Civil Aviation (Consumer Protection and Regulatory Reform) Bill [HL]

Debate between Baroness Bray of Coln and Lord Kirkhope of Harrogate

Committee stage
Thursday 18th June 2026 Grand Committee

[Lord Kirkhope of Harrogate (Con)]

In proposing Amendment 65, I must declare again my interests as set out at Second Reading. I have held a private pilot’s licence for about 40 years now. I am an officer of the All-Party Parliamentary Group on General Aviation, and I am the author of its inquiry into our lower airspace that was conducted a year or two ago. I am honorary vice-president of the British Airline Pilots Association and a former airport director. In a way, I am looking at this subject from rather more than one perspective.

At Second Reading, I pressed the Minister on Clause 6, and, in particular, on the change it makes to who must pay for air traffic and air navigation services from

“operators or owners of aircraft”

to simply “persons”. I asked what lay behind this decision and whether it was prompted by newer developments such as drone delivery, and at that point I referred to the Minister nodding his head. I am afraid that perhaps I was taking too much on in assuming that the nod related to my remarks—I make no aspersions otherwise. I said then that the burden on general aviation ought to remain broadly where it sits today.

This amendment would require the Secretary of State and the authority in exercising their functions over these charges to have regard to two matters: the growth and sustainability of general aviation, and the desirability of ensuring that those carrying out general aviation activities do not pay charges disproportionate to the use they make of the services. Many of my colleagues here who have spoken earlier in these debates have indicated their interest in general aviation, so there are quite a lot of us around, but it is important that I explain to the Committee that general aviation means civil aviation other than commercial air transport. It includes gliders, light aeroplanes, microlights, and the private and training flights of which I spoke earlier. It is not airlines and it is not, as I shall come to say, drones. On the Government’s figures in their general aviation strategy, the sector contributes, they accept, something in the order of £3 billion in gross value added and supports some 38,000 jobs. It is around 1/14th of the size of the commercial airline industry.

The figure I ask the Committee to hold in mind is that a great majority of those who sit at the front of the airliners that this Bill is chiefly concerned with—by some estimates three-quarters or more—began in general aviation, very often paying for their own training at the small flying schools the regulator knows as declared and approved training organisations. Those same schools and that same flying give us our future air traffic controllers and aircraft engineers, as well as those who pilot light aircraft. With Boeing and Airbus alike forecasting a need for several hundred thousand new pilots around the world in the years ahead, this is exactly the wrong moment to make it more expensive to learn to fly. From my involvement with the British Airline Pilots Association, I can tell the Committee that the profession, as was referred to earlier by the noble Lord, Lord Tunnicliffe, watches the health of general aviation closely, for it is from there that the profession is renewed.

I will mention drones, for I suspect they lie close to the heart of the change. The Government have been candid that the Bill is needed in part because of new users of the air—the drones and the air taxis that will follow. I do not quarrel with that. Those users will make real demands on a future digital airspace and it is fair that they should pay their share, but the drone is not general aviation. They are governed by a separate code altogether in the air navigation orders and the unmanned aircraft regulations, in their own open, specific and certified category. My concern is that, when one widens the net from the owner and operator of an aircraft to any person, one catches the drone operator one is aiming at but one may also catch the local gliding club.

The danger is of a single standard designed for the commercial airliner being pressed on everyone, bringing cost and complication to those who fly small and simple aircraft—not always terribly simple, I might add. A glider under tow or a training aeroplane in the circuit draws on a fraction of the air traffic services that an airliner consumes or, for that matter, a fleet of delivery drones one day will. The charge each meets should reflect that and no more. There is a related point that it can hardly be right to levy a charge on a person who does not use and cannot use the very service being charged for. That is the principle behind this amendment: that those who make little use of the system should bear little of its cost.

I want to be clear about what I am not asking. I am not asking that general aviation be exempted from all charges. It pays its way today and it should continue to do so. Nor am I seeking to frustrate the much-needed programme of modernisation that, rightly, this Bill provides for. I supported its general objectives at Second Reading and continue to support them now. I ask only that, as these powers are set out in greater detail, the interests of general aviation are kept in view and the principle of proportionality is clearly set out, rather than left to assurances by the Secretary of State.

If the Minister can tell me that the Government have no intention of drawing general aviation into a charging regime built for the airlines or for commercial drone activity, and that he will consider how that intention might be given proper statutory form, that would be enormously welcome.

[Baroness Bray of Coln (Con)]

My Lords, it is a pleasure to follow the noble Lord, Lord Kirkhope. I support the proposal from the noble Lord, Lord Grayling, of a targeted consultation with local communities.

It will surely be the case that, as part of the civil aviation Bill, there will be changes to the use of airspace overhead and the potential not only for increased numbers of flights but the redesign of flight paths and expanding airports. It must surely follow, then, that, as part of the planning and preparation for these changes, residents who may experience new aircraft overflights, increased noise and other meaningful impacts, such as increased traffic on roads leading to local airports, should be given a meaningful role in considering these changes.

It is already the case that government and CAA policy recognises that airspace changes can have significant impacts on people on the ground and therefore includes consultation and stakeholder engagement requirements, but that sometimes feels a little like a box-ticking exercise. I feel strongly that it must be more than that. Communities that may find themselves under new or intensified flight paths deserve a meaningful voice in these decisions that seriously affect their quality of life.

I recognise that the updating of our aviation policies is an essential process from time to time, but surely the best outcomes are achieved through reasonable discussion. A stronger consultation framework may well deliver reforms more smoothly and avoid delay in being implemented, which can arise where opposition intensifies. Whereas existing consultation processes are often seen as insufficient as they take place too late in the process after key decisions have already, in effect, been made, proper engagement with those affected at an earlier stage and a clear demonstration of how their views are being considered is more likely to appear proportionate and pragmatic.

I am not suggesting that communities could or should have a complete veto over necessary airspace changes, but it would help ensure that residents who may experience substantial increases in overhead flights are fully consulted earlier and can see how their concerns are being taken into account. The key may be to introduce formal reviews of new routes after a year or so, independently conducted, and a commitment to revisit the design if impacts prove worse than forecast. The most defensible demand is surely a requirement that decision-makers must demonstrate how community representations have been considered and explain publicly why particular concerns were accepted or rejected.

Yes, residents already have consultation rights in relation to airport expansion and airspace changes, but they are limited and there is no guarantee at the moment that community concerns will materially affect the outcome. The issue is not whether consultation occurs but whether it is meaningful. Communities facing substantial increases in aircraft noise should have a guaranteed opportunity to influence decisions and receive a clear explanation of how their views have been taken into account.