Air Traffic Management and Unmanned Aircraft Bill [HL]

Lord Kirkhope of Harrogate Excerpts

Committee stage & Committee: 1st sitting (Hansard): House of Lords & Committee: 1st sitting (Hansard)
Monday 10th February 2020 Lords Chamber

[Lord Kirkhope of Harrogate (Con)]

My Lords, I disagree with Amendment 2 because narrowing the Secretary of State’s powers would not be desirable. I know that the powers under discussion relate directly to the modernisation programme, but they should be maintained permanently regarding the control of airspace. The CAA is not a good place for these matters to dwell, particularly as the Secretary of State is of course accountable to Parliament—so there is a way in which the Secretary of State can be challenged, which is rather more democratic and relevant than a narrowing of the powers. We do not want a shift in the balance of power from the Secretary of State to the CAA. That point goes for Amendments 2, 3, 8 and 9.

Amendment 4 refers to a consultation process and appeals. As we know, there was a very effective Aviation 2050 Green Paper last year, which was a mammoth consultation. The consultation here proposed might duplicate the effort that has just gone in and could be a waste of resources. Aviation interests would be consulted in any event, but I am not sure that an initial consultation, as envisaged here, would be helpful.

Some airfields are obviously commercially able to find the resources to be involved, but some are not. It is, therefore, important that smaller airfields are looked after. Amendment 6, which would ensure that smaller airports have appropriate funding, is important and should be supported. Amendment 7 would allow a system of compensation to be set up, to cover the cost of airports being compelled to make changes. That seems reasonable, as airports are commercial entities.

[Lord Tunnicliffe (Lab)]

My Lords, for the convenience of the House, I draw attention to the penultimate line on the front page of today’s list, which states that the target for the day is to complete Amendment 23. That means that we are not going to do drones today. No Member has moved from their seat; never mind.

The essence of this group of amendments, with which I broadly agree, is to prevent mission creep. Having sat on the Front Bench opposite, I recall that whenever you create a right for the Government to do something or other, civil servants will creep up to you and say: “Make sure it is not restricted, because you might need it.” I fear that, far too often, they do.

The Minister wrote to me and several other noble Lords. On the second page of her letter, under the heading “Proportionality”, her second sentence states:

“It is the government’s intention that, at least initially, the powers to direct in clauses 2 and 3 would only be used by the Secretary of State in relation to ACPs that have been identified within the airspace change masterplan, currently being developed by NERL through the Airspace Change Organising Group (ACOG) with a view to incorporation of the masterplan into the CAA’s airspace strategy”.


I read the whole sentence for the avoidance of doubt. The words that sprung out at me are, “at least initially”. Further on in the letter, the Minister seeks to soften those words with a series of intentions. However, intentions are not law: they are the words of the Minister. If she repeats those words into Hansard they become a little more useful. Nevertheless, there is a serious issue with that part of the Bill ending up in mission creep. There are so many things for which the CAA or the Government might wish to use these powers.

I share the view that the task in front of those who are trying to deliver the programme is such that consultation—ideally on the face of the Bill, as put forward by Amendment 4—would be useful. It would certainly be useful to hear the extent to which the Minister can assure the House about consultation. On the appeals procedure, I refer again to the noble Baroness’s extremely useful letter, in which she says:

“There is no formal appeals process against an ACAA decision relating to individual ACPs. CAP1616 is a fully transparent process in which consultation and engagement exercises are run throughout.”


With the greatest respect, a consultation and engagement exercise is not an appeal. Because of the extent to which this process is entirely within the CAA’s ambit, one can see a situation where, without some hook in primary legislation, small fish in this sea could find themselves swamped. A formal appeals procedure somewhere in the Bill might usefully add to it. I hope that the Minister will be able to react to those ideas.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Kirkhope of Harrogate]

My Lords, I hope the noble Baroness does not want to give the impression that there is a high preponderance among those engaged in general aviation—whether for business or, as she put it, leisure—who are not using the latest technology and training in the work they do. I speak as a private pilot and others here are similarly qualified. “General aviation” is a very wide term, but in our discussion on regulated airspace the noble Baroness should be quite clear that a considerable number of people involved at the leisure end are very well-equipped, technologically and personally.

[Baroness Randerson]

One of the key reasons behind my intervening on this point was to make it absolutely clear that “general aviation” is a very broad term. There are many people involved in it with extremely high-tech equipment, but it is not realistic to expect all smaller leisure pilots to have the latest equipment. I do not know whether the noble Lord was in the Chamber for the Question earlier today, but, if he has read the reports that came from the sad experience of that accident, he will be aware that there are many key issues associated with the regulation of smaller planes and the way in which some people—I emphasise this—use them.

There are important aspects to this, and in responding to that Question the Minister made it clear that the department was looking at it. It is important that we bear that aspect in mind in this debate, because the vast majority of the general public were, for example, completely unaware of the kind of grey charter flights referred to in that Question. It is an issue not just of equipment but of where the planes have flown. That makes it still safe to fly them, even though they have not perhaps got the latest or highest-spec equipment. That is why this discussion is ongoing and why it is important that these amendments are being tabled. I will read the record carefully and see what the Minister has said. If she wishes to write to clarify some of the things said in this debate, I would welcome that. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Randerson]

My Lords, I will speak also to Amendment 10 in this group, which in my name. Both amendments would ensure that smaller airports have appropriate funding if they are subject to directions that could have severe financial implications for them. We have referred to the cost of airspace modernisation a number of times this afternoon, and I have already said that not all airports are Gatwick or Heathrow; they are not all even Bristol, for example. Some of the smaller airports that might be subject to expensive requirements on their airspace change could find this very difficult indeed to accommodate financially.

One estimate is that the cost of airspace modernisation could reflect 15% of the annual turnover of a small airport, which would be impossible for them to deal with financially. It is one thing to deal with it financially if it will be to your commercial benefit, and another thing if it will be to the benefit of your neighbouring airport. Noble Lords can see why some airports are rather concerned about this, because it could have serious financial implications. On the order of magnitude of the money involved, I gather that it could cost hundreds of thousands or even millions of pounds for each airport, and if a charge is incurred against their will and against their commercial interests, that will be difficult for them.

In our amendments we have tried to take what I regard as a reasonable line, to set a pretty strong test. We suggest that compensation would apply only if it imposed

“an excessively high financial burden”.

They might have to shrug and accept a small financial burden, but if it becomes extremely high, compensation should be considered. Our concept was that funding would come from NATS, but there are other proposals related to that.

These two amendments are designed to protect small airports. They aim to ensure that, in parts of the country where small airports are of huge importance, both to the economy and to people who wish to travel in those parts, those small airports survive. I beg to move.

[Lord Kirkhope of Harrogate]

My Lords, I apologise for misreading my Order Paper and trying to head into areas of amendments before I should be allowed to: I thank my noble friend for correcting me. However, on this amendment, there is a strong case for some compensation to be allowed for smaller airports—in particular, those that are compelled to make changes. The amendment is unclear on whether this covers just the cost of making the change, however that is defined, or the negative commercial impact as a result. That is a totally different area but one that I know is of great concern to smaller airports.

Amendment 10 awards compensation for an excessively high financial burden, as the noble Baroness just said. That is also extremely difficult to assess. I think one would have to be more specific than a “high financial burden”, because there is a lot of argument there. The principle, however, seems right, because whatever we decide to do or is decided, smaller businesses should not be forced to foot large bills for airspace changes forced on them by the Government and may be forced on them through government as a result of pressures from those who can better afford the costs associated with such changes.

[Lord Berkeley]

My Lords, the two points raised by the noble Lord, Lord Kirkhope, and the noble Baroness are well illustrated by Newquay Airport in Cornwall, where I live. I use the airport occasionally. It is subject to a public service obligation which the county council has negotiated to ensure four return flights a day between Newquay and a London airport. It has been very successful. There has been recent discussion, as noble Lords will know, to change the London location from Heathrow back to Gatwick, for reasons we do not need to go into today. The point is that Newquay has a few flights going to other places in the UK, on the continent and in Ireland. It is also the base for Richard Branson’s latest idea of getting to the moon—taking passengers there, or something—which may be the subject of a government grant. It is odd, but if it was required to make changes to its airspace because of some other reason, the airport would be in severe financial difficulties. That is why it has been given a PSO: because it is an important part of improving the transport between Cornwall and London.

One can challenge or disagree with some of the text of the amendment, but the principle is there. If, when she comes to respond, the Minister does not like the wording, perhaps she can go away, have some discussions about it and come back with more acceptable wording. We should hold on to the principle of a small airport not being put to severe financial difficulty because of something over which it has no control.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Tunnicliffe]

My Lords, the amendment would require publication of a report on aviation emissions. Although this information is already available, the report would ensure that it was presented in such a way as to comply with the Aarhus convention, which considers steps to reduce emissions.

According to the Government, the Bill will enable sustainable growth in air travel. In light of climate change, there is of course a debate as to whether it is right for the Government to increase air travel—or, at least, whether they should explain how they will ensure that growth is sustainable and how they intend to offset emissions. The Government should make emissions information readily available and allow for greater accountability over their policies to reduce them.

A key section of the Aarhus convention is about access to information,

“the right of everyone to receive environmental information that is held by public authorities … This can include information on the state of the environment, but also on policies or measures taken, or on the state of human health and safety where this can be affected by the state of the environment. Applicants are entitled to obtain this information within one month of the request and without having to say why they require it. In addition, public authorities are obliged, under the Convention, to actively disseminate environmental information in their possession.”

I beg to move.

[Lord Kirkhope of Harrogate]

My Lords, why do the proponents of the amendment believe that this is the right legislative location for it? Perhaps I am missing something, but should it not be looked at as part of the Environment Bill that will come before us in due course or in some other capacity, rather than in the tight confines of what we are debating today? With great respect, I do not think that the noble Lord has explained precisely where it fits into these proposals.

[Lord Tunnicliffe]

I apologise for that. I just feel that the issue of the environment is so important that one should take every reasonable opportunity to raise it. One area where we all know that environmental information about emissions in this country is deficient is the acknowledgment of aviation and maritime impacts. This is clearly an aviation Bill, so it is reasonable to make the inquiry at this point.