Contribution
Yes, absolutely. People in airports up and down the country are having to manage the delayed flights at their end. Pulling in people from around the airport adds cost. Some regional airports are operating on much smaller margins, and the expense of bringing in additional staff has a significant impact on them. This incident will have been not just frustrating for many people, but quite distressing and very costly.
The measures in this Bill are predominantly welcome, and the SNP here and in government in Scotland is broadly supportive. However, I draw attention to amendment 33, tabled in the Lords, which introduced a review of airport parking charges, which was not in the Bill originally. I am not against that in principle, but the original text would not have required a legislative consent motion. It looks like consent will now be required, following the introduction of amendment 33 in the Lords, and I ask the Minister to address that point. If a legislative consent motion is required from the Scottish Parliament, it is essential that appropriate time is built in for proper scrutiny of this element of the Bill by MSPs, prior to Report.
I want to raise the issues facing people with e-visas. Many have not been allowed to board aircraft coming to the UK, even though they have a legitimate right to travel and gain entry, because ground staff are not sufficiently trained or aware of how to check and scrutinise e-visa documentation. In these circumstances, passengers who are incorrectly refused boarding may not have a right to be compensated. That can be hugely costly and is inherently unfair. The legislation provides protection for adequately documented passengers who are denied boarding, but it does not define what constitutes being “adequately documented”. The Prime Minister has talked about giving people agency, but many people in such circumstances clearly do not have agency.
For digital documentation, it seems obvious that the onus should be on the carrier to check it. A passenger in another country, with potential language barriers and limited digital access, is clearly disadvantaged if the onus is on them. The campaign group the3million has proposed a well-considered amendment to the Bill, which I am sure the Minister will be aware of. Will he give consideration to tackling that issue through an amendment to the Bill? It is a significant consumer issue for people who are entitled to travel and have a visa, but are refused boarding. It is a very costly experience if they do not get compensation for being incorrectly refused boarding.
I have two significant airports in my constituency: a civilian airport in Inverness, and an airbase at RAF Lossiemouth. Clearly, military aircraft movements do not come under civilian aircraft legislation, but people who live in the vicinity of a military base experience noise and environmental issues. I am not suggesting for a minute that there should be constraints that would make operational flying difficult for the military. However, in the case of regular training exercises and regular training flights, which is predominantly what most flights out of our military bases are, more work could be done to improve how the military communicates with local communities. The expectations should be a bit closer to our expectations for a normal domestic airport. Has the Minister considered that, and will the Department have conversations with the Ministry of Defence to see how much room there is for manoeuvre?
We do not necessarily need hard legislation that says the MOD must do x, y and z, because it would be wrong to constrain its ability to do its core work. However, we could explore how to minimise the environmental impact of routine flights on people who live close to what can be very noisy bases. They accept the noise, because the bases produce a huge amount of employment. People recognise their importance to the defence of the country, so they are very accepting, but that does not mean that this issue should not be addressed in the best possible way to try to improve things. We should always be looking for improvement.
Finally, I commute to this place 40 weeks a year, give or take, so I take 80 flights a year. I spend about seven hours a week either in airports or on aircraft. Like other Members, I emphasise that it is a predominantly positive experience, and is largely without significant delay, but when significant delays do occur and people miss connections, often to long-haul flights, it can be really distressing, so the consumer element and protecting people are absolutely critical.
I have regularly seen passengers who have been distressed about the circumstances they are in. Sometimes, they are flying for deeply personal reasons—bereavements and such like—and it is a more stressful form of transport than getting on and off a bus. Unlike people taking a single bus for a few miles and getting off at the other end, they have to plan for security, plan for their baggage and all those things. It requires a lot more thinking before someone gets on a plane, and for those who are there in difficult circumstances, it is all the more important that we ensure the experience is as good as it possibly can be for the people using it.