Skip to main content

Proceeding contribution from Lord Hanningfield (Conservative) in the House of Lords on Thursday, 8 December 2005. It occurred during Debate on bill and Committee proceeding on Civil Aviation Bill.


Civil Aviation Bill

I support the amendments in principle. Opposition Front Benches are often criticised for the detail we insert into our amendments and for wanting too much detail to go into the Bill. I hope that the Minister will never say that to us again because of the amount of detail in these amendments. I know Stansted Airport and I know the chief constable of Essex. I imagine that in most cases there will be agreement, perhaps with a bit of compromise here or there. I am surprised that one needs all these complicated procedures for bodies which are responsible and will, I am sure, mostly be in agreement. Does the Minister have evidence that the police and the airports do not agree on systems, resulting in the need for all this?


Secondary information

Type
Proceeding contribution
Reference
676 c114-5GC 
Session
2005-06
Chamber / Committee
House of Lords Grand Committee
Subjects
Complaints Compensation Detainees Arrests Aviation Air pollution Buildings Competition Airports Air routes British Transport Police Damage Airlines Health Fees and charges Liability Environment Households Insurance Insulation Exhaust emissions Police Management Monitoring Passengers Noise Security Safety Tour operators London airports Air Travel Trust Countries
Legislation
Civil Aviation Bill 2005-06
Link
View this Proceeding contribution on www.publications.parliament.uk