Air Passenger Rights and Air Travel Organisers’ Licensing (Amendment) (EU Exit) Regulations 2018

Debate between Lord Deben and Lord Berkeley

Tuesday 12th February 2019 Lords Chamber

[Lord Berkeley (Lab)]

My Lords, I share the concerns of the noble Lord, Lord Deben, and my noble friend Lord Foulkes about the costs associated with Brexit. I recall the debate in this House yesterday about Seaborne Freight. The Minister said, and I am sure she is right, that,

“no taxpayer money has been transferred to the company”.—[Official Report, 11/2/19; col. 1704.]

However, the cost of dredging is probably several million pounds. Apparently it was being done by the Ramsgate harbour authority. I do not know where it will suddenly get the money from; I am sure it was not budgeted for. It was mentioned in another place yesterday that Slaughter and May had been paid £600,000 to advise the Government on how to write these contracts, which turned out to be non-existent. The Minister should commit to giving the House the total cost, rather than hiding behind, “We are not paying it directly because the dredging is being done by somebody else”, or something like that.

I should like to follow up on some of the questions the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh, just asked because this SI is very confusing. The first question is: who is a UK carrier? Where will companies such as easyJet and British Airways be registered, and does that matter when defining what is a UK carrier—something that comes into quite a lot of these regulations? Could the Minister tell us not just what is happening today but also how the Government will tell members of the public who is a UK carrier—assuming that it matters? It seems to me that it matters.

On these regulations, there seem to be three different parties: the location of the airport, which may be in this country, the European Union, or a third country—maybe it does not matter; the air service or airline, and whether it is registered in the UK, the EU or a third country, as the noble Baroness mentioned; and who the passenger is. Are they a UK resident, an EU resident, or a third-country resident? There then seem to be different rules for whether you are going out, coming in or getting a return ticket. I do not know whether I am making myself clear—it is probably as unclear as the regulations. The Minister will have to tell us how all these different parts of the regulations I have discussed apply to all those different groups and combinations of groups.

What attracted me to this worry was the phrase,

“if the carrier is a UK carrier”,

in paragraph 7.3 of the Explanatory Memorandum and, in reference to paragraph 7.5, the question of who enforces these regulations. The CAA cannot enforce regulations on airlines from third countries that do not fly into this country at all, but if the CAA does not do it, who will? All these things should affect every traveller who will move by air after 29 March, and I can see some of them getting into real trouble and worrying about this unless there is some clarification. I look forward to hearing the Minister’s response.

[Lord Deben]

My Lords, I am sorry to continue this but various people have an interest in this SI. First, there are customers, who I doubt will read this—if they did, I doubt they would get very far with it for the reasons the noble Lord has just adumbrated. Secondly, there are the airlines, and I am very concerned about what our definition will be—not only here but elsewhere—of, for example, a UK-based airline.

I understand that there are airlines such as British Airways which have a direct association—it owns Iberia. British Airways has said that it may well transfer its base of ownership to Spain. I will not make a statement about Brexit—it manifestly gets stupider and stupider as we move on to discuss the matter—but the truth is that this is a real issue. If British Airways decides that that is the decision it has to make because we have been so damaging to our future that that is the best place for it to be, is it any longer a UK-based carrier? We then have a situation in which we are passing an SI that does not actually apply to the largest airline with a single, dedicated terminal at our largest airport. This is a serious issue. I am sure there is a very easy answer to the question, but it is not one that lies to hand in the SI. What happens when or if it changes, and how do we deal with those changes? That also seems important to me.

Succession to the Crown Bill

Debate between Lord Deben and Lord Berkeley

Thursday 28th February 2013 Lords Chamber

[Lord Berkeley]

My Lords, I support this amendment, but for rather different reasons from those of some other noble Lords who have spoken. It is ironic to me that we are having a debate, quite rightly, about equality between men and women in inheriting titles. I understood from what the noble and learned Lord, Lord Wallace, said at Second Reading that if the next heir to the Throne is a lady, she could be called either the Prince of Wales or the Princess of Wales—heaven knows; I would have thought she would be a princess, but I am no expert. If she can be called the Princess of Wales, why can she not be called the Duchess of Cornwall, or the Duke of Cornwall, or whichever way we want to put it? It seems extraordinary, really.

At Second Reading, I spoke about a number of issues that I had with the current structure of the duchy: whether it is in the private or public sector; what it does with its revenue; and the ability of the Prince of Wales to approve legislation. Frankly, this is one of the few Bills that he and Her Majesty should have a view on because it affects them in their roles. However, there are an awful lot of other issues on which I have not put amendments down because I was advised that they were a bit outside the Long Title, so I shall be looking to prepare and propose a Private Member’s Bill on some of these issues in the next Session, I hope. When the noble and learned Lord, Lord Lloyd, said that he had been Attorney-General to the Duchy of Cornwall, I thought, “Fine, the Duchy is getting free legal advice from some of the best lawyers in the land”. However, it then goes to tribunals and says it is a private organisation. Well, no other private organisations get free legal advice from an attorney-general. There are many other issues to discuss on that, but I support the amendment as a logical extension to the Bill. I look forward to hearing the Government’s response.

[Lord Deben]

My Lords, we are dealing with anomalies here and seeking to remove them. One reason we are doing that is because it sends a very clear signal about the attitude of the state towards certain issues. That is why so many of us are such supporters of the removal of gender discrimination in this way.

I genuinely find it difficult to understand why, if we are going to do that, we have not thought through one or two other things that are also signals. The concept of the heir to the Throne having this remarkable opportunity, which history has given them, of running a significant estate and dealing with significant matters of business is something that has characterised the monarchy for a long time and has given the present heir a remarkable opportunity, which he has used to huge effect.

I do not think it right to put before the House a Bill that specifically denies a female heir that opportunity. I know what will happen. She will in effect be the Duchess of Cornwall. I have no doubt that she will be asked to take the chair. I have no doubt that all this will happen. But what I find so difficult—I rise on this point only because it is a continuing concern of mine—is that we do not understand that when you decide you are going to deal with an anomaly, you have to deal with it. You cannot say, “I am going to deal with this bit of it, but I have a particular concern that it would mean changing something that happened in 13-something”. What a good opportunity to remind people of the great length of our history and of the fact that at this moment something has changed and we want to put it right.

So far I have found the Government at their least compelling when they have found it impossible to recognise that these things hang together. I hope that the noble and learned Lord, Lord Wallace, can accept that this will not make any difference in the other countries of the Commonwealth. No one will say, “I am frightfully sorry, I cannot vote for this because I am not prepared to give the Duchy of Cornwall to a female”. Surely this is something we can sort out properly. If the argument is that this might affect the issue of primogeniture with regard to your Lordships’ House and those who were once in it, then the answer is simple: this whole Bill is about the monarchy. We are talking about the monarchy. We are not talking about anybody else. Nothing inevitably comes from this, except possibly a spirit of change. There is nothing that is a precedent.

On this occasion, could we please see that this is a sensible thing to do? Would it not be good to do a sensible thing because it is sensible, rather than to argue about it because there is another argument?

Public Bodies Bill [HL]

Debate between Lord Deben and Lord Berkeley

Monday 7th March 2011 Lords Chamber

[Lord Deben]

My Lords, I hope very much that we maintain the more than 9 per cent of the country which is so protected. However, I do not suggest that the national parks should always go on in exactly the same way and that the elected Government should not interfere with them in any way. For four years I was responsible for the national parks. I do not think that anybody could have criticised the way in which I sought to protect the countryside. However, the national parks are a problem because in many ways their structures do not meet today’s needs. It is perfectly true that you could suggest that Ministers may not behave perfectly but to seek to protect a section of the population and more than 9 per cent of the land to the extent that no one can propose necessary alterations is unacceptable. Such a situation has arisen only once before in connection with the church. I much prefer the church to be in that position, as long as it is the true church, but that is a different issue. I say that in the presence of the right reverend Prelates. It is difficult to defend the argument that a certain organisation should be immune from government concern and the necessity for the Government to deal with the nation as a whole.

A national park, which will be nameless, seemed to me to represent neither the people it was supposed to represent nor the people who lived in its area. As Secretary of State there was nothing I could do to protect them against the pretty extreme decisions that the relevant national park authority took. We have to have a balance here. The way in which Ministers have explained how they intend to use this provision leads me to believe that we have the right balance. It is not acceptable to believe that the only way you can protect this area of Britain is by exempting a particular structure from any kind of debate. All that this provision seeks to do is to give the Government the opportunity to represent the generality of the population’s relationship with the particularity of the national parks.

I therefore hope that Ministers will not give way to these proposals but will seek of course to give maximum independence to the national parks. However, in the end, Ministers have to uphold the interests of the generality of the public and it seems unacceptable to have a system which excludes them from doing so. Having been in that position, I believe that I was not able properly to protect people in certain national parks from the way in which institutions operated, because they were so independent that there could be no second choice. That is not acceptable in a democratic society, particularly when a national park authority is not directly elected or when the people concerned are not in that position.

I very much hope that Ministers will accept the good offices and good grace of the noble Lord, Lord Judd, but accept also that many people who live in the national parks are hoping for a proper way in which the fiat of a national park authority could, at least at some stage, be questioned by those who are elected. I therefore very much support this part of the clause.

[Lord Berkeley]

My Lords, it is interesting to follow the noble Lord, Lord Deben. My interest is in the Norfolk Broads, rather than the national parks. I note that in the coalition agreement the Broads Authority was not included in the same bracket of potential changes.

My interest in the Norfolk Broads came from having the privilege of chairing a Select Committee when the Broads Authority brought forward a private Bill to change its structure. It was interesting listening to the different petitions made over a number of days. There was the challenge of balancing the conservation and navigational issues, and of balancing the interests of those who wanted to drive motor boats at high speed and those who wanted to sail in comparatively narrow areas. The most important issue that came out of that evidence was that all the people who petitioned had the interests of the Broads at heart. Most of them, but not all, lived locally and were prepared to accept a structure and compromise that gave them as much of what they wanted as they recognised was reasonable. That represents a much better way of managing an area such as the Norfolk Broads than doing it by central government. However, we can probably debate that later.

I asked the Broads Authority whether it had been consulted by the Government about these potential changes. It was very brave to put its answer in writing, which stated that the authority had not had any detailed discussions with the Government. That is rather sad, actually. Surely the whole point of these potential changes is that the Government should consult the people involved. The authority is very concerned about its inclusion in Schedules 3, 5, 6 and 7. That is a pretty wide range of options that cannot give the authority much comfort as to where it will go. Its feeling, which I fully support, is that it would not mind if its name was changed to the “Broads National Park”, but that that would change the emphasis of its objectives and how they were implemented. Not only that, but the conservation budget has to be kept separate from the leisure budget, and there are special arrangements for navigation officers and so on. The authority was also concerned about the governance procedures and worried that the Government would be getting into too much detail. There was also the potential for changes to the reports and accounts process.

I have not heard anything so far that indicates that there would be benefit to the inclusion of the Broads Authority in any of these schedules. If it has to be in one, it believes that Schedule 3 is the least bad. The Broads Authority spent a lot of effort putting through the private Bill. It cost time and money, much of which came from its users. Why should it not be allowed to get on with what it does pretty well rather than having yet further uncertainty and changes? The Minister may have some different ideas about this, in which case I should be very pleased to hear them.