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

Lord Davies of Gower Excerpts

Committee stage
Tuesday 16th June 2026 Grand Committee

[Lord Moylan (Con)]

My Lords, this Bill represents and achieves an astonishing transfer of power away from Parliament and away from the scrutiny that your Lordships and Members of the other place have customarily brought to regulation and legislation pertaining to the field of civil aviation. Some of this is a necessary transfer of power to the Minister since we have left the European Union. One bears in mind that much of the regulation in the field of consumer protection was made by the European Union, but that is no longer the case and any changes that we might want to make to it now need to be made by a different mechanism. This Bill provides that mechanism, but it does so in a way that is not adequately scrutinised by Parliament. The Bill does other things, one of which is that it makes a massive and unprecedented transfer of power to the Civil Aviation Authority. We will discuss that in a later group and we will want to probe it, because it will be wholly outside the remit of parliamentary scrutiny.

Those are the key constitutional and legal issues, it seems to me, at the heart of the Bill and we must probe them forcefully, even though I completely understand that other noble Lords will bring forward particular measures that they feel would improve the operation of civil aviation. Those are, for the purposes of this Bill, secondary, because the intention is that this Bill does not make those decisions; it is to provide a framework to allow them to be made by other routes. The crucial thing is ensuring that those other routes are under proper parliamentary control.

My Amendment 1 would insert a purpose clause. I know that Governments do not particularly like purpose clauses; they do not want to disclose to the rest of the world and to Parliament what they are actually trying to achieve with a piece of legislation. None the less, I put one in to probe the Government on what they are trying to achieve with this. The Government’s own impact assessment says that the Bill is designed to

“unlock the benefits of airport expansion … help the UK aviation sector to grow … reinforcing the UK’s global leadership in aviation”.

If that is in fact their purpose, I do not see that they can object to a clause that says as much in the Bill, which is the effect of my Amendment 1.

The amendment would insert a purpose clause stating that the Act should

“promote the international competitiveness of the United Kingdom aviation sector … support economic growth”

and

“protect the rights and interests of consumers”.

They are not in conflict with each other, and they should not be treated as if they are. A strong aviation sector needs passengers to have confidence in their rights, but it also needs airlines, airports and investors to have confidence that regulation will be proportionate, predictable and pro-growth. Amendment 23 is intended to make sure that, when the Secretary of State makes regulations under Clause 1, the impact on growth is considered at the start, rather than as an afterthought.

In other words, Amendment 1 would apply to the whole Bill, and Amendment 23 seeks to apply the same effect to Clause 1, which relates in particular to consumer rights. It is obviously vital that consumers are properly protected, but they should be protected in a way that supports demand for aviation, encourages investment and allows aviation businesses to grow. The Government have repeatedly said that economic growth is their number one priority. I fully realise that, depending on the day of the week, there will be a different number one priority. But, at various times, growth has occupied that slot, so the Government should be prepared to apply that test to the regulations made under the Bill. The amendment is simply asking the Minister to take seriously the economic consequences of the powers that they are seeking.

Amendment 24 concerns alignment with EU law and international standards. I was appalled when I read the large final-stage impact assessment document. By page three it is already talking about aligning with European Union legislation. We know that the European Union at the moment is in the midst, or maybe approaching the end, of a contested argument about changes to consumer protection rights. We can take it, with some degree of certainty, that there will be changes to aviation consumer protection rights in the European Union as a result of those discussions.

Already, the department is thinking not what is best for Britain, what is best for the growth of the aviation sector, nor what is best for passengers. It is simply thinking the way it has thought for 47 years: what are we going to do to align with the European Union? To prevent that from being the lodestar of how regulation develops in the future, Amendment 24 would put in certain trip-wires in any case where the intention is to align with European Union regulations. I object to the assumption that the United Kingdom’s ambition should be merely to mirror what the European Union does next.

Amendment 25 concerns the Government’s own target to reduce the administrative cost of regulation on businesses by 25% by the end of this Parliament. That is a noble ambition, to which I can give every level of support. It is an ambition where it is difficult to see, even though the Government have now been in power for about two years, that progress has been made in those first two years. The Public Accounts Committee has warned that the Treasury and the Department for Business and Trade do not have a robust plan to deliver the 25% reduction in administrative burdens. It has also said that the Treasury does not even know if the Government are on track.

In light of that, it is important that in any Bill that is to do with business, there is a requirement that the Government meet their own target on the reduction of the effects of regulatory burdens. Of course, it is open to the Minister to say that that is no longer the Government’s target, and that would be an interesting policy development. But if it is the Government’s target, it is about time that they started meeting it. This amendment is aimed directly at that.

These amendments are not about weakening passenger rights. They are about making sure that passenger rights sit within a regulatory framework that strengthens the aviation sector rather than holding it back. I beg to move.

[Lord Davies of Gower (Con)]

My Lords, I will speak to Amendment 113. It has been on a bit of a circuitous tour of groupings, but I am pleased to say that it is back in group 1. I declare my membership of the Aircraft Owners and Pilots Association. I am vice-president, and I apologise for not mentioning that at Second Reading.

My Amendment 113 is very clear. It seeks to require the Secretary of State and the Civil Aviation Authority, when exercising functions under this Act, to

“have regard to the need to promote and encourage general aviation”.

To achieve this, the Secretary of State and the Civil Aviation Authority

“must consult such persons representing general aviation as they consider appropriate”.

Given the importance of the general aviation community within the UK aviation sector, one would have thought that it would have at least merited an appearance in the Bill, but no. There is not even the tiniest of mentions.

The Minister will recall that, at Second Reading, my noble friend Lord Kirkhope and I spoke passionately about the relevance of general aviation. I even asked questions of the Minister, to which his response was:

“The noble Lord, Lord Davies of Gower, asked about general aviation. This Government support general aviation. They see the connection, particularly with training pilots and so forth, and will continue to maintain their interest in general aviation. They note the importance of general aviation in airspace modernisation and will continue to consult it”.—[Official Report, 2/6/26; col. 827.]


I was very grateful for that short response. However, I am not persuaded as to how this will be achieved. Indeed, it takes two to tango, and I am not currently convinced that, for general aviation, what is on offer at present sufficiently demonstrates that the DfT and the CAA are willing dancing partners.

There is also a belief—I have heard it said—that this is not an appropriate Bill in which to raise the issues of general aviation. I disagree vehemently with that notion. The Bill is clear in its intention: it is a Bill

“to make provision about airspace change, air traffic and air navigation services”,

which are parts that GA is very interested in, and

“to confer power on the Civil Aviation Authority to make rules”

and

“to make provision about aviation offences”,

which GA is extremely interested in and subject to the effect of. These, I suggest, are extremely relevant to general aviation, and we need a recognised voice.

As a vital part of the aviation community, general aviation plays a hugely significant role. I pointed out at Second Reading that, at the last count, it contributes £4 billion to the UK’s economy and supports some 40,000 jobs. Yet it is treated as a peripheral, regarded as nothing more than hobby flying. The current Government, unlike the previous one, do nothing to recognise the value of the sector, having disposed of the general aviation unit within the DfT—an issue I asked for confirmation about at Second Reading, but I did not get a response. Martin Robinson, the chief executive of the Aircraft Owners and Pilots Association, put it well when he said that general aviation

“should be recognised as a strategic national asset and … should be reflected in the Secretary of State’s priorities for the CAA”,

but there is not a mention of it in the Bill.

General aviation underpins much of UK aviation. It is where most pilots begin their careers and is the first step on the ladder to becoming a commercial pilot or an aero engineer. General aviation supports business aviation, the emergency services, aerial surveying, engineering skills and a whole lot more. Yet, as I have said, there is no mention of it in the Bill. Again, I am reminded of Martin Robinson’s words:

“The challenge is not hostility so much as a persistent institutional mindset that prioritises airline operations, major airports, and commercial air transport”,


leaving general aviation struggling to be heard. Although I am afraid that the worm is making a very strategic turn, to be ignored in a Bill of such importance is foolhardy and contradicts any aim of making the UK the best place in the world for general aviation as a flourishing, wealth-generating and job-producing sector of the economy.

My amendment is well intentioned. If we are to create an environment which enhances safety and encourages compliance then, without the voice of general aviation being heard at the top table, we are likely to endure overly complex regulation, which will create unnecessary barriers, particularly for smaller organisations with limited resources. I urge the Government to accept my amendment, and I commend it to the Committee.

--- Later in debate ---

So, this amendment is a call for the CAA to give a lead and shine a spotlight on this challenge, which, if we do not address it successfully, will blight the prospects of delivering the growth that we want to see in the sector. The proposed annual report would show the challenge that the whole sector needs to address. BALPA is keen to engage with the sector and with the Government to think together about how we can successfully begin to address this financial challenge.

[Lord Davies of Gower (Con)]

My Lords, I will speak to my Amendment 65A, through which I am pleased to have the opportunity to address the issue of instrument training. I confess that it is a dry subject, but it is essential and falls within the scope of group 5.

The CAA published its refreshed general aviation strategy in October 2025, setting out its vision for

“A safe, innovative, and sustainable general aviation sector”


operating within

“a proportionate and supportive regulatory environment”.

In the report, the CAA acknowledged that, while progress has been made,

“The GA sector faces … challenges including declining flying hours, a stagnating number of recreational pilot licence holders, as well as an ageing fleet of aircraft”.


One very challenging aspect facing general aviation at present, which has not been adequately addressed, is support for self-improver pilots in instrument training: the pilots who pay their own way from initial training for a private pilot’s licence through to commercial pilot qualification and who have, incidentally, traditionally made up the vast majority of commercial pilots. This access to instrument training challenge also applies to students on approved airline pilot training courses, and this reinforces the points made by the noble Lord, Lord Barber of Ainsdale: no training, no pilots. One of the essential ingredients to becoming a commercial pilot, or indeed an additional qualification for any private pilot, is instrument rating. I assure noble Lords that it is an exacting test of 55 hours of blind flying, mathematics and flying skill that allows pilots eventually to fly in and make approaches to airports in marginal weather conditions.

The challenge pilots undertaking training now face, however, is access to airports with the facilities to enable training for the instrument rating qualification. Currently in the UK, there is a complete lack of instrument approach training slots. The whole of the UK professional flight training industry cannot deliver for UK-based students the full range of navigational performance training which is reliant upon satellite-based signals. As I pointed out at Second Reading, worse still, all these GPS-supported approaches are only two-dimensional, lateral and non-positional. Three-dimensional precision requires the European geostationary navigation overlay service—EGNOS—safety-of-life service to enable the airport to provide this. I will not dwell on EGNOS, as there will be more of that later.

Across the channel, in places such as Jersey and in other European countries, and indeed in the USA, a full suite of approaches to training aircraft is available, as they still benefit—certainly in Europe at least—from the EGNOS signal in space. This is a loss of revenue and skills base to the UK. Similarly, air traffic control officers cannot do more than train in simulation for 3D approaches, which can get as low as 250 feet above the runway.

Many UK instrument rating instructors and CAA examiners have highlighted the issues relating to the instrument rating training. The situation has been ongoing for the past 15 years and has been noticeably worse in the last 10 years. The situation has been highlighted to the Civil Aviation Authority, but as yet nothing has been addressed.

My amendment seeks to find a remedy to account for the lack of opportunity for instrument training through the limited availability of suitably equipped airfields. There are many reasons for it: the closure of UK airfields; the removal of instrument landing systems, partly due to the expense of maintaining them to the approved standard; the availability of navigational aids at the airfields that remain open and which accept training flights; the cost of transit flights for the students to access airfields with required navigation aids; and the general shortage of air traffic controllers, both civil and military. Quite a number of airports in the UK do have facilities, although they are not made easily accessible for one reason or another, yet at varying times of the day they have a certain amount of redundancy. Furthermore, a large number of military airfields with the necessary facilities also have a great deal of redundancy.

In conclusion, the purpose of my amendment is to open the debate to see whether there is a way to encourage availability where there is this redundancy. I fully recognise the challenge this creates across government departments, but the situation has become quite dire and the solution requires some thought. I hope that the Minister appreciates my concern and is willing to give some thought to the solution, together with the CAA, which, of course, is responsible for licensing the instrument approaches.

[Baroness Foster of Oxton (Con)]

My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Holmes, for his very interesting take and amendments in this area.

I want to come to pilot training. I support the noble Lord, Lord Barber, who, as a former trade union negotiator for British Airways cabin crew, worked very closely with our BALPA colleagues for many years—and that continues. I agree with what he said.

My ex-husband trained at Hamble—as I think the noble Lord, Lord Tunnicliffe, will remember—and when I joined the airline industry, our pilots had come from the RAF or the schemes run by BEA, BOAC and then British Airways. Other pilots went to Oxford Flying School, Prestwick or various other places. It was always a costly venture for any pilot not part of the state-owned airline industry as such. But we have moved on, and the noble Lord is right to say that it is fine to complain but we need some action.

As the noble Lord said, it costs in the region of £100,000 to train somebody up to be a commercial pilot. That is an extremely good investment for an airline but, as has been mentioned, British Airways and Jet2 appear to be the only airlines prepared to put their money where their mouth is.

These loans, if they come as loans, guarantee that those pilots will pay them back over the years. Unlike certain students, perhaps, I do not think they are going to disappear into the long grass. So it behoves government to start to look at a student loan-type scheme. Industry and the airlines need to step up, and those complaining of a shortage of pilots coming forward need to look at the schemes run by BA and Jet2 and start to provide some incentive and some action to deal with a possible shortage over the next few years.

This is a fantastic profession and those young men and women who go into it will have a rewarding career until their mid-60s. I think it behoves all of us to do everything we can. While we encourage youngsters to go to university, this is a profession that really needs to be supported. We now need to get outside the box and start to look at ways to get in those young, enthusiastic people who will be our brilliant pilots of the future.

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

Lord Davies of Gower Excerpts

2nd reading
Tuesday 2nd June 2026 Lords Chamber

[Lord Davies of Gower (Con)]

My Lords, it is a pleasure to follow the noble Baroness, Lady Antrobus. I begin by declaring my membership of the All-Party Parliamentary Group on Aviation, and indeed as an aviator who contributes greatly every year to the CAA. Let me say at the outset that I broadly support the objectives of the Bill. The Minister referred to the essentials of the Bill in his opening speech. They were the subject of the communication of 20 April 2026 from the DfT to the chair of the CAA outlining the DfT’s expectations and priorities for the next period. They include: growth and innovation; the economic regulation of aviation; airspace modernisation; the decarbonisation of aviation; modernising the CAA’s focus on aviation’s passenger and freight customers, so as to put the consumer first; and efficiency, effectiveness and resilience. I will return to those in a while.

First, I want to identify a glaring omission in the Bill. It is conspicuous by its absence. No reference whatever has been made in the DfT’s priorities to general aviation. There is not one mention in the whole of the Bill to what is, for many in the industry, the front door to their career, whether they be air crew or ground crew. Why should we be concerned that there is no mention of general aviation in the Bill? It is a section of the industry that contributes £4 billion to the UK’s economy and supports some 40,000 jobs. This may be seen as a small slice of UK aviation’s £50 billion to £100 billion GDP footprint, but it underpins things such as pilot training, emergency services and business connectivity.

Since 2018, general aviation has faced pressures from lower disposable incomes, rising costs and economic uncertainty, and this has reduced activity across recreational flying, training and private ownership. Since Covid, GA activity has failed to recover. The CAA’s data reveals a 40% reduction in all GA activities. I understand that the CAA issued only some 1,300 private pilot licences last year. I would expect the DfT to be extremely concerned, instead of which I understand that the department has disbanded its GA section. Perhaps the Minister could confirm and comment on that. As GA supports jobs, skills and pilot training pathways, proportionate regulation and avoiding unnecessary burdens are important to maintaining confidence and investment. Given the circumstances that GA finds itself in, I am extremely concerned that the Government’s enhanced consumer protection measures do not create unintended burdens for smaller airports, aerodromes and GA operators. What assurances can the Minister give in relation to that?

The Minister may well be wondering why there should be concern. Put simply, air crew, such as pilots, do not magically appear fresh out of an easyJet- or British Airways-trained box. They are the result of people starting at the very bottom of the ladder, through gliding, progressing through the private pilot’s licence, many add-on qualifications, instrument ratings and the mountain of exams needed to gain a commercial pilot’s licence—the so-called improver route. All this is achieved at grass-roots level by small flying clubs and schools and small grass airfields at enormous cost to the individual and risk to small businesses with the fluctuating cost of fuel and newly imposed employment taxes.

In terms of airspace, while I accept that the basic design has not changed in 70 years, despite technological advantages—I note that the Government’s policy paper is keen to single out the safe integration of drones, which is to be welcomed, as lower airspace is where congestion, particularly with general aviation, occurs and will continue to do so—I ask: what safeguards are in place to ensure that airspace reform decisions remain transparent and evidence-based and fairly balance commercial, environmental and wider aviation user interests?

The Government seek to expand the CAA’s enforcement powers. What mechanisms will ensure accountability, proportionality and appropriate parliamentary oversight of those powers? I am keen to learn from the Minister how the DfT proposes to safeguard these changes for non-airline operators.

This debate would not be complete without mention of the European geostationary navigation overlay service, commonly known and referred to as EGNOS, the satellite-based augmentation system that improves the precision and integrity of global positioning systems; in particular, the EGNOS Safety of Life Service— note “safety of life”—which is used in safety-critical applications, such as in the aviation sector. Back in June 2022, the All-Party Parliamentary Group on Aviation asked Oxera, the Oxford-based economics and finance consultancy, to assess the business case for a temporary reinstatement of EGNOS. It pointed out that

“prior to leaving the EU, the UK civil aviation sector invested heavily into satellite-based approaches because of the significant safety and reliability advantages that satellite-based approaches offer compared to traditional approaches (i.e. non-precision navigational aids) … Despite these investments, the UK is currently the only state in the G20 without useable access to a precise satellite-based navigation system, whereas other countries are increasingly moving towards relying on precision satellite-based approaches”.

What does this mean in reality? It has really serious consequences. It means that remote areas of the United Kingdom that rely on small regional airlines, such as Loganair in Scotland, are unable to operate in inclement weather conditions. I note that the noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, who was due to participate in this debate, has been stranded for a number of days on the Isles of Scilly, which are fog-bound. As a result of our non-participation in EGNOS, the likelihood of aircraft operating into the islands in such conditions is remote.

In relation to air crew training, in addition to the lack of instrument approach training slots, the whole UK professional flight training industry cannot deliver for UK-based students the full range of performance-based navigation training, which is reliant on satellite-based signals. Worse still, all these GPS-supported approaches are only 2D lateral non-precision; 3D precision requires the EGNOS Safety of Life Service to enable the airport to provide this. So training aircraft cross the channel to places such as Jersey and other European countries where a full suite of approaches are available, as they still benefit from the EGNOS signal in space. This is a major revenue and talent loss to the UK GA sector. Similarly, air traffic control offices cannot do more than train in simulation for 3D approaches.

Lastly, the All-Party Parliamentary Group for Air Ambulances, of which I am a member, is pushing government hard across a range of topics. As we speak, there is a reception to launch a report on the case for safeguarded 24/7 on-site hospital helipads. A big part of its lobbying is on the lack of helimed point-in-space procedures for hospitals, which are EGNOS reliant. The loss of EGNOS access weakens aviation safety and NHS trauma care goals. Without reinstatement, increasing air ambulance mission cancellations put these strategies—and patient outcomes—at risk. Perhaps the Minister can tell us what the Government have in mind in relation to EGNOS.

I will end here but implore the Minister to again consider reinstating EGNOS membership as a matter of urgency. Above all, I implore the Government to give due consideration to general aviation when prioritising their goals and directions to the CAA. At present, I fear they clearly are not doing so.

Great Western Railway: Infrastructure

Lord Davies of Gower Excerpts

Wednesday 21st January 2026 Lords Chamber

Asked by

[Lord Davies of Gower]

To ask His Majesty’s Government what assessment they have made of the condition, maintenance, and long-term resilience of rail infrastructure on the Great Western Railway network; and what steps they are taking to ensure its reliability following recent flooding and extreme weather.

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

My Lords, Network Rail has robust plans in place to deal with resilience because of climate change. The Wales and western region will see a £2.6 billion spend on asset renewals and £1.6 billion invested to maintain assets from 2024 to 2029. There is also a comprehensive weather resilience and climate change adaptation plan focusing on safe- guarding assets, embedding resilience into daily operations and adapting to climate change impacts along the route.

[Lord Davies of Gower (Con)]

My Lords, recent months have seen the western region suffer delays and cancellations through infrastructure issues. Signalling failure is partly to blame, but inclement weather frequently causes severe flooding. In particular, Chipping Sodbury tunnel, built in 1902, has been plagued by flooding issues since the day it opened. Successive Governments have funded remedial work over the years on a piecemeal basis, but, as the Minister is aware from his former role at Network Rail, this has not provided a solution to the ongoing problem. Can he therefore commit to resolving the issue in order to bring travel in the western region into the 21st century? As the operator, can he take steps to ensure that GWR provides a full set of rolling stock on its intercity services, as opposed to the frequently provided overcrowded half-set of carriages?

[Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill (Lab)]

The noble Lord knows more about Chipping Sodbury now because I arranged for the route director for the western route to talk to him. He is right that it was opened in 1902. Great Western Railway built the cutting and the tunnel straight through an aquifer and it has been flooding ever since. The good news is that remedial work over the past five years has significantly reduced the delays created by flooding in that location. However, there are many other examples of flooding due to climate change, including, as he knows, one recently in Neath, which has never flooded before.

Sustainable Aviation Fuel Bill

Lord Davies of Gower Excerpts

2nd reading
Thursday 20th November 2025 Lords Chamber

[Lord Davies of Gower (Con)]

My Lords, it is a pleasure to contribute to this debate on the Second Reading of the Sustainable Aviation Fuel Bill. I declare an interest as vice-chair of the Aviation All-Party Parliamentary Group.

I do not intend to make a lengthy speech, but I shall touch on the essential ingredient of the Bill: the introduction of a revenue certainty mechanism to support the production of sustainable aviation fuel in the UK. We know that the Government currently impose an SAF mandate on the aviation industry whereby 2% of aviation fuel used in the UK must be SAF. That target is set to rise to 10% by 2030 and 22% by 2040—somewhat ambitious, I believe; nevertheless, that is the target.

I have met and spoken to representatives of all aspects of the industry, at their request, over the last year—airport owners, airline representatives and SAF producers, to name but a few. They all have one thing in common: a genuine desire to see the introduction of lower-carbon alternatives to conventional aviation fuel, which is very encouraging, particularly when you look at some other sectors.

Worthy of mention, perhaps, is that, on the domestic front, in 2022 the Royal Air Force and industry partners carried out the world’s first 100% SAF flight, in an RAF Voyager, an Airbus product with, I might add, wings constructed in Wales. We know that most of the SAF currently produced is HEFA-based: that is to say, made from hydro-processed esters and fatty acids—hence the acronym HEFA—that are derived from oils or fats such as cooking oil. A 2025 market report produced by companies in the sector stated that globally, 82% of current SAF capacity relies on HEFA technology, which is limited by available feedstocks. Moving forward, we look to second-generation and third-generation SAFs from solid waste and other materials.

The Climate Change Committee, the independent adviser to the UK Government on climate risk, said in its 2025 report to Parliament that SAF supply was sufficient to meet the Government’s current SAF mandate that 2% of aviation fuel must be SAF. However, it said that meeting the Government’s 10% target by 2030 was “uncertain” as production of different forms of SAF

“will need to scale up”.

The committee said that SAF producers must now start to diversify away from HEFA-based forms of SAF if the 2030 target is to be achieved.

That brings me to the main points that I wish to raise with the Government today. I believe that the Bill will be successful if it includes the necessary provisions to protect existing SAF production in the UK and maintain its competitiveness in the international market. A number of global renewables companies are in the process of developing techniques to produce low-cost, low-carbon SAF, and they have chosen to conduct business here in the UK. I know this to be true because I have met them. They see the UK as a convenient climate in which to operate. Coupled with the SAF mandate already in force, this could make the UK a leader in green aviation fuel production.

However, if the Government are serious about building a UK SAF industry and capturing the green jobs and fuel security benefits of doing so, the revenue certainty mechanism needs to be introduced at pace. Other major economies are moving ahead with their own plans to support domestic SAF production, particularly in Europe through the EU’s green deal industrial plan, which provides billions of euros in incentives. If UK policy incentives do not keep pace with these markets, this will at best delay production and at worst mean that companies move their global hub and associated production facilities overseas.

I ask the Minister: how seriously do the Government take the need to move at pace to retain companies developing SAF in the UK? Does he agree that if SAF production is to be viable for developers, they will require early access to the designated counterparty for revenue certainty mechanism negotiations ahead of the Bill’s ratification? Also, while they are keen to attract foreign investment, can the Minister say what steps the Government are taking to ensure that grants from the advanced fuels fund are directed to support British technology?

Finally, what assurances can the Minister give to the travelling public that the Government’s estimated impact on ticket prices, of between minus £1.50 and plus £1.50, is accurate? In Committee in the other place, the International Airlines Group commented that some elements have not been included in the calculation, noting that the cost

“will be nearer to £10””.—[Official Report, Commons, Sustainable Aviation Fuel Bill Committee, 15/7/25; col. 17.]

I look forward to the Minister’s response.

European Geostationary Navigation Overlay Service

Lord Davies of Gower Excerpts

Thursday 12th June 2025 Grand Committee

[Lord Davies of Gower (Con)]

My Lords, it is a great pleasure to follow the noble Lord, Lord Lansley, and learn of his interest in satellites. I thank the noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, for—and, indeed, congratulate him on—gaining time for this debate, as well as for his relentless work in pursuing the issue of EGNOS. I declare my interests as the vice-president of the Aircraft Owners and Pilots Association UK and as the chair of the All-Party Parliamentary Group for Aviation; I am an aviator and have particular interest in this matter. Much of what I want to say has already been referred to by the noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, but I hope to add some detail to it. I come to this from a general aviation perspective.

The European Geostationary Navigation Overlay Service, commonly referred to as EGNOS, is designed to improve the integrity and precision of GPS services. To give it its correct title, it is the EGNOS Safety of Life Service. Those three words—safety of life—are particularly important and significant. In the world of aviation, EGNOS enables users of GPS services to be confident that the information being supplied to them is accurate and precise. It is used when operating into airfields in inclement weather conditions; examples of this include when descending through cloud, foggy or misty conditions. Descending through cloud and relying on the EGNOS system allows the aircraft and the pilot to arrive blindly but safely at the end of the runway. This is of use not only to aviation but to the maritime sector, in avoiding obstacles or perhaps entering a port in fogged-out conditions.

Sadly, as a result of our exiting the European Union, the UK’s participation in the EGNOS programme ended on 25 June 2021. Despite the hundreds of millions of pounds that the UK contributed to the Galileo satellite system, this led to a withdrawal of legal indemnity for the use of EGNOS; it therefore cannot be safely and fully utilised by aircraft any longer. Although the signal remains in place, reliance on it that might end in an accident would undoubtedly invalidate the aircraft’s insurance. The upshot of this is that UK aircraft operators cannot use EGNOS Safety of Life any longer; of course, this extends to all other users, such as agriculture, surveying and maritime, but it particularly affects aviation, which has additional inherent risks.

Perhaps it would be helpful at this point for me to explain that large airports have a sophisticated and expensive-to-maintain instrument landing system, commonly referred to as ILS. This uses two directional radio signals: the localiser, which provides horizontal guidance, and the glideslope, which provides vertical guidance. These signals are ground-generated by radio signals or, in some cases, microwave signals. EGNOS, on the other hand, is Europe’s regional satellite-based augmentation system. It is used primarily by smaller airports as it can be utilised at a vastly reduced cost; the onboard aircraft equipment necessary for its operation is, in the grand scheme of things, relatively cheap to install and operate.

The Brexit negotiations removed Britain’s access to EGNOS, not because of technical necessity but because EGNOS is managed under EU governance structures. Post Brexit, Britain became a third country. Unless specific agreements were made, access ceased. Maintaining EGNOS access would have required around £30 million to £35 million a year—trivial compared to the economic damage of degraded aviation connectivity—but we did not retain access.

In 2022, the APPG for Aviation commissioned a report arguing for the reinstatement of the EGNOS system. An excellent report by Oxera in Oxford also convincingly argued the case for continuing the service; I thoroughly recommend its reading to the Minister. Oxera argues the case for EGNOS for several reasons. First, it enables precision farming, which improves the efficiency of field working, fertiliser and pesticide use; this leads to higher crop yields and lower costs. Secondly, it improves safety and efficiency in the maritime sector, supporting UK trade. Thirdly, it provides greater resilience at airports when, for example, ground systems fail. Fourthly, it provides more reliable services, including aviation approaches, to the Scottish islands and the Isles of Scilly, where there is no other option but to travel by air in winter.

There is also improved flight safety—EGNOS reduces controlled flight into terrain, one of the CAA’s “significant seven” risks, by a factor of four to eight—and improved reliability of search and rescue and helicopter emergency services. EGNOS enables point-to-point technology, allowing helicopters to operate in poor weather. The CAA has stated that a number of HEMS and SAR operations have experienced accidents and incidents due to poor visibility, and EGNOS was required to reduce these risks. There is also improved access to essential services; with EGNOS, those living on UK islands with poorer access to NHS hospitals will miss fewer appointments every year, which tend to be for urgent treatment or diagnosis. The case for EGNOS is overwhelming.

I understand that the current position of the Department for Science, Innovation and Technology is that the Government are considering options for UK access to a satellite-based augmentation system following its withdrawal from EGNOS and that

“work is ongoing and no decision has yet been made”.

That is to be applauded, but meanwhile this life-saving facility has ceased to function and places those who rely on it at risk—all for the sake of a sum of money, which, in the grand scheme of things, is peanuts when compared to the lives at stake. Does the Minister agree that development of a new system will be years in the making and that, as an interim measure, access to EGNOS would be a positive and sensible way forward? What of the Civil Aviation Authority, the UK’s aviation regulator, whose core work revolves around safety? What representations has his department had from it on the potential dangers to aviation due to the disappearance of EGNOS?

Martin Robinson, the chief executive officer of the Aircraft Owners and Pilots Association UK said in a recent article:

“Britain’s aviation future depends on confronting political vanity and embracing real-world cooperation … Restoring access to EGNOS is not just an operational necessity. It is a test of leadership. We rejoined European programmes such as Horizon 2020 … because it was the right thing to do without any political concerns. So why not EGNOS”.


We must act now to restore what is an essential life-saving service to the many sectors that it previously served, in particular aviation. I look forward to the Minister’s response.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill (Lab)]

I thank my noble friend for that question. It is a good question because developments in drones, particularly drones beyond line of sight, uncrewed aircraft and flying taxis have been much in the news recently. There are many applications way beyond traditional air applications. There is activity for drones beyond line of sight not only on the railway but in better policing. Those things would affect a judgment about an investment in this and whether the continuing cost of it is worth investing in. I urge my noble friend not to ask us to be too peremptory in making a once-and-for-all decision when technology is changing as, because of that, the justification for doing this might increase and we might get to the answer that my noble friend wants.

I am grateful to all noble Lords for their thoughtful and constructive contributions, which reflect the strong interest in maintaining the UK’s continued leadership in aviation safety and innovation. We remain committed to ensuring safety and efficiency. We recognise the real value of systems such as EGNOS, but we must also consider the financial implications and seek solutions that offer the best value for money.

On the contributions of noble Lords about the cost of it, or the cost when it was around £35 million—I cannot confirm whether that might be the current cost or not—if the previous Government could not justify it, in these difficult financial circumstances we have a duty to justify public expenditure. However, noble Lords will have heard me say that we are considering it not only for the benefits from EGNOS for the purposes described in the discussion today but because the future of drone and uncrewed aircraft technology is rapidly developing. I hope noble Lords will appreciate that we are strongly considering it. I am grateful for all that they have said.

[Lord Davies of Gower (Con)]

My Lords, I am very grateful for the Minister’s response, but what representation has the department had from the CAA on this issue?

[Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill (Lab)]

The department is in constant discussion with the CAA on this issue. I do not have any evidence that the CAA believes that reimplementing EGNOS is a matter of the greatest concern, but as the noble Lord asked the question, I will go away, find out what the current position with the CAA is and write to him about it.