumer protection, would be under the negative procedure. That is not good enough.

The second question relates to who is to do the enforcement and how. This is more to the thrust of Clause 2. Clause 2 itself is very short, but it enacts Schedule 1, which in terms of paper takes up about half the Bill. It is a very lengthy schedule, which is why this group might not be as short as one might hope.

Clause 2, with its schedule, splices—I think that is the right word—the Civil Aviation Authority into the Digital Markets, Competition and Consumers Act, which gives the Competition and Markets Authority its power to engage as a regulator with British businesses, looking at matters to do with competition, monopolies, abusive behaviour and so forth. It is interesting that reference was made earlier in the debate to the case being pursued at the moment by the Competition and Markets Authority against a British airline for charging families a fee in order to sit together, particularly a fee that affects younger members of the family under the age of 16. The noble Lord said he was not going to comment on the merits of that case, and understandably; nor am I, but it is interesting that that case, which is clearly a consumer protection case, is being pursued by the CMA.

We are going to have the CAA spliced into the Bill as a parallel regulator. We will have two regulators, with broadly similar powers, regulating the aviation sector. Anyone with even the remotest experience of low-level local government, such as myself, knows that one of the principles of enforcement in British law is that, for one crime, there is one prosecutor, so you cannot be prosecuted twice or pursued twice by different prosecutors for the same offence. That applies to traffic offences. They are enforced by the local authority, as parking generally is, or, if they are moving traffic offences, then, depending on the area—I am speaking of London now, where this is true, but it is not true of the rest of the country—they are enforced by either the local authority or the Metropolitan Police but not both, for the very good reason I have explained. It is simple. Why is the CAA being spliced into this structure—the architecture of the Bill—as a parallel regulator, and how will the two work together?

Well, the Bill has an answer to that: they will work together because the Secretary of State is given powers to sit on top of this Tweedledum, Tweedledee structure and decide—there is no guidance given and nothing explained as to how he will decide—how to co-ordinate the two. One could hardly imagine a more bizarre structure, a sort of pushmi-pullyu horse with two people inside it, and how they will work together. I do not have a solution. My amendment simply removes one of them from the structure and leaves it to the other; I suspect that that is not a wholly satisfactory solution, but my amendment is for the purpose of provoking this debate. But it is wholly unsatisfactory that the Government are proposing this architecture. I think it is for the Government to come forward with something workable that satisfies the Committee that they are actually able to deliver this in a way that will work. At the moment, it will not.

There are amendments from my noble friend Lord Grayling, which I have signed and which I am sure he will speak to himself shortly, but I have further amendments in this group that relate to the enforcement powers. According to the Bill, the way the Civil Aviation Authority will work if it has to take an enforcement action is that it will issue a notice to the miscreant airline or whatever operator it is that comes within the scope of the Bill. That is perfectly all right, but there is no appeal built in against the notice. The only way in which somebody who disputed the notice could appeal against it, as far as I can see, is by way of judicial review, which the Civil Aviation Authority’s decisions are subject to. You would have to proceed to judicial review, which is an astonishingly heavy and wasteful, time-consuming and expensive process, when the Bill is clearly calling out for some sort of intermediary step, tribunal, mediator or body that can sort out disputes where the two are not in agreement and where it is believed that the Civil Aviation Authority has not conducted itself properly or in a way that is reasonable.

My Lords, I will speak to Amendments 17 and 22 in this group. Following on from what my noble friend Lord Moylan has said, my concern is that the nature of the Civil Aviation Authority is being changed by the content of this Bill. It seems to be going further than simply continuing the protections for consumers that existed under European law—which rightly should remain in UK law. The level of enforcement powers in the Bill cause me a great deal of concern and are not what the Civil Aviation Authority is there to do. It is primarily a safety body. Its big focus, as we left the European Union, was taking over the responsibilities for aviation safety in the UK from EASA. Since then, we have seen dramatic changes in technology, the emergence to a much greater degree of drone technology and different kinds of aviation beginning to appear on the horizon. We are looking at the realistic possibility of air taxis in the very near future. There is a very clear and necessary remit for the Civil Aviation Authority to maintain as the guardian of aviation safety in the United Kingdom.

Of course, there will be occasions when it needs enforcement powers, but as my noble friend rightly says, it is taking over enforcement powers that very much mirror those that already exist for consumers in this sector from the CMA. In doing so, it is creating a whole raft of additional responsibilities for a body that I want to remain a very focused organisation that has safety as its number one priority.

I simply cannot understand why it is necessary to give the CAA what are, in essence, enforcement powers that the police have—for example, the power to kick in a door or to interrogate someone in their place of work or their own home. This is not a simple civil enforcement provision. This is taking the role of the Civil Aviation Authority to another level. The first of the amendments that I have tabled is intended to challenge the need for those powers to exist. I am utterly unpersuaded that they need to exist. Unless the Minister can do a pretty good job of explaining why they are necessary, we will return to it on Report.

We will also need to limit somewhat the CAA’s ability to get into the weeds with these enforcement powers. In effect, we need to concentrate its ability to take such action in a situation where there is clearly a systemic failure. We should not be giving the Civil Aviation Authority draconian powers to deal with relatively minor matters. That simply should not be the case in law. The CMA already deals with minor and significant consumer matters. Amendment 22 simply says that the powers in the Bill should focus on substantial systemic failure only.

I await with interest the Minister’s defence of this element of the Bill. I have addressed two specific areas but, as my noble friend Lord Moylan just set out, there are more. I hope the Minister can persuade us because, unless he does, I am sure we will want to return to this on Report.

My Lords, I support the thinking behind the comments made by my noble friends.

For clarification, if we are looking at consumer rights, it is the Civil Aviation Authority that has dealt with the public over a number of years when the public have not been satisfied with the compensation for delays or cancellations that they have received from an airline. The CAA is already doing that and playing that role. Do the Government see the CAA continuing with that particular role in such cases? That is one question.

Secondly, when we start to look at the Competition and Markets Authority, I do not see how you can have two authorities basically dealing with the same things. We know that the Civil Aviation Authority has the expertise in these fields, which is quite right, whatever we might object to in terms of powers. I am not sure who came up with the idea of the competition authority coming into decisions that should be made by the CAA as a regulator. I would be very interested to know from the Minister how this thought—that there could be two regulatory authorities dealing with civil aviation, its merits and everything that goes on around it—came about.

My Lords, this group concerns the consumer rights powers in the Bill and the scrutiny of those powers. I am grateful to noble Lords for their amendments. The Government’s objective is a coherent, effective and proportionate consumer protection regime for aviation passengers.

Before I turn to the individual amendments, I will make three points that apply across this group. First, Clause 1 does not in itself create new powers of entry or financial penalties; it simply enables regulations to be made, with their scope, safeguards and detail being considered when they are brought forward. Secondly, the Government believe that detailed requirements should be developed through secondary legislation, with consultation, options appraisal and an impact assessment where appropriate. Thirdly, the Bill preserves flexibility so that the CAA, the CMA and the Government can respond effectively to consumer harms that may cut across aviation and wider markets. Where I refer to duplication, proportionality or flexibility, these are the common justifications that I have in mind.

Let me begin with Amendments 8 and 18 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Moylan, which are supported by the noble Baroness, Lady Foster, and concern the role of the Competition and Markets Authority. Although most aviation-specific enforcement relating to information gathering and powers of entry will sit with the CAA in practice, the CMA has a broader, market-wide role—including in sectors that overlap with aviation, such as travel and holidays. The CAA and the CMA already have concurrent powers in relation to general consumer law. Removing the CMA from this framework could limit flexibility and make it harder to address problems that span aviation and wider consumer markets. Therefore, in the Government’s view, it is right to retain the ability to include the CMA where necessary. The precise role of each regulator will be considered when secondary legislation is drafted. I therefore ask the noble Lord not to press his amendments.

I turn next to the amendment from the noble Lord, Lord Grayling, which seeks to remove the power of entry provision in Clause 1. I am afraid that I cannot support it. The Bill is designed to improve the CAA’s enforcement ability and to reduce reliance on slow, resource-intensive court processes. Clause 2 strengthens the CAA’s direct information-gathering powers. Clause 1 enables those powers to be strengthened further, if needed, including by enabling powers to enter premises or to require documents and information during the course of an investigation. Any such power would be considered carefully, consulted on and include appropriate safeguards when regulations are brought forward.

I also assure the noble Lord that these wide enforcement powers, including powers of entry, fell within Section 2 of the European Communities Act 1972. Much passenger rights law originated in EU law and has now been assimilated into UK law. Since our exit from the EU, primary legislation has generally been needed to amend it. Clause 1 restores the necessary degree of flexibility while preserving parliamentary scrutiny and future consultation. I ask the noble Lord not to press his amendment.

I have a simple question. What the Minister has not done is explain why it is necessary. What are the problems that this is designed to solve?

I understand the noble Lord’s question. I will come back to him on that.

Amendment 22, also from the noble Lord, Lord Grayling, concerns financial penalties and the circumstances in which the CAA may act. The CAA’s role is to enforce consumer rights where breaches cause collective consumer harm, rather than to resolve individual disputes. Clause 1 does not in itself create financial penalties; it enables regulations to grant such powers in future where that is justified and appropriately framed. Any regulations creating penalties would be subject to the affirmative procedure. Thus the amendment would be unduly restrictive, so I ask the noble Lord not to press it. Having listened to noble Lords on the need for better enforcement, I would not wish to constrain the CAA’s powers in this respect.

I will address Amendments 26 and 27 from the noble Lord, Lord Moylan, together. I agree that future regulations must receive appropriate parliamentary scrutiny. Clause 1 already provides a balanced approach: the affirmative procedure applies to the most significant matters, including criminal offences and financial penalties. Some amendments could be more minor or technical changes, such as updating an organisation’s name. Requiring the affirmative procedure in all cases would not be proportionate and would place unnecessary demands on parliamentary time. I ask the noble Lord not to press his amendments.

On Amendment 28, also from the noble Lord, Lord Moylan, I absolutely agree on the importance of reviewing the impact of regulations. However, post-implementation review requirements are already considered when developing secondary legislation and included where appropriate. Not every regulation will warrant a review, particularly where changes are minor or technical. For the common reason of proportionality, I ask the noble Lord not to press this amendment.

Amendment 33, also from the noble Lord, Lord Moylan, concerns the procedure for regulations on co-operation between enforcement authorities. I do not consider the affirmative procedure necessary. These regulations are administrative in nature. They may cover information sharing, notification arrangements and how direct enforcers determine which authority should act in a particular case. There are precedents for such regulations using the negative procedure, which provides proportionate scrutiny. I ask the noble Lord not to press this amendment.

Amendment 34 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Moylan, concerns the jurisdiction of the CAA and the CMA in aviation consumer protection. Paragraph 6 of Schedule 1 already enables regulations to set out how the two authorities co-ordinate, decide which is best placed to act and avoid duplication, including through joint working. The CAA will also have regard to the CMA’s rules, supporting consistent enforcement. A fixed approach in primary legislation would reduce flexibility and risk constraining effective enforcement. I therefore ask the noble Lord not to press Amendment 34.

My Lords, the structure that the Bill introduces is not going to work. Having two regulators that are, frankly, fighting over turf in carrying out enforcement actions will not work. It will fail. I am giving the Government an opportunity now to recognise that and do something about it.

On whether it should be the CAA or the CMA, my amendment would remove the CMA from the process —my noble friend Lady Foster supported this—so that it stays with the CAA, but I am open to an argument either way as to which of the two enforcement authorities it ought to be. That is not my main point, which is that there needs to be just one. The Minister says that this is all going to be sorted out by a statutory instrument. Indeed it will—that is mentioned in Schedule 1 on page 19—but it is going to be a negative statutory instrument, so we will know almost nothing about it.

In relation to powers, I fully appreciate that the Bill does not in itself create new consumer rights nor particular enforcement powers. I was careful to say that Clause 1 gives the Secretary of State the power to give powers to the Civil Aviation Authority; I was clear about that, I think. None the less, all of those powers, which the Minister says are going to be transparent and consulted on, will be carried out under the negative procedure. Except for the powers creating criminal offences, they should not be; they should be carried out under the affirmative process.

This matter is so important to the Bill, as a piece of administrative legislation, that it is very likely, I am afraid, that I will come back to some of these issues on Report. For the moment, though, I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.

My Lords, it is a pleasure to move Amendment 31 in my name and to speak to Amendment 32 and the other two amendments in my name in this group. It is worth reflecting that we have now been in Committee since 3.45 pm. We could have flown to Athens in that time, but who would want that when you can have the warmth of the Grand Committee together?

To take a step back, it is interesting that the aviation sector has often been at the forefront of technological advancement. Just two examples are Sir Frank Whittle’s jet and the elegance of Concorde, which also speaks beyond technology to what we can achieve when we work internationally and collaboratively—something unrivalled in commercial aviation since and that is still a marvel. Bearing that in mind, it is extraordinary that this Bill is silent on the possibilities of technology, not least emerging technologies and the powers they could bring to support the intentions of the Bill. That is the purpose of these amendments.

Amendment 31 looks to how AI could be used to assist the CAA in its endeavours. Amendment 32 looks at all the questions around cyber, particularly given the legacy systems at UK airports. The Bill’s provisions will bring a lot of new data into play. It is imperative that this data is subject to stringent levels of cyber security and protection. It would be positive for all concerned if this were set out in the Bill. Harking back to those days of innovation and endeavour—the white heat of technology from the Labour Government under which Concorde came into being—it would be extraordinarily positive to have a technology horizon-scanning requirement for the CAA. That would make a difference not just for airline businesses, as it sits squarely with them, but to how emerging technologies could assist and transform the operations of the CAA for the benefit of airlines, passengers and everybody involved in aviation.

Finally, to turn to the governance that should sit around these technologies, there is clearly an assistive, enabling and supportive role that the CAA could play in terms of guidance and support. The Government have clearly stated their approach to artificial intelligence: to not bring forward cross-sector and cross-economy AI legislation. There is nothing party political in that approach; it is the identical approach to that which was taken by the previous Government. It is a sub-optimal approach, because it fails to give the UK the best opportunity really to realise and optimise the potential from this constellation of technologies that we call AI and go to the heart of the attendant risks, which will otherwise go unaddressed, and oftentimes it will be those at the sharp end who suffer the most.

The Government have stated that they do not want to do cross-sector AI regulation and that they will take a domain-specific approach. Here we have a specific domain—aviation—yet the Bill is silent with regard to AI. Is it the position that the Government are simultaneously not bringing forward cross-sector AI legislation while also not doing anything domain by domain, sector by sector on AI legislation and regulation? That is the position with regard to this domain, as set out in the Bill. This is about the transformational power, and the potential for the CAA to transform how it goes about its operations to enable better services to airlines, and its role in transforming the passenger experience and optimising it, with a far more efficient use of all the resources that are currently in play. That is the current situation, and it seems at least curious if not somewhat unfortunate. I look forward to the Minister’s response and I beg to move.

My Lords, I shall speak to Amendment 101A. I declare an interest as I am currently president of the British Airline Pilots Association.

It is clear that we have ambitious targets for growth in this sector. It is a sector with tremendous growth potential. That will need an appropriate number of pilots to be available in the coming years, but it is clear that there is a rising number of licensed pilots who will leave the workforce in the next few years. There is a compulsory retirement age for commercial pilots of 65. In a recent answer to a Parliamentary Question, the Minister reported that, of the CAA-registered pilots reaching that age, more than 1,300 will leave the sector within the next five years. That is at a time when we have ambitious plans for airport expansion, to promote growth in the sector.

This amendment would require the CAA—and it would engage the sector—not to sleepwalk into difficulties with shortages of pilots by publishing an annual report, with three key issues to address. First, there is the availability of pilots in the coming period. Secondly, there is the capacity of training provision in this area. Thirdly, there are the factors affecting access to the profession of pilot, including the cost of the necessary training.

On that final point, there are currently real financial barriers to pilot training. The cost is something of the order of £100,000 or more, and there are only two airline-funded schemes to train new pilots—British Airways and Jet2. For every successful applicant to the BA scheme, there are around 100 unsuccessful applicants who would like to make a career in the industry and who potentially have the skills and adaptability to undergo the training successfully. In terms of availability of finance, unless you have the bank of mum and dad, there is no real alternative provision available. There is no student loan scheme for people wishing to access the profession, and there is no readily available commercial loan offer from the banks either.

My Lords, I will speak to my Amendment 65A, through which I am pleased to have the opportunity to address the issue of instrument training. I confess that it is a dry subject, but it is essential and falls within the scope of group 5.

The CAA published its refreshed general aviation strategy in October 2025, setting out its vision for

“A safe, innovative, and sustainable general aviation sector”

operating within

“a proportionate and supportive regulatory environment”.

In the report, the CAA acknowledged that, while progress has been made,

“The GA sector faces … challenges including declining flying hours, a stagnating number of recreational pilot licence holders, as well as an ageing fleet of aircraft”.

One very challenging aspect facing general aviation at present, which has not been adequately addressed, is support for self-improver pilots in instrument training: the pilots who pay their own way from initial training for a private pilot’s licence through to commercial pilot qualification and who have, incidentally, traditionally made up the vast majority of commercial pilots. This access to instrument training challenge also applies to students on approved airline pilot training courses, and this reinforces the points made by the noble Lord, Lord Barber of Ainsdale: no training, no pilots. One of the essential ingredients to becoming a commercial pilot, or indeed an additional qualification for any private pilot, is instrument rating. I assure noble Lords that it is an exacting test of 55 hours of blind flying, mathematics and flying skill that allows pilots eventually to fly in and make approaches to airports in marginal weather conditions.

The challenge pilots undertaking training now face, however, is access to airports with the facilities to enable training for the instrument rating qualification. Currently in the UK, there is a complete lack of instrument approach training slots. The whole of the UK professional flight training industry cannot deliver for UK-based students the full range of navigational performance training which is reliant upon satellite-based signals. As I pointed out at Second Reading, worse still, all these GPS-supported approaches are only two-dimensional, lateral and non-positional. Three-dimensional precision requires the European geostationary navigation overlay service—EGNOS—safety-of-life service to enable the airport to provide this. I will not dwell on EGNOS, as there will be more of that later.

Across the channel, in places such as Jersey and in other European countries, and indeed in the USA, a full suite of approaches to training aircraft is available, as they still benefit—certainly in Europe at least—from the EGNOS signal in space. This is a loss of revenue and skills base to the UK. Similarly, air traffic control officers cannot do more than train in simulation for 3D approaches, which can get as low as 250 feet above the runway.

Many UK instrument rating instructors and CAA examiners have highlighted the issues relating to the instrument rating training. The situation has been ongoing for the past 15 years and has been noticeably worse in the last 10 years. The situation has been highlighted to the Civil Aviation Authority, but as yet nothing has been addressed.

My amendment seeks to find a remedy to account for the lack of opportunity for instrument training through the limited availability of suitably equipped airfields. There are many reasons for it: the closure of UK airfields; the removal of instrument landing systems, partly due to the expense of maintaining them to the approved standard; the availability of navigational aids at the airfields that remain open and which accept training flights; the cost of transit flights for the students to access airfields with required navigation aids; and the general shortage of air traffic controllers, both civil and military. Quite a number of airports in the UK do have facilities, although they are not made easily accessible for one reason or another, yet at varying times of the day they have a certain amount of redundancy. Furthermore, a large number of military airfields with the necessary facilities also have a great deal of redundancy.

In conclusion, the purpose of my amendment is to open the debate to see whether there is a way to encourage availability where there is this redundancy. I fully recognise the challenge this creates across government departments, but the situation has become quite dire and the solution requires some thought. I hope that the Minister appreciates my concern and is willing to give some thought to the solution, together with the CAA, which, of course, is responsible for licensing the instrument approaches.

My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Holmes, for his very interesting take and amendments in this area.

I want to come to pilot training. I support the noble Lord, Lord Barber, who, as a former trade union negotiator for British Airways cabin crew, worked very closely with our BALPA colleagues for many years—and that continues. I agree with what he said.

My ex-husband trained at Hamble—as I think the noble Lord, Lord Tunnicliffe, will remember—and when I joined the airline industry, our pilots had come from the RAF or the schemes run by BEA, BOAC and then British Airways. Other pilots went to Oxford Flying School, Prestwick or various other places. It was always a costly venture for any pilot not part of the state-owned airline industry as such. But we have moved on, and the noble Lord is right to say that it is fine to complain but we need some action.

As the noble Lord said, it costs in the region of £100,000 to train somebody up to be a commercial pilot. That is an extremely good investment for an airline but, as has been mentioned, British Airways and Jet2 appear to be the only airlines prepared to put their money where their mouth is.

These loans, if they come as loans, guarantee that those pilots will pay them back over the years. Unlike certain students, perhaps, I do not think they are going to disappear into the long grass. So it behoves government to start to look at a student loan-type scheme. Industry and the airlines need to step up, and those complaining of a shortage of pilots coming forward need to look at the schemes run by BA and Jet2 and start to provide some incentive and some action to deal with a possible shortage over the next few years.

This is a fantastic profession and those young men and women who go into it will have a rewarding career until their mid-60s. I think it behoves all of us to do everything we can. While we encourage youngsters to go to university, this is a profession that really needs to be supported. We now need to get outside the box and start to look at ways to get in those young, enthusiastic people who will be our brilliant pilots of the future.

I will go next because of the generality of the subject. I find myself in the peculiar position of agreeing with people for once. I, broadly speaking, share the general direction of the noble Lord, Lord Barber, the specific objection of the noble Lord, Lord Davies—I remember well the joys of the instrument rating—and the general direction of the noble Baroness, Lady Foster.

I have a particular interest in this because I was in the airline industry for 22 years. For about eight of those I was a pilot and during that time, thanks to Norman Tebbit, of all people, I was a pilot shop steward. So I am used to this debate but, peculiarly, my future career in the airline industry was as an airline manager, and I was involved with pilot recruitment. Pilot recruitment and numbers since the Second World War have been chaotic. There was not really any serious civil aviation before the Second World War. The expansion of aviation during that period created a situation where there were pilots and aircraft available after the end of the war. Along came, thanks to the Soviet Union, the Berlin airlift, which was a great provoker of civil aviation in the UK, as small firms all over the place set up and participated in that operation between June 1948 and May 1949.

That was the beginning of a period where the Great British public discovered that the sun in Benidorm was actually rather better than the sun in Skegness. There was, generally speaking, a boom from the early 1950s onwards. The nationalised airlines, BEA and BOAC, woke up to the fact that this pool of free pilots was going to run dry and they created the training facility at Hamble. It trained 2,000 pilots over the 24 years it was in operation, including me.

More recently, we have a shortage, and we have worries about how we are going to solve that shortage. It has been funded in the sense of creating pilots by self-funding pilots. People talk of £100,000. Frankly, I do not think you get a lot of change out of £130,000. That has meant it has been an occupation for people who have access to £130,000 pounds. I hate to tell the Committee this, but a lot of people do not have that access to funds. BA has come forward with a scheme over the past couple of years, and we are right back to where I came from—that is, the airlines paying for pilots. I am slightly narked, because its programme is entirely free, whereas I had to pay back £1,000 after being employed ,and that is about £24,000 in today’s money, but good luck to them.

We just cannot have the chaos of the marketplace, including how rich your parents are, determining the supply of pilots. We need a holistic analysis of where we are, what the demand is and what the training capability is. We need to worry about the components of it, the specialist training that the noble Lord, Lord Davies, talked about, and the fundamental training, of which general aviation is such an important part. We need to at least have a situation where somebody sees the total picture, and that should be the CAA.

The amendments in this group basically say that the CAA should pick up that responsibility and create a report every year, or whatever. When see the whole picture, the industry can more sensibly react to it—the CAA can push these things, to an extent, and British Airways can help with this—which could lead to a smooth situation that we have not had since 1945. That is why I support the two amendments that have been spoken to, as well as my own amendment, which says that we should charge the CAA with creating the data picture that will become the basis for future pilot supply.

My Lords, very briefly, I support the amendments in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Davies of Gower. I think he will agree that much of what he said—and it was reflected as well in the comments of many of my noble friends—came from the reaction that we both had from the All-Party Group on Aviation. It is a bit of a disaster situation. That group criticised the CAA strongly, not only on training—and everything else that noble Lords have talked about—but on the exam syllabus. The incident training syllabus has apparently not been upgraded for 20 years. This is in spite of examiners and other people asking the CAA to incorporate the charges, to no avail. My plea to my noble friend the Minister tonight is for him to put a bomb under the CAA and convert it into a new, customer-friendly regulator.

My Lords, the amendments in my name insist on statutory duties that would secure workforce resilience and international regulatory alignment, rather than leaving these matters to open-ended secondary legislation.

Amendment 103 would require the CAA to prepare an annual report on commercial pilot licence holders, including anonymised demographic data, and an assessment of workforce sustainability as a regulatory monitoring tool. The licensing authority needs to understand whether the pool of qualified pilots has been maintained at a level that supports safe and continuous operations. I thank BALPA for supporting this amendment and helping to draft it. An important point that has not so far been drawn out is the need to identify the proportion of pilots licensed to fly commercial airliners who are women—the kind of important data that ensures that there is a workforce that reflects the future.

The amendment would also require the CAA to consider the future availability of a pilot workforce. As we have heard, commercial airline pilots must retire at 65. An authoritative annual assessment by the CAA would flag issues about the future supply of trained pilots.

I feel that we are all currently dancing on the head of a very particular but extremely useful and important pin. Between now and Report, I hope that we can put some of this together—unless the Minister says in the next few minutes that he is accepting all our amendments. We live in hope.

Amendment 104 would place a statutory duty on the Secretary of State to pursue UK-EU mutual recognition in relation to pilot and engineer licensing and aircraft parts certification. This came through from one of the APPGs, which had particular concerns about this issue. The absence of recognition mechanisms can create duplicated compliance burdens. We are all familiar with this kind of thing: regulatory friction and delays in maintenance and staffing, all of which matter operationally and economically.

I will not take up any more of noble Lords’ time, except to say that I commend the noble Lord, Lord Holmes. We first served together in 2018 on the first Select Committee on artificial intelligence, so never let it be said that Peers are not sometimes ahead of the curve. Its report was entitled AI in the UK: Ready, Willing and Able? and he continues to pursue this issue with his usual energy. I always support and listen to him on these issues, and I look forward to hearing the Minister’s response.

My Lords, in the last group, I came up with a modest amendment that would have involved increasing the threshold at which strike ballots had to be passed before a strike could be undertaken—a clear consumer protection measure well in line with the purpose of the Bill. In this group, we seem to have wandered off into discussing pilot training, which I do not see as being intimately connected with consumer protection. Everyone is agreed that something should be done to interfere in the market, and that the Government or one of their agencies should take some sort of responsibility for this. It is entirely opposite to the thrust of the response I had on holding strikes. I find it remarkable.

I understand the problems identified by the noble Lords, Lord Barber and Lord Tunnicliffe, and my noble friend Lord Davies of Gower. I understand that these are indeed serious problems. I am willing to go so far as to accept that the Civil Aviation Authority might want to take cognisance of them and have a sense of how extensive the problems are. But it is surely very clearly for the industry itself to solve these problems, and that is what we must insist on. I imagine that the Minister will be as firm in rejecting these interferences with the market as he was in rejecting my modest amendment in the last group.

My noble friend Lord Holmes made points of great wisdom and vision, and the noble Baroness, Lady Grender, rightly pointed out the assiduity with which my noble friend has brought attention to bear on these important technological issues over a number of years. I do not feel competent myself to make direct comments on them, but I applaud the notion that we should be looking very carefully at the developments that technology will bring. That will include, of course, the abilities and skills required of pilots. I do not want to push it too far, but we have planes that now practically fly themselves—I do not mean that they can do without pilots, but they can practically fly themselves. Of course, in freight, we have drones appearing everywhere and great technological advances being made. That must have an impact on a training curriculum for pilots.

I was astonished to hear the noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, say that the training curriculum for pilots was several decades old. I am not sure if I heard him correctly, but if that is so, then perhaps it needs to catch up with modern technology. There are many things that an aeroplane does nowadays that it could not do 30 years ago and that the pilot ought to know about.

I want to make this point again about UK-EU alignment—

What I actually said was that the syllabus was 30 years old. I hope the noble Lord understood that correctly.

I am very grateful, but does the syllabus not determine the content of the training? It is a matter we can take up outside—it is not something we need to detain the Committee on at the moment—but I am very grateful to the noble Lord for making it clear what he said and putting me right to that extent. I had no wish to put words into his mouth, but I was just struck by what he said.

I wanted to come back briefly to the question of UK-EU alignment on this. It would, of course, be very good if there were mutual recognition between the UK and the EU, but it would also be very good if there were mutual recognition between the UK and the US. I am not entirely sure why there is this relentless focus on the EU. In the days when we had freedom of movement—mercifully, we do not anymore, because we voted against it—mutual recognition would mean that a pilot could move from one country to another and live there and pursue his calling in those countries. That is no longer the case, any more than it is with the United States, so the argument for a specific arrangement with the European Union seems to me to fall largely by the wayside. Apart from that, I thank my noble friend Lord Davies of Gower for his contribution, and I look forward to hearing what the Minister has to say in the four minutes remaining.

My Lords, I will do my best to speak as fast as I can, subject only to clarity. I turn to the next group, which covers workforce, skills and innovation. I am grateful to noble Lords for their amendments. Across this group, the Government share the underlying aim of ensuring that aviation remains safe, secure, innovative and supported by the skilled workforce it needs.

Before addressing each amendment, I will make a point that applies to several of them. In areas such as artificial intelligence, cyber security, emerging technology and skills, the Government’s view is that regulation must remain flexible, proportionate and capable of keeping pace with fast-moving developments. Where existing legislation, CAA functions, cross-government work or established programmes already address the issue, placing detailed duties in the Bill risks duplication, inconsistency and unnecessary administrative burden. I will refer back to that common justification where relevant.

I begin with Amendment 31, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Holmes of Richmond, on artificial intelligence safeguards. As he does, I recognise the importance of ensuring that AI is used fairly, transparently and responsibly. At present, the CAA does not use AI to make regulatory decisions, and any future consideration will require board approval. However, there are protections already in place should it do so. The CAA is subject to data protection legislation and Equality Act duties, which require fairness, transparency, accountability and appropriate human oversight in decision-making. Amendment 31 would duplicate those obligations and introduce a prescriptive statutory framework in an area where guidance, assurance processes and evolving standards are more suitable. AI policy is also being developed on a cross-government basis, led by DSIT, and legislation here in isolation risks cutting across that wider work. For those reasons, and applying the common point about flexibility and avoiding duplication, I ask the noble Lord to withdraw Amendment 31.

Amendment 32, also from the noble Lord, Lord Holmes, is on cyber security and legacy systems. Robust cyber security across aviation is essential. The CAA already has deep cyber experience and robust protocols and is subject to expectations in the Government’s cyber action plan. The Network and Information Systems Regulations require regulated entities to manage risks and prevent and minimise the impact of incidents. That already includes considering risks from legacy systems, with compliance assessed and enforced by the CAA.

There is also a wider legislative context. The cyber security and resilience Bill is designed to strengthen the UK’s cyber regulatory framework on a system-wide basis and allows further security and resilience requirements to be introduced through secondary legislation, following consultation. Stand-alone requirements in this Bill would risk fragmenting that coherent approach. I therefore ask the noble Lord not to press his amendment.

I thank the noble Lord, Lord Davies of Gower, for Amendment 65A, and the noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, for his observations on this matter. Instrument approaches to airfields are subject to specific CAA approvals that ensure that pilots can safely land using their instruments when a visual approach is not possible, usually due to poor weather. These focus on ensuring that instrument landings and approaches can be undertaken safely, rather than adding an additional requirement for the airfield also to train pilots for instrument approaches.

There are also detailed requirements for training in international and UK safety regulations. Requiring training would not be appropriate for all airfields. Smaller airfields may not be able to accommodate this, and it may also be unsuitable for larger, busier airports where the operational environment and potential disruption to commercial flights make such requirements impractical. This amendment could, therefore, decrease the number of airfields that allow instrument approaches, making it more difficult for pilots to find places to land in poor weather. We will ask the CAA to give further consideration to this issue, but we are not convinced that it is a matter for primary legislation. I therefore ask the noble Lord not to press this amendment.

My Lords, I thank all noble Lords who contributed to this interesting debate. I also thank the Minister for his speedy response, which was Concorde-like in its pace of delivery and has landed us at the end of today’s proceedings in Committee. For now, I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.