Airports Slot Allocation (Alleviation of Usage Requirements) Regulations 2026

Wednesday 10th June 2026 Grand Committee

Considered in Grand Committee

16:47

Moved by

[Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill]

That the Grand Committee do consider the Airports Slot Allocation (Alleviation of Usage Requirements) Regulations 2026.

Relevant document: 3rd Report from the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee. Instrument not yet reported by the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments.

[The Minister of State, Department for Transport (Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill) (Lab)]

My Lords, airport slots are permissions that allow airlines to take off and land at specific dates and times. They are a valuable resource at capacity-constrained airports. The UK currently has nine such airports, including the main five London airports—Gatwick, Heathrow, London City, Luton and Stansted—as well as Birmingham, Bristol, Leeds Bradford and Manchester.

These regulations are necessary in the context of the continuing conflict in the Middle East, which is creating disruption and uncertainty for the aviation sector and therefore for airline passengers. The Government have therefore designed a hand-back measure for slots for the summer and winter 2026 seasons, which will allow airlines to return up to 10% of their slots, if necessary, without losing the right to those same slots the following year.

The use of this hand-back does not need to link to fuel shortage, because there is no fuel shortage at present, as UK airlines have stated. However, the impact of the continuing conflict in the Middle East is more nuanced and wide-ranging. Airlines are facing longer flight paths, increased fuel costs and, in some cases, shifting passenger demand, particularly on routes affected by regional instability. These regulations provide flexibility to manage genuine operational challenges and reduce the risk of last-minute cancellations. There is therefore a need for intervention.

The developments in the Middle East remain unpredictable and continue to put undue pressure on the aviation sector. These pressures are completely outside the control of airlines, but are nevertheless having an impact on their ability to operate as planned. Without intervention, airlines would not be able to respond to known risks to their operations and passengers would be exposed to last-minute cancellations and disruption at the departure gates. These regulations respond directly to the uncertainty and operational impact of the Middle East conflict by providing limited, targeted flexibility, while maintaining the overall integrity of the slot allocation system.

The statutory instrument allows airlines to hand back up to 10% of their allocated slots at slot co-ordinated airports across the UK. These are the UK’s busiest and most capacity-constrained airports, where demand for take-off and landing times is greater than the available capacity. As I said, the regulations apply for the summer and winter 2026 scheduling seasons. Airlines will be able to hand back up to 10% of their slots without losing their historic entitlement to these slots in the following equivalent season.

This 10% flexibility is split into two stages. Airlines may return up to 5% of their slots by a specified date in each season and a further 5% throughout the remainder of the season. To return slots under these regulations, airlines must give passengers at least 14 days’ notice if a flight is cancelled. This approach strikes a careful balance. It provides airlines with some flexibility to adjust their schedules to mitigate impacts of the conflict in the Middle East, while keeping passenger protections at the forefront. Importantly, the measure is time-limited, because it applies only to the summer and winter 2026 seasons, ensuring a proportionate response to current circumstances.

The regulations also allow returned slots to be reallocated where possible. This helps to ensure that valuable airport capacity is not left unused if the situation in the Middle East were to take a definitive positive turn. It also enables airlines that are less exposed to wider impacts of the conflict in the Middle East to step in and make use of returned slots to meet passenger demand. The draft instrument being considered today applies to England, Scotland and Wales. Airports are a devolved matter in Northern Ireland, but there are currently no slot co-ordinated airports in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland.

The Government undertook a targeted consultation with airlines, airports and other sector stakeholders on our proposal for alleviation for the summer and winter 2026 seasons. The consultation received a total of 59 responses. There was strong support among airlines for the proposed slots hand-back provision, albeit that most wanted the hand-back threshold to be 20%. Airports were generally opposed to alleviation being granted and wanted a lower threshold for hand-back. The Government have therefore adopted a balanced position, providing a 10% hand-back for summer and winter 2026. This gives airlines enough room to manage a genuine operational challenge if it arises, while making sure that they cannot use it on cancellations that go well beyond what the situation requires.

Furthermore, in the light of the consultation, and airport responses in particular, we have ensured that slots that are handed back can be reallocated. This ensures that where airlines are able to make use of these slots, they can be picked up, so that valuable airport capacity is not wasted, striking an appropriate balance between flexibility for airlines and efficient use of airport infra- structure. During times of crisis or widespread destruction —for example, during Covid-19—the Government have stepped in to provide alleviation from slot usage requirements over and above the existing justified non-utilisation of slots provisions set out in the slots regulation. Most recently, in summer 2022, the Government implemented a 30% hand-back to stabilise airport operations and reduce disruption for passengers.

The Government are grateful to the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee for its careful consideration of this instrument. I will now address the comments that it raised. The 10% hand-back provision was consulted on and a range of views was received. While many airlines argued for a higher threshold, no substantive evidence was provided. Ministers concluded that 10% represents an appropriate and proportionate balance supported by the available evidence.

On passenger impact, the 14-day notice period aligns with previous slot alleviation measures and, where airlines return slots, passengers are protected under UK law and are entitled to a refund or rerouting. Wider rights, including compensation in some cases, are set out in aviation consumer protection rules. The existing justified non-utilisation of slots regime—JNUS—is reactive and does not support forward planning, increasing the risk of late cancellations. This measure addresses this gap.

On the final points raised, the Government continue to monitor fuel supply closely and engage with industry, with UK airlines reporting no current shortages. Finally, the powers underpinning this instrument expire on 23 June 2026, under the retained EU law Act. Replacement powers are being sought through the civil aviation Bill and any future use will depend on the prevailing circumstances.

The policy intent behind these measures is clear: to support a resilient aviation sector while protecting passengers and the environment. First and foremost, they support better planning for passengers. By enabling airlines to adjust schedules in advance, passengers are more likely to receive early notice of cancellations, rather than facing last-minute disruption at the airport.

Noble Lords may be considering why the Government are acting now, before any acute or system-wide shortage of fuel has materialised. The answer is that this is a preventive, forward-looking measure. The disruption caused by the conflict in the Middle East is already affecting airline operations, costs and demand patterns. Waiting until those pressures result in widespread cancellations or operational instability would risk greater disruption to passengers and the sector. By acting now, the Government are enabling airlines to plan ahead, adjust schedules in an orderly way and provide passengers with meaningful notice of changes, rather than reacting at the last minute.

Secondly, these regulations reduce the risk of unnecessary flights. By removing the pressure to operate flights purely to retain slots, we expect fewer near-empty aircraft in the skies. This enables more efficient use of jet fuel stocks and aviation network capacity.

Thirdly, they help protect connectivity. Airport slots underpin route networks that have been built up over many years. Allowing airlines to retain their historic rights, despite temporary disruption, helps ensure that those connections can be restored once conditions stabilise.

Finally, these measures support the financial stability of airlines. Without them, if an airline was aware of issues that would make it difficult to operate a flight, it would face a choice between continuing with plans to run it anyway or cancelling it at the last minute and potentially losing that slot at the airport permanently.

To close, these regulations represent a practical, proportionate response to a specific and challenging set of circumstances. They maintain the integrity of the slot allocation system while introducing temporary flexibility to reflect real-world pressures. They support airlines, benefit passengers and help avoid unnecessary environmental harm. Above all, they are a measured intervention that is time-limited, targeted and grounded in the realities facing the aviation sector today. I hope that noble Lords will recognise the balance that has been struck and will join me in supporting these measures. I beg to move.

[Lord Kirkhope of Harrogate (Con)]

My Lords, I declare my interests as a pilot, an honorary vice-president of BALPA, the pilots’ union, and a former director of an airport. I generally welcome these provisions but, of course, they are part of the assimilated law of the EU —quite conveniently so, in fact, in that we can make alterations of this kind to the slots system. I want to question the Minister a little on one or two aspects of this instrument.

As we know, and as is referred to in the Explanatory Memorandum, slots are a major asset of airlines. Sometimes, they are actually worth more than the whole of the rest of the airline put together, including its aircraft and all the rest. So they are enormously valuable. The allocation of slots is, therefore, a critical matter; of course, that also includes any slots that become available for reallocation.

The Minister referred to this being a temporary measure. I would like to get a confirmation from him. He said that it relates to the Middle East conflict, but he then spoke later about the jet fuel situation and so on. That is clearly a looming threat, I suppose, but it is not the main argument here. The main argument he is deploying is that the Middle East conflict means that a lot of airlines are no longer able to carry out their normal routes as they would like to do and that, consequently, the aim is to avoid the nonsense of having aircraft running without passengers, as it were, as has been the case in a number of instances.

Allowing airlines to have their slots put back and then used at a later date seems to make sense, except for the fact that, as I read it, the measure ultimately talks about a five-year term with a review. The Minister said that it is a short-term measure for 2026. Can he confirm to me that that is the case? Can he also confirm that the other element written in here somewhere—the five-year term and review—is not relevant to this point? I would be very grateful for some confirmation on that.

17:00

I would also like the Minister’s comments on the question of airport designations. We are talking here—and it is referred to—about designating airports into three categories: “non-coordinated”, “schedules facilitated” and “coordinated” airports, which are those that have slots attached. In the case of Leeds Bradford, which is one of my local airports, these slot provisions will apply only to the summer season. I believe that that is the case there. Could the Minister confirm at what point the designations are reviewed or decided? I have discussed statutory instruments with this Minister before, and we seem always to discuss the same airports. The development of airports is a moving thing, so I just wonder how an airport becomes co-ordinated and eligible to have slots applicable to it.

The other point is that the allocation or reallocation of slots, as I said before, is very valuable. We are losing a few airlines at the moment—most of them to the freighting business—because of financial pressures. As I said before, slots really matter. What is the basis by which reallocated slots can go to new entrants? There are people hanging on here, desperate to get slots into some of our co-ordinated airports. At what level does this plan move to one in which these slots are available for reallocation?

I read that the co-ordinator organisation has only 40 staff, which is an amazing situation. Can the Minister confirm the status of the co-ordination organisation, which makes decisions about slots and reallocation? It seems an organisation almost outside the normal structures that we deal with when considering these matters.

Finally, I want to say that we have to be very careful when dealing with this subject. Although I understand and sympathise with what the Minister is suggesting—and it will certainly help in organising the routes and for the current financial position of the airlines that will benefit from it—I would not like to see this becoming a deterrence to airlines extending their business. One of the greatest things that this country has is the nature and status of those that provide air services.

[Lord Grayling (Con)]

My Lords, I welcome these regulations. This is a core part of the current responsibility of the department in difficult times internationally. It is absolutely the right thing to do to try to ease pressures on airlines in this environment, as the current geopolitical situation has made many routes much less viable than they were and led to cutbacks around the world in the number of planes flying at the time being.

However—and I think we will come back to this at greater length in debates on the forthcoming aviation Bill—that we are having this debate today indicates that this is a heavily regulated area. We inherited a lot of that regulation from the European Union, and I had hoped, and it remains my view, that this sector should be regulated less than it is. It probably should not need a debate in Parliament to enable an airline, in an international crisis, to take a decision to scale back some of its activities temporarily without the risk of long-term damage to its business. So, in my view, this debate should not need to happen but, in the context of the current laws, it is absolutely essential.

I have a particular concern that I want to raise with the Minister about the impact on some individual airlines. The choice of 5% or 10% does not make complete sense to me, in the context of an environment where the most affected routes are those through the Middle East. I will take a practical example: if an airline like Emirates had two flights a day to a UK airport, they would not currently be viable because of the geopolitical situation. The reality is that tourist numbers to the Middle East have dropped very sharply. I had an email myself today from a hotel in Oman that I stayed in some while back begging me to come back and offering me a good deal to do so, so there is no doubt that numbers have fallen sharply. It is therefore very probable that running two planes a day is not viable for the time being and you can afford only, in practical business terms, to run one plane a day. That is a 50% drop. But if you can only cut 5% or 10%, that does not quite work arithmetically. I am slightly concerned that the inflexibility of the numbers in this regulation will not fit with the practical reality facing a number of airlines, and I would be grateful for the Minister’s comments about that.

My final point is that there were a couple of airlines that did not want this to happen. I am very interested to hear from the Minister why that was. There may be practical reasons, or this may be simply anti-competitive pressures—we can imagine one or two airlines that might want to get in the way of sensible changes to ease pressures on their competitors.

In particular, I want to press the Minister on the issue of the 5% or 10% figures, because it seems to me that for some airlines, if you have very large numbers of slots for Heathrow or Gatwick, fine, that makes perfect sense, but if you have a relatively small number of slots, then you are worse affected than other airlines by the geopolitical situation and it may very well not work at all. I will be interested in the Minister’s comments on that.

[Viscount Stansgate (Lab)]

My Lords, I rise briefly to support my noble friend and the statutory instrument that he has moved. I understand entirely that it is designed to support a resilient aviation sector, and I just want to ask one question.

The Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee referred, as indeed did my noble friend, to the example of 2022, when, as I understand it, there was a 30% hand-back of slots. I just want to ask, if the information is to hand: what happened afterwards, when the temporary provision ended? Did the slots go back in precisely the same way to the airlines that had them at the time? The reason I ask is because I am curious as to whether, in the current conditions, a 10% hand-back will result in these eventually being handed back to the same airlines. It may or may not be the case, but I would be interested if the Minister has anything he might be able to add on this.

[Baroness Grender (LD)]

My Lords, I thank the Minister for introducing this draft instrument and explaining its purpose, and for the advance meeting with his officials and the briefing they sent. As with all such measures, we need to look not only at the administrative detail but at the practical impact on passengers. Other noble Lords referred to the impact on the airlines themselves; quite a bit of my comment will be about the passengers and about the impact on the wider aviation sector and its sustainability.

These regulations amend the slot usage rules so that airlines at specified UK airports can return a limited proportion of slots for the summer and winter 2026 seasons. We understand the case for flexibility during a period of considerable uncertainty, including in particular the conflict in the Middle East. We do not want airlines to be incentivised to operate empty or near-empty flights simply to preserve the historic slot rights as described by the noble Lord, Lord Kirkhope. That said, flexibility, in our view, must not come at the expense of passengers. Even where there is some notice, these changes, we fear, could still lead to cancellations with relatively little warning, causing significant disruption to travel plans. In a period when household budgets are under pressure and fares remain high, that could mean higher replacement costs for families, as well as losses on hotels, onward travel and other arrangements already paid for. I notice that train tickets is an example that is laid out in the fifth question of appendix 1 of the Department for Transport’s answers to the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee. That is a very good example of what I am talking about here.

There is, too, a broader question of balance. The airline sector is under pressure. We recognise the need to support its long-term sustainability, but we worry that the burden of adjustment should not fall unfairly on passengers, especially leisure travellers, who are less able to absorb sudden change. We feel that we need to be careful that a measure intended to provide resilience does not instead create avoidable uncertainty for customers.

I have a few questions for the Minister. First, what assessment has been made of the likely pattern of cancellations under these rules, including whether certain groups of passengers are more likely to be affected than others? Secondly, what discussions has the department had with airports about the impact of these arrangements on their income, operations and resilience—particularly given that, as I understand it, two airlines opposed this proposal and airports across the board were against it? Thirdly, what evidence led the Government to settle on this particular threshold when airlines had sought a different level of alleviation?

On a point of clarity, I note that the instrument is made under powers in the Retained EU Law (Revocation and Reform) Act 2023. Can the Minister confirm precisely how these powers interact with the timetable for these regulations?

Last but by no means least, I return to the impact on passengers. We understand why the Government are seeking to avoid unnecessary flights being operated simply in order to retain these slots, but the answer cannot be to shift the cost of uncertainty on to travellers. If an airline believes that it cannot operate a slot, there must be a clear and fair mechanism for dealing with that in a way that protects consumers as far as is possible. For that reason, although we recognise the intention behind the regulations, we have some scepticism that this is not entirely the right balance. However, I look forward to hearing more persuasive arguments from the Minister.

[Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Con)]

My Lords, I had not meant to speak; I apologise to the noble Baroness, Lady Grender, for speaking out of turn. The noble Baroness’s questions have prompted two questions from me.

Flight cancellations have been trailed in the press for the past two months. I declare an interest because I am due to fly away in August and September, and I am sure that many families will have already arranged their holidays. We have not seen these cancellations yet. Can the Minister confirm that that is because these regulations have not yet been adopted and that, once they have been adopted, cancellations will happen?

My second question flows naturally from what the noble Baroness, Lady Grender, asked about the impact on consumers. Obviously, the regulations before us give airlines the power to cancel slots for a temporary period and give passengers 14 days’ notice. Passengers used to be covered by the EU package directive, which is a different department. I do not know whether that is still the case, but it would be great if the Minister could write to me on that. He will know that, if your flight is cancelled in July, August or September, which make up peak holiday season because of the school holidays, the chance of you booking another flight for a price similar to the one that you originally booked is nil, so there are going to be huge oncosts. I do not know whether the department has an answer for that. Also, the chance of finding accommodation on an alternative date will probably be slim. Is the department aware that there will be some deeply unhappy families who might be affected in this way?

[Lord Moylan (Con)]

My Lords, I have cast my remarks mainly in the form of a series of questions. Before I come to the first question, let me just say that my noble friend Lady McIntosh of Pickering has put her finger on a very important point. The effect of these regulations is to transfer potential costs that would fall on airlines to passengers and airports. There may be a very good reason why you want to protect the airlines in this way, but one has to recognise that that is the economic effect of what is happening. If you can cancel a flight with no penalty, the circumstances described by my noble friend will of course arise in relation to families. There are also problems for airports, because they have no revenue from that flight and other connecting flights are discombobulated, if I may put it that way, as a consequence.

It is true that they are given by these regulations a 14-day window in which to reallocate the flight. My understanding is that, when the instrument was first drafted and consulted on, they would not have been allowed to reallocate flights at all, so the 14 days are a concession to their interests. But, quite seriously, no large airline will decide to operate a service at 14 days’ notice, because it will not have any passengers. The passengers will not know about it sufficiently in advance, except in extreme circumstances. I want everyone to understand that this is what is happening: potential airline costs are being transferred to passengers and airports.

17:15

I come to my questions. The first has been answered already by the Minister, but it is important to repeat it, just to secure it as a starting point for what we are discussing. It was going to be: is it the Government’s position that there is or is not a fuel shortage? The Minister answered that on his own initiative right at the outset. It is the Government’s position that there is not a fuel shortage. So what is the logic for having this measure, which, as I say, significantly moves costs around the system?

The first reason, as I understood the Minister to say, is that something may happen and we need to be prepared. It is always true, of course, that something may happen and we need to be prepared. I am not disputing that, but the independent company that allocates slots, referred to by my noble friend Lord Kirkhope of Harrogate, already has emergency powers to create this sort of alleviation. No airline loses a slot because it cannot fly to a destination where there is a threat of being hit by a bomb. You do not fly, but you do not lose the slot; the alleviation comes with it because of the circumstances. No airline loses a slot because there is no fuel to put in the tank—that would be absurd. So this system already exists in many ways, and it is difficult to know what the Government are doing in setting this up.

Another reason was given which I regard as something of a chimera because I am not aware of any evidence to support it. That is, if this measure is not put in place, there will be a certain number of empty planes flying around, which we would all agree is an absurdity and not good for the environment or the economy. However, there is not any great evidence that that is happening and the slot system already has, as I say, flexibility that could help deal with that.

My next question is: why did the Government issue these regulations after such a brief consultation? There was a consultation, but it was extremely brief and it came with no warning. Although the Government are in regular dialogue with airlines and airports, there was no warning of this instrument appearing.

Another question on my list was raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Grender, and I will reinforce it. The Minister said that, in the consultation, airlines said that they would like to have a greater alleviation than 10% but this was rejected by the department because they offered no evidence to support it. But what was the evidence on which the Government settled on 10%? Will they publish it? Presumably, they had the evidence to justify 10%, and we know that those asking for 15%, 20% or whatever it was did not. But what constitutes the evidence that would fit that box? What was the Government’s evidence? I think that is one of the things that the noble Baroness was trying to get at, so may we see that evidence?

Coming back to something discussed in Grand Committee a little while ago, my view is that the urgency in doing this is fundamentally to do with the powers gap. The Government have given a scandalous lack of attention to the perfectly well-known fact that a piece of crucial legislation will expire on 23 June. That date has been set in stone for at least several years, and any Government could have set out in advance to deal with it.

The Department for Transport relies on the retained EU law Act for quite a range of regulatory adjustments, but it will no longer be able to do so. It will in relation to slots and aviation, because the civil aviation Bill is going through your Lordships’ House and will then go to the other place, so that meets that. But what about the regulation of the marine economy and shipping? There is no provision. None of that can be done. It is dead. It stops unless it is done by Act of Parliament, but every time that we ask Ministers about this they just look baffled, as if we were speaking a foreign language. It is a serious problem that the Government are not fronting up to. As was seen in the previous debate, this does not simply affect the Department for Transport but has consequences across Whitehall. What is the answer? What are the Government going to do?

I do not understand. There must be a rationale for why the Government have made these regulations so favourable to airlines and so damaging to everybody else. How did they get to that point, given that they could have relied on the emergency powers of the company? I admit that I fail to remember the name of the company that allocates the slots. Also, why does the alleviation extend to the winter season? One would have thought that the summer season is as far forward as one can reasonably see and is the point at which there is greatest stress on the aviation system, with the greater number of passengers flying and so forth. Why have the Government extended it to the winter season?

I also have a question which was tabled by my right honourable friend Richard Holden MP in the House of Commons but which the department has failed to answer. I repeat it in the hope that the Minister can give me an answer:

“To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, whether her Department has made an assessment of the potential merits of introducing formal trigger mechanisms or objective thresholds for future slot alleviation measures relating to aviation fuel disruption”.

What we have here is complete “Liberty Hall” for the airlines. They just have to say, “We’re cancelling. We’re allowed to and we’re keeping the slot—we don’t have to give a reason”. There is no threshold in place. There is no mechanism that justifies this wantonness. Why did the Government decide not to do that?

I cannot fail to mention the huge damage that has been done to airports by the Government’s bone-crushing business rate increases, as I called them the other day. They must understand that adding these extra difficulties and costs to the operation of airports is a threat to the aviation system in this country. I hope that the Minister can answer those questions, that I have been sufficiently clear in asking them and that those which do not get a full answer today will be answered in writing afterwards, to be shared with other Members of the Grand Committee.

[Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill (Lab)]

I thank all noble Lords for their consideration of these draft regulations and for the thoughtful points that have been raised. I will attempt to answer as many as I can now. On those that I cannot, I will write to the noble Lord concerned and to other noble Lords present.

I thank the noble Lord, Lord Kirkhope of Harrogate, who has considerable experience. I cannot find in the draft statutory instrument any reference to a five-year term. The measure put forward today is about only the summer season and the winter season of 2026. He will find the permanent proposition for slot regulation in the civil aviation Bill, which I have no doubt he is studying more or less as we speak. I hope that will satisfy him, but if not we can discuss it afterwards.

My understanding about the three types of airport and what might trigger a change in categorisation is that it is triggered by the airport itself and by the level of potential use and, therefore, congestion. The company itself, Airport Coordination Limited, is clearly very efficient, with 40 employees, but there is a wider point that goes to some of the questions. A lot of this is about the stability of both the airlines and the airports sector. We are good at this in Britain, and we want the airline sector to prosper. We have to give it some stability in circumstances in which the international situation has destabilised it a bit.

I cannot answer the noble Lord, Lord Grayling, about the impact on individual airlines. He is clearly right that airlines that fly directly to the Middle East will be more affected than those that do not. On the impact of the wider geopolitical circumstances for any potential fuel shortage, I am very happy to confirm that the Government do not currently believe that there is an airline fuel shortage, but there could be in future, and if there is, we need to make adequate preparation for it in advance. It is quite hard to know where that might apply, so we have to apply some general thought to how we manage this. A lot of what is going on here is about giving some stability and certainty to airlines to resume normal business when they can, and it is about what happens, proportionately, to airports that rely on a throughput of passengers.

[Lord Grayling (Con)]

The question I raised with the Minister is absolutely central to the Government’s decision to take a 5% or 10% figure. He said that the airlines wanted more. I explained a very specific circumstance in which one particular airline—there will be many others affected in that way—would need more. He therefore needs to explain why the Government have fixed on this figure when the airlines said that it was not the right figure and common sense says that many would need more.

[Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill (Lab)]

I thank the noble Lord. The answer is that the airlines provided little or no evidence of any figure but would prefer more because that would give them more flexibility in circumstances where airports would have preferred this not to happen.

[Lord Grayling (Con)]

I am not interested in what the airlines said they wanted, because the department took the decision to alight on a particular figure. The Minister has not explained why the department took that decision, when simple common sense says that many airlines would need a different figure because of the basic arithmetic I described to him earlier.

[Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill (Lab)]

The answer to that point, whether or not it satisfies the noble Lord, is that we have to do something in general in these circumstances. Previous circumstances of various sorts have produced different figures. The Covid figure was 30%; I do not know how that was calculated. We feel the need to do something because we have to give some certainty both to airlines and to potential airline passengers. I take his point about the geographical differences and will certainly write to him further about what individual airlines in those circumstances said. I have no evidence that certain airlines proposed huge differences, but I will certainly go away and find out about that.

17:30

I will write to the noble Viscount, Lord Stansgate, about the experience of the 30% hand-back in 2022.

The noble Baroness, Lady Grender, raised a question about whether some groups of passengers will be more affected by this than others. We do not have any current evidence that that is the case, but one can clearly envisage that this might affect some more than others. The argument for doing it is to give some certainty in advance, rather than find last-minute cancellations. We know that airlines are keen on keeping their slots; they work very hard to make sure of that. We do not want short-term bad effects on passengers and airline schedules and, thereafter, people making up their 80% with flights that are near empty in order to keep the slots that they would otherwise lose.

If I may, I will write to the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh of Pickering, because I cannot answer her questions immediately, other than to say that flight cancellations have been trailed in the press. There have been some, but this is a way of making sure that airlines are better able to manage in these circumstances, when we do not yet know what will happen in the summer and into the winter. I have said that the Government believe that there is no current fuel shortage; that may change, but so may the international situation. It is sensible to take a view on this. I absolutely take the point that it may not suit passengers to have 14 days’ notice, but it would be better than them having virtually no notice.

I have already answered some of the points asked by the noble Lord, Lord Moylan. He also asked about a brief consultation with no warning, but it is fair to say that the situation in the Middle East blew up with no warning. In the circumstances, the Government should react.

The noble Lord knows the arguments about retained EU law; all I will say on that for now is that he said that we have no plans for this, but the civil aviation Bill is intended to replace those powers, at least in the circumstances of aviation. In the meantime, the Government feel the need to bring this SI forward, simply to give some certainty about the summer and winter schedules for both airlines and passengers. The airline industry in Britain and for travel to and from Britain needs some certainty, because a lot of our international trade depends on it. This measure is designed to give it some certainty in relatively uncertain geopolitical circumstances across the world.

I do not have an answer to the question that the noble Lord raised from the other place, but I will attempt to answer it in writing.

We are trying to do our best for an industry—both airlines and airports—that is being affected by some difficult headwinds. We believe that these regulations represent a practical and proportionate response to this period of uncertainty for the whole sector. They will protect passengers by enabling greater certainty and earlier communication. They support airlines in maintaining viable and realistic schedules, and they help to ensure that scarce airport capacity is used efficiently and responsibly. Above all, they demonstrate that the Government are forward looking and acting early to prevent disruption rather than responding reactively. I commend the instrument to the Committee.

Motion agreed.