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

Lord Moylan Excerpts

Report stage
Monday 13th July 2026 Lords Chamber

Moved by

[Lord Moylan]

1: Before Clause 1, insert the following new Clause—
“Purpose(1) The purpose of this Act is to—(a) promote the international competitiveness of the United Kingdom aviation sector;(b) support economic growth in that sector;(c) protect the rights and interests of consumers of air transport and airport services.(2) The Secretary of State must, in taking any actions under the provisions of this Act, have regard to this purpose.”Member's explanatory statement
This amendment inserts a purpose clause into the Bill requiring the Secretary of State and the CAA to have regard to the promotion of the international competitiveness of the United Kingdom aviation sector and economic growth in that sector.

[Lord Moylan (Con)]

My Lords, this is what I refer to as, in essence, an administrative Bill, in that it does not make large changes to the way in which civil aviation operates but changes significantly the way in which decisions will be made in future about how civil aviation operates. It does that necessarily because many of the decisions that have been made in the past and until now have been carried out under European Union legislation. Since we happily left the European Union, a substitute for that decision-making must be found.

My concern about this Bill throughout Committee has been that the new system has, in many ways, been a terrible botch. One of the features of it has been that very large powers are being taken away, so to speak, from the European Union and given to the Civil Aviation Authority almost without supervision or ministerial oversight: they are, in other words, being transferred to unelected bureaucrats. It is as if the Government have been completely deaf to what we voted for when we voted to leave the European Union.

I will be fairly brief on Amendments 1 and 3, but a few words of introduction are important in this case. The background to them—and I have to say this frankly— is the catastrophic Government we have suffered from in the last two years. They have been so catastrophic that they have had to depose their own party leader and Prime Minister and go outside Parliament to seek a substitute, in order to reset the Government and try to recover from what has been a complete disaster. In that context, it seems quite wrong that the Government should be seeking our trust to take these powers, with almost no parliamentary scrutiny, to pass many of them to the Civil Aviation Authority with very little ministerial oversight, saying to Parliament, “You can trust us to get it right”. I am afraid the basis of that trust has gone.

That is why we have two amendments in this group, one of which, Amendment 1, seeks to give a purpose to the Bill and sets out what the guiding principles underlying the Bill should be: that competition and the economy are important. I know that Governments generally do not like purpose clauses, and I have to admit that, as I think most noble Lords know, even the Public Bill Office does not like them. However, I have reinforced and buttressed Amendment 1 with Amendment 3, which gives specific guidance to the Government on what they need to take into account when making decisions under Clause 1 to do with passenger protection. They focus very much on the opportunities that aviation gives us for economic growth and on the necessity, to that end, of competition and competitiveness in the sector.

It is astonishing that when one talks to members of the Government and asks, “What about the economy and competitiveness?”, they often look at one as if one were talking about something from Mars. They are all for growth, but when you say that the mechanics of growth involve such things as competitiveness and light-touch regulation, they wonder what you mean. It is as if the only route to growth is the expenditure of public money—money we have now, in fact, run out of.

The Minister has said, and I do not think it is a matter of controversy, that the aviation sector—indeed, like other transport sectors—is an important infrastructural base for economic growth and that we need the capacity to give the country the aviation services it requires. Therefore, requiring the Government to have regard to those factors and to avoid overregulation is reasonable guidance to them in putting this together. It must be said at the outset that the Minister has clearly listened carefully to many of the points made in Committee and has tabled a raft of amendments in response. Many of his amendments could have gone further, but they have come some way in the direction I and many other noble Lords, including the noble Baroness, Lady Grey-Thompson, have been arguing for, so I am grateful to him for that. However, he has not listened on this point, and it is perhaps time that he should. He still has a chance to redeem himself. I must say that if he fails to do so, I am very likely to test the opinion of the House on Amendment 3.

[Lord Harper (Con)]

My Lords, I will speak briefly in support of my noble friend Lord Moylan’s two amendments. I have some general remarks about them, and two specific points which are questions to the Minister.

The first point, which I will not labour at length since we dealt with it in Committee, is the focus of my noble friend’s Amendment 1: the importance of growing the aviation sector itself and making sure it is competitive. It is important to have that as a focus, because there are those—some inside your Lordships’ House and also those outside—who want to stymie and stifle the aviation sector, which would be a retrograde step. I should have done this at the beginning of my remarks, but at this point I declare my interest, as in the register, as the non-exec chair of RVL Aviation. I did that one or two moments too late but in the nick of time.

My second point is on my noble friend’s Amendment 3, which is about economic growth more widely and therefore links the importance of growing the aviation sector and its role in growing the economy. I want to put this point on the record because I suspect that a lot of the debate will be focused, rightly, on the impact of many rules on passengers. But it is worth remembering the very significant role that aviation plays in trade, and in not just the volume but the value of imports and exports to and from the United Kingdom. This is very significant. It is important to our overall competitiveness, particularly in high-value sectors, that aviation remains strong to promote the wider economy.

I have two specific questions to the Minister. He will remember that in Committee, we had a debate, prompted by an amendment I tabled, on the impact on airports following the revaluation and very significant rises—a multiple factor increase—in business rates. The Minister referenced the fact that a review is ongoing. I want to put on record the importance of this issue in the context of my noble friend’s two amendments, for this reason.

There has been some talk—which I recognise is only speculation at this point—from the man who will be Prime Minister next week that he favours an increase in business rates on what are loosely defined as out-of-town warehouses, large premises, in order to generate revenue for the Government and cut business rates for the high street. I ask the Minister to specifically make it clear that for this purpose—I am not going to go into the wider debate on business rates—airports should not be included in the category of large, out-of-town warehouse sites, and should not be facing a significant increase in business rates in order to pay for reductions on the high street. I ask the Minister to give whatever commitment he is able to at this stage about that, because that would be a retrograde step. The review that is taking place will, I hope, conclude that the very significant rise in business rates that has hit airports is good for neither the sector nor passengers and freight users, because those costs are just loaded on to the users. I hope the Minister can rule that out.

The second area is for me to reflect on the point that my noble friend Lord Moylan has made in both his amendments: the importance of economic growth. The Government have said on a number of occasions that economic growth is their number one priority. The problem with that assertion is that, since the general election, there has been almost no GDP growth per head. The economy has grown a little, but it has not kept pace with the rise in the population, so there has not really been any economic growth.

--- Later in debate ---

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

My Lords, before addressing these amendments, I thank all noble Lords for their continued contributions to the Bill. It is clear that we share the common goal of improving the aviation sector. The Government have carefully reflected on the arguments that have been put forward during the Bill’s passage. The amendments in my name respond to that constructive engagement and I hope that they will be welcomed by your Lordships.

I thank the noble Lord, Lord Moylan, for bringing Amendment 1 forward. We discussed in Committee how the Bill will promote economic growth. Having considered the arguments made then and, indeed, the speech made by the noble Lord, Lord Moylan, just now, and that of the noble Lord, Lord Redwood, and others, the Government’s position remains unchanged. I fully recognise the intention behind the amendment, which is to ensure that, alongside consumer protection, we would continue to support a competitive and growing aviation sector. Those are objectives that the Government strongly support. As I set out in Committee, growth and competitiveness are already central to the Government’s aviation agenda. Beyond this Bill, we are also taking forward airspace modernisation, supporting innovation through the Future of Flight programme, embedding a pro-growth approach across regulation and backing airport expansion where it can deliver economic benefits and meet planning and environmental requirements.

The amendment also seeks to protect the rights and interests of air passengers. On that point, the Government have listened carefully to concerns raised during the Bill’s passage and have brought forward amendments requiring the Secretary of State, while exercising the powers in Clause 1, to have due regard to strengthening air passenger rights and to principles relating to dignity, accessibility and support for disabled passengers and those with reduced mobility. We have done so because these considerations are directly relevant to the exercise of those powers.

I agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, that this issue is important and relevant to economic growth. However, I do not consider Amendment 1 necessary. Economic growth, investment and competitiveness are already important considerations in aviation policy and regulation, and these priorities are reflected in the Secretary of State’s engagement with the Civil Aviation Authority. On the authority, I note the view of the noble Baroness, Lady Foster of Oxton, from her extensive experience, that the CAA is an excellent regulator. The noble Baroness will, I hope, note my later amendments on the proposed delegations and controls when we get to that section of the Bill.

More fundamentally, Amendment 1 would require the Secretary of State to give statutory regard to a specific set of objectives when exercising powers under the Bill. Although those objectives are important, they are not the only relevant consideration. As I noted in Committee, this list does not include safety, which is fundamental to aviation and underpins the measures in the Bill. Nor does it capture the full range of factors that may need to be taken into account in particular circumstances. The Government’s view remains that it is better to preserve the flexibility to balance all relevant considerations rather than elevating a limited set of factors in legislation. I think that is also what the noble Baroness, Lady Grender, referred to, and I also note, as she did, that the Civil Aviation Authority is already subject to a statutory growth duty, which requires it to have regard to economic growth in the exercise of its regulatory functions.

Turning to Amendment 3, the Government agree that economic growth is a priority. However, consideration of growth is already embedded across government decision-making. Policy proposals are assessed for their impact on growth and departments are required through options, appraisal and impact assessment processes to demonstrate those effects before decisions are taken. I listened to the noble Lord, Lord Harper, carefully and he referred to the call for evidence about the valuation methodology, which will involve constructive engagement with the aviation industry ahead of the 2029 revaluation. I note his view that airports should not be considered as out-of-town warehouses, and we will see what happens with government in the future about that. For all those reasons, I am unable to support the amendments, and I respectfully ask the noble Lord not to press them.

[Lord Moylan (Con)]

My Lords, I am disappointed to hear the noble Lord’s response; I would largely be repeating myself if I were to explain in any detail why. I think the point made by the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, has been responded to by my noble friend Lord Harper. I will be second to none in admiring the valiance of the noble Baroness, Lady Grender, in this debate—I am with her entirely in that regard. None the less, I have no embarrassment in saying, even if we are the only party in your Lordships’ House saying it, that we are the party of economic growth. It is about time those words meant something. This amendment seeks to make sure that they do. I will test the opinion of the House at an appropriate moment. For the moment, I beg leave to withdraw Amendment 1.

Amendment 1 withdrawn.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Grey-Thompson (CB)]

My Lords, I will speak in support of Amendment 6, to which my name is attached, and the amendments in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton. As noble Baroness, Lady Kennedy, said, I chaired the Aviation Accessibility Task and Finish Group

Those who have allergies do not easily fit into the current system of support going through airports. While it is better understood in the outside world, I think that within the aviation industry there is still a very long way to go. This is a case which is literally life and death. As the noble Baroness, Lady Kennedy, said, we have to ensure that people are able to travel safely and easily. I very much look forward to the Minister’s explanation of government Amendment 19. As the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, said, to some extent it crosses into the next group.

Since our last debate, I have been contacted by several people who have been separated at the airport from the people they need around them. There was one instance where a young woman was separated from her family. She can communicate only by an iPad and needs family support to operate it. She was left in an absolutely terrifying situation, where she felt she had all her communication ability taken from her. We cannot continue to let that happen. It simply needs a little bit of empathy, some support and thinking differently about how we do this, because it is about getting people on and off aircraft as easily as possible.

As the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, said, we have to look at lived experience. Organisations will contribute towards the consultation, but we need to listen to some of the absolutely horrendous experiences that disabled people have; they do not complain because it is too difficult to do so—which fits into the next group. We do not get to hear about some of those stories and those cases, until we actually sit in your Lordships’ Chamber. I support the amendments in this group and look forward to the Minister’s response.

[Lord Moylan (Con)]

My Lords, if the House will indulge me, I will speak now rather than at the end of the debate, because I have amendments in this group and other noble Lords may wish to comment on them after I have spoken to them.

Before I come to those amendments, I will briefly refer to two others. First, I express my support for the amendment tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Kennedy. I am pleased that she seems to have reached an accommodation with the Government.

Secondly, Amendment 71, in the Minister’s name, removes the cap on compensation for loss of wheelchairs. However, it is important to note that, as I understand it, this applies only to domestic flights. The reason it has no international effect is that matters such as compensation are subject to an international agreement administered by the ICAO, which is based in Montreal, and would, I suspect, require all parties, or at least a majority of parties to the treaty, to make that amendment. I want to hear that the Government will make this a priority and a commitment on their part. Even though it might take 20 or 30 years to persuade everyone to change their mind, I want this to be a goal for the Government and for it to be on their agenda at every meeting of the ICAO until, gradually, things are chipped away at and they get somewhere in the course of time. Unless the Government start, they will never get there, so it would be very good to hear the Minister say that he is going to start.

I have three amendments in this group. The noble Baroness, Lady Grender, in saying that she could not support my Amendment 4, somewhat gave the impression that I had invented the target of reducing the costs of regulation on business by 25%. That is the Government’s target. The only purpose of my amendment is to oblige the Government to achieve their own target in the aviation sector. If the Government say they do not want to accept the amendment—I understand that Governments do not like having their hands tied—will they at least say that that is still their target? Will they say that it is the policy of Ministers to make that reduction in the aviation sector, that civil servants in the Department for Transport are under clear instructions to achieve and deliver that reduction in costs, and that the Civil Aviation Authority will have it as a primary objective? If they did, I would regard the purpose of my amendment as having been met. I hope the Minister will say that.

My other two amendments are technical. Amendment 21 would amend Amendment 19, in the Minister’s name, by deleting one word from it. The effect of Amendment 19 is to require consultation. It is a good amendment and I welcome it; it responds to the debate we had in Committee. It requires consultation by the Secretary of State when exercising his powers under Clause 1. However, it goes on to say that this obligation to consult relates only to matters in subsection (3), paragraphs (a) to (e). It is only those matters that arise under the subsection that are the subject of consultation.

Cunningly, I noticed that if you take out “concerning” and replace it with “not excluding” then you would bring the whole of Clause 1 into scope, allowing the Government to consult on other matters that are dealt with by the clause, not simply those mentioned here. That would be an improvement to the Minister’s amendment. It would not in any way damage or wreck the Minister’s amendment but would welcome and try to improve it. My amendment would allow the Government to keep their focus on the five items mentioned in Amendment 19 but would provide the scope and a statutory basis for consulting on the other matters as well. I hope the Minister will be willing to accept it.

My Amendment 26 might be regarded as slightly more controversial. It relates to government Amendment 24 and proposes the deletion of “in particular”. The noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, has an amendment in relation to this government amendment, which she has already spoken to. I will explain what I am trying to achieve. The amendment puts clear blue water between me and what the noble Baroness, Lady Grender, said in her opening remarks. The thrust of her argument is that there should be no regression from standards for consumer protection in the future—bear in mind that this whole argument is about consumer protection. That is a very bad principle.

This new clause effectively introduces what the noble Baroness is looking for, in that it is a non-regression statement on consumer standards. It then says, “In particular … disabled persons”, but it actually covers everybody, because disabled people are picked out only “in particular”. I do not think we should introduce a non-regression standard. It is simply the case that what counts as consumer protection changes over time and things that might be important to consumers now might be less important in the future. If we had non-regression of safety standards, we would still have men with red flags walking in front of motor cars, but things change and things are adapted. What matters to consumers also changes, and sometimes trade-offs are necessary.

The effect of removing “in particular” from the Government’s amendment would be to retain the non-regression clause in respect of disabled people—and having listened now and in Committee to the noble Baronesses, Lady Brinton and Lady Grey-Thompson, I have no hesitation about the rightness of doing that—while removing the effect of a non-regression clause in relation to those who are not disabled.

Although that means that I disagree with the noble Baroness, Lady Grender, that is what political difference is all about. We are in favour of a commercial and flexible approach to aviation, which is, after all, one of the few genuinely private and successful enterprises that we have in this country.

[Baroness Foster of Oxton (Con)]

My Lords, I have some comments and observations. This is a wide-ranging group, and very varied regulations are part of it. We must be careful not to mix them all together. The former EU regulation 261/2004 was about delays and compensation and regulation 1107/2006 was about passengers with reduced mobility. We appear to be having conversations here where it is all mixed into one, and that is obviously not how we can legislate.

These regulations are already in place, and I was very involved with them as a Member of the European Parliament. We put in place robust regulations over the last 20 years, and they have fared well. In my view, we have been let down not by the regulations themselves but by certain bodies in certain airports that are not being compliant in ensuring that they are fulfilling their obligations. We have heard examples of passengers with reduced mobility in wheelchairs being separated from carers or relatives. That is not allowed—it should not be happening.

I gently remind colleagues who were in Committee the other week that it was not, ironically, the airlines themselves that wanted to put in place the responsibility for passengers with reduced mobility. The European Commission took away the responsibility for passengers with reduced mobility to be looked after by the airlines. That was part of what you got in your ticket. That changed about 20 years ago, when it was put into the hands of the airports. As I said at the time, this will not be reversed now. It is a massive operation.

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Lord Moylan]

3: Clause 1, page 1, line 12, at end insert—
“(1A) When making regulations under subsection (1), the Secretary of State must have regard to promoting economic growth.(1B) In complying with subsection (1A), the Secretary of State must in particular consider the impact of the regulations on—(a) the competitiveness of air transport service providers and airport operators, (b) investment in the United Kingdom aviation sector, and(c) the burdens imposed on air transport service providers and airport operators in complying with the regulations.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment requires the Secretary of State to have regard to the desirability of promoting economic growth before making regulations under clause 1, with particular reference to the competitiveness of the aviation sector, investment, and the regulatory burden on businesses.

[Lord Moylan (Con)]

My Lords, as I indicated earlier, I am not at all satisfied with the Government’s response to my Amendment 3 and I wish to test the opinion of the House.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Foster of Oxton (Con)]

My Lords, we have raised the issue of enforcement. It may be that amendments are put in place and will, I hope, reinforce the legislation but, unless legislation is enforced—we have strong regulations already in statute—then we are just having a conversation that does not go anywhere. I therefore ask the Department for Transport and the Civil Aviation Authority to really put some pressure on airports to ensure that they are complying now—I emphasise “now”—with the regulations that are laid down to see whether we can at least put to bed these awful experiences that some of our passengers and fellow travellers are subject to.

[Lord Moylan (Con)]

My Lords, I start by paying tribute briefly to the Minister who, over the last 15 years or so that I have known him, has taken issues about disabled access on transport systems very seriously and made a personal commitment to them. I am delighted to say that the efforts made by noble Lords who suffer disabilities and the arguments that they made in Committee have found a resonance with him and, therefore, he has been able to come forward with amendments. They do not necessarily give everybody what they want—I suppose that is the nature of the way the legislative process works—but, generally speaking, they take this issue forward in practical terms. We support those amendments, as we indeed support the case that has been made by various noble Lords in the course of this debate.

[Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill (Lab)]

My Lords, I begin with the government amendments in this group and start with Amendment 24, tabled in my name, which establishes duties and principles to guide the future use of Clause 1. It is intended to ensure that the power is used, wherever possible, to strengthen air passenger rights and to address barriers faced by disabled passengers and those with reduced mobility. I thank the noble Baronesses, Lady Grender and Lady Brinton, and the noble Earl, Lord Russell, for their time and expertise to strengthen broader air passenger rights, which has helped lead to this amendment.

The amendment seeks to ensure that all air passengers are treated with dignity and have their individual physical and mental health needs respected, and that those with disabilities or reduced mobility are afforded access to air transport services equal or comparable to that afforded to other passengers. The examples that we have heard, in particular the powerful speech by the noble Lord, Lord Blencathra, set out exactly why we need to do better. I hear the noble Baroness, Lady Hoey, and I am sure that noble Lords agree that there are many individual members of staff who are good. However, we have also continuously heard that there is terrible, and unacceptable, inconsistency. That is clearly too frequent an experience.

I turn next to Amendment 25, tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, which would amend government Amendment 24. I understand the noble Baroness’s concerns, but I reassure her that the use of the word “desirability” does not allow the Secretary of State to shy away from their obligation to have due regard. I want it to be clear that Clause 1 is intended to strengthen and enhance air passenger rights, and that this duty reinforces that. It requires the Secretary of State to have due regard to improving passenger rights every time the power is used. However, the impact of policy changes must always be considered holistically—for example, safety, cost, deliverability and wider impacts. The word “desirability” ensures that the regard to strengthening air passenger rights is properly weighed alongside those other factors, so that the Government can act on the full picture.

The second government amendment in this group removes the compensation cap for damaged or lost mobility aids on domestic UK flights. Many wheelchairs and mobility aids are highly customised, specialist pieces of equipment that can cost many thousands of pounds, well in excess of the current Montreal convention liability limit. Removing the cap for domestic UK flights allows passengers to recover the full cost of repair or replacement. That reduces a barrier to travel, gives passengers confidence and gives carriers a far stronger incentive for careful handling.

I turn to the amendments tabled by noble Lords and begin with the amendment from the noble Baronesses, Lady Grey-Thompson and Lady Brinton, the noble Lord, Lord Blencathra, and my noble friend Lady Kennedy of Cradley, seeking minimum standards for passengers who need assistance. I recognise the intention behind the amendment and the important issues identified by the Aviation Accessibility Task and Finish Group, under the leadership of the noble Baroness, Lady Grey-Thompson. The Government greatly value that work and will ensure that it informs the next stage of policy development. As I noted previously, government Amendment 19 requires a statutory consultation on accessibility issues following Royal Assent. That consultation will consider all the matters raised in this amendment, alongside wider issues affecting disabled passengers and passengers with reduced mobility, with any necessary reforms capable of being taken forward under Clause 1.

On the amendment on complaints procedures, the Government agree that passengers, in particular disabled passengers and passengers with reduced mobility, should have clear and effective mechanisms for raising concerns when standards fall short. However, the detail needs careful consideration. Legislating now risks creating a provision that is either too vague to enforce or too rigid to work well. Government Amendment 19 therefore identifies complaints procedures as a specific area for consultation, with Clause 1 providing powers for any resulting reforms.

The noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, has also tabled an amendment seeking clarity on the timing of the consultation under government Amendment 19. As I said on the last group, we will begin that consultation as soon as possible after Royal Assent. The wording is designed not to delay the process but to ensure that the Secretary of State has sufficient time to consider the full range of accessibility issues properly before reporting on the outcome. As I said on the previous group, we will meet interested noble Lords two months after Royal Assent to show what has been done, what is being done and what will be done under my amendments.

I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, for Amendment 23, which concerns who should be consulted. She is right that the consultation must be informed by those with relevant expertise and lived experience. This Government are committed to the principle of “nothing about us without us”. The clause uses a non-exhaustive list so that the right people can be consulted on the right issues without requiring every listed group to be consulted on every matter. We will draw on expertise—including from the Disabled Persons Transport Advisory Committee—to identify who should be engaged at each stage.

In tabling the government amendments in this and the previous group, we recognise that aviation operates within an international framework of conventions, agreements and regulatory arrangements. There are limits to what any one country can achieve through domestic legislation alone. However, as we have heard, that is not an argument for inaction. Rather, it is an argument for leadership. These amendments are a significant step forward for United Kingdom passengers. We have long been a leader on accessibility and the Government will use their influence internationally to press the higher standards for disabled passengers. Specifically, through our work at the International Civil Aviation Organization and the European Civil Aviation Conference, we will use appropriate fora to champion the UK’s approach to accessibility, promote improvement of standards and seek international alignment.

We will take every opportunity available to raise these important issues at all relevant meetings, starting with those following Royal Assent, such as, but not limited to, the ECAC sub-group on the transport of persons with reduced mobility and the ICAO working group on accessibility in international civil aviation. By strengthening passenger rights at home and placing accessibility at the centre of our approach, the United Kingdom can continue to use its influence internationally and in its engagement with partners across the sector to advocate for higher standards of accessibility worldwide. I note the suggestion from the noble Lord, Lord Holmes of Richmond, to convene an international meeting. I will discuss with the Aviation Minister and the Secretary of State in the other place when we might do that.

The noble Lord, Lord Harper, asked about standards and enforcement. Both are needed—hence the powers in the Bill for enforcement by the Civil Aviation Authority, which cannot currently impose penalties. That is the reason for Clause 2.

Taken together, the government amendments relating to air passenger rights provide a significant and practical step forward for passengers, in particular disabled passengers and passengers with reduced mobility. I therefore hope that the House will support the government amendments in this group and that noble Lords are reassured that the issues raised in their amendments will be addressed through the consultation process and the powers provided by the Bill. On my own position, I echo the words of the noble Baroness, Lady Grey-Thompson, that I wish for everybody else only the experience that I have myself when I travel by air.

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Lord Moylan]

7: Clause 1, page 2, line 4, leave out “or CMA”
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment ensures the CAA will be the sole aviation regulator.

[Lord Moylan (Con)]

My Lords, I will speak to a number of amendments in this group that are in my name. Nearly all of them are technical in character. None of them would make an enormous difference to the Bill, except perhaps the last one. There is not the slightest prospect of the Minister accepting any of them and I do not intend to divide the House on any of them. Therefore, it would be of assistance to noble Lords if I go through them briefly so that they are aware of the good things that the Government are casting aside and taking no notice of.

Amendments 7 and 12 relate to the Government having decided that the relevant aspects of the aviation sector, in particular consumer protection, will be regulated by two bodies—the Civil Aviation Authority and the Competition and Markets Authority. The Government have no way of ensuring that they work together effectively, or who takes the lead on one rather than the other. None of this is vouchsafed to us, but the Minister will have a sort of balancing power at the top to sort it all out ad hoc. We made the argument in Committee that it would be sensible to have one regulator and that dual enforcement is never a good idea, especially where potential criminal penalties arise. We have tabled these amendments to put an end to it, but the Government are not going to pursue that line.

Amendment 15 raises a cause of concern for the many noble Lords who are worried that the only ideas the Department for Transport has continue to come from the European Union. It would put restrictions and limitations on the ability of the Government to use these powers simply to adopt European legislation and continue to be compliant with European legislation as it changes, which indeed they are expected to do, because I understand that the European Union is reviewing some of these aviation regulation areas at the moment. I was moved to table this because I was shocked when I picked up the final version of the impact assessment that the department prepared to go with the Bill—a document that is at least two inches thick, I would think. One has to get only to page 3 to discover that the Government are saying how wonderful it is that this legislation will give us the powers to continue to align with any changes the European Union makes in the future, because those powers expire this month, so we would not be able to align with the European Union, but now we are going to be able to.

We have to have a Civil Service and a Government who actually realise that we are not part of the European Union, that there is no prospect of our being part of the European Union for a very long time—indeed, if ever; I do not think it will be ever—and that we have to come up with some policies of our own that are good for this country. That is the substance of Amendment 15.

Amendments 16, 17 and 29 address some of the many instances in the Bill where the negative procedure for statutory instruments is preferred over the affirmative procedure. There are also two massive Henry VIII powers in the Bill—I will come to these separately in their appropriate cases. I am not going to press these further at this stage, because to give the Minister the credit that is due to him, he has tabled amendments, which in some cases will move negative procedures over to affirmative procedures. Indeed, in one case, he has actually signed my own amendment having an effect on that. So he has come some way to meet the criticism that I tabled in Committee, so I will not press the fact that he has not come all the way, although I would be delighted if he announced, even at this last moment, that he would change his mind and perhaps accept these amendments.

Amendment 32, finally, perhaps has a little more hope of being adopted—I do not know. Under the current approach of the Bill, the only way that someone subject to a civil aviation decision can appeal against it is to the High Court. The courts are chock-a-block with demands on them at the moment. It seemed sensible to seek to create an intermediate mediation stage where someone aggrieved by a particular decision against them would have the opportunity to have an independent mediator appointed to seek to resolve the issue, and an amendment was tabled to that effect.

In Committee, the Minister was very dismissive of the whole idea and obviously believes that the High Court has nothing much to do and will be able to take these things on and that is the appropriate place. But a lot of money and testosterone can be wasted going to the High Court, when some of these matters can be sorted out better through more of a mediative approach, and that was the purpose of the amendment.

Those are my amendments in this group. As with many of the amendments I tabled in Committee, they are all intended to improve the operation of the Bill and the operation of administrative law. With that, I beg to move.

[Lord Grayling (Con)]

My Lords, Amendments 13 and 14 are in my name. I declare again my interest as an advisor to AtkinsRéalis in the UK and Ireland.

I have a lot of sympathy with my noble friend on the Front Bench and his comments about various aspects of the Bill; in particular, his comments about the European Union. We should not be looking simply to match the European Union going forward. Indeed, I am very much in favour of having high standards which are not tied to the European Union. Where we can do better—and we should do better—without doing damage to the commercial viability of the UK industry, we should seriously consider taking that kind of step.

While mentioning briefly the international side, in the light of the easyJet takeover proposals, I urge the Minister and his colleagues in the department to use the most muscular approach on this. It would not normally be possible for a UK airline to buy a US one. We need to make sure that the rules and ownership are properly and rigorously enforced. It is urgent to do that.

My two amendments are designed simply to try to put some limitation on the powers that would reside with the Civil Aviation Authority as a result of the Bill. I always envisaged changes upon leaving the European Union as likely to lead to a degree of deregulation and a relaxation of restrictions. The Minister knows that I raised a number of concerns with him in Committee about the extent of the powers to enforce—to enter premises and to impose penalties. These two amendments are designed to put some limitations around the freedoms of the regulator to take enforcement action, so that it does so only in what are genuinely serious situations. I know the Minister is not going to accept these amendments, but I would ask him to give some thought to how this is applied in regulations. Of course, we need a regulator to have the ability to take serious action in a serious situation, but what we do not want is to create a situation where we have undue levels of enforcement on small matters in a way that is overly onerous on the commercial independence and freedom of businesses. We want common sense; these two amendments are designed to apply common sense, and I hope the Minister will be able to take that principle forward.

Finally, I will just comment on my noble friend Lord Young’s amendment, which I am sure he will be speaking to in a moment. Given the impact on the airlines of the failures, when they do happen, in the air traffic control system, I think he makes an important point that is worthy of consideration by the Government.

--- Later in debate ---

For the reasons I have stated, the Government are unable to support the amendments tabled by noble Lords. However, I hope the House will support the government amendments, which improve transparency and provide greater clarity in the operation of the enforcement framework. Finally, I note the comments of the noble Lord, Lord Grayling, on the position on easyJet. The Aviation Minister in the other place is currently considering that position.

[Lord Moylan (Con)]

My Lords, I am, of course, overcome with disappointment. The Minister has been disdainful of the many excellent amendments that have been advanced in this debate. I am not proposing to debate them further except to say, first, that he has waved his trump card in the shape of my noble friend Lord Harper at your Lordships’ House. From our point of view, it is rare, almost inconceivably rare, but none the less possible, that my noble friend can have made a mistake. In that context, if my noble friend Lord Young of Cookham chooses to divide the House, as he has intimated he would on this point, we will support him. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment 7 withdrawn.

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Lord Moylan]

33: After Clause 3, insert the following new Clause—
“Review of airport drop-off charges(1) The Secretary of State must, within six months of the day on which this Act is passed, conduct and publish a review of the impact of airport drop-off charges on users of airport services in the United Kingdom.(2) The Secretary of State must lay a copy of the review before both Houses of Parliament.(3) In this section, “drop-off charge” means any charge levied by an airport operator on a vehicle entering a terminal forecourt or designated kerbside area for the purpose of setting down one or more passengers.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment requires the Secretary of State to conduct and publish a review of the impact of airport drop-off charges on passengers.

[Lord Moylan (Con)]

My Lords, I shall endeavour to be brief. Nobody, I think, in your Lordships’ House can fail to have been affected by the growing scandal of rapacious drop-off charges being charged by airports for people who have to arrive—some choose to, but some have to arrive—at the airport by car, sometimes to drop off and sometimes to collect a passenger who might be a relative or a friend. These charges have got higher and higher. They are a burden that people are not expecting. Many passengers, particularly families, older passengers and disabled passengers, do not have a realistic alternative to being dropped off at the terminal, yet the policy direction appears to be to make that more expensive, and the airports are stepping up to it with great enthusiasm.

Only last month, the Department for Transport published A Strategic Vision for Transport to an Expanded Heathrow Airport. That is a non-statutory document to accompany the now-renamed Heathrow Expansion National Policy Statement, which was issued for consultation. The document’s purpose was to give us the Government’s picture, their strategic vision, of what transport would look like at an expanded Heathrow Airport. I have read it. I know very little about what transport is going to look like as a result of reading that document. It is very vague, and it contains no commitments, but there is one thing in it that is absolutely nailed on now even before we have a deliverable plan for Heathrow expansion. That is that there are going to be increased terminal drop-off charges or a fee to access Heathrow-owned roads. At the same time as motorists have been looking for relief from higher costs, including after His Majesty’s Opposition forced the Government to U-turn on their planned fuel duty rise, the Department for Transport is now openly floating higher terminal drop-off charges and road access fees for Heathrow.

This cuts against the Government’s stated concern for disabled passengers. The Government have gone some way, as I said earlier in this Bill, to improve protections for disabled passengers in aviation, but it is no good strengthening rights inside the airport while supporting surface access policies that make it harder and more expensive for disabled passengers or those assisting them to get to the terminal in the first place. Amendment 33 in my name—there is a similar amendment in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Empey, which I am sure he is going to speak to now—simply asks for a review of the impact of airport drop-off charges on airport users. That is the least that we could expect. I beg to move.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill (Lab)]

I am referring to choices in the method of access to the airports, rather than the choice of airport itself.

[Lord Moylan (Con)]

My Lords, I thought that was a deeply unsatisfactory answer that failed to address the amendment. The Minister said there was no case for restricting these charges in primary legislation. Who has proposed that? Nobody has proposed that. The noble Lord, Lord Empey, and I have asked for a survey, an examination or a report to be done on the effect of these drop-off charges. There is no proposal to restrict them. That was a deeply unsatisfactory answer, so I fear I will insist on testing the opinion of the House on my Amendment 33.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Brinton (LD)]

My Lords, this group addresses the most profound structural shift in this Bill: the delegation of aviation rule-making to the Civil Aviation Authority. We are pleased to see that Amendment 62 now carries the Minister’s name, alongside that of the noble Lord, Lord Moylan. This is a vital victory for parliamentary scrutiny. The amendment mandates the affirmative procedure for regulations, specifying the limits of the CAA’s new rule-making powers, ensuring that this House retains its right to debate and approve the scope of what is delegated.

We similarly welcome government Amendment 58, which requires ministerial directions to the CAA to be laid before Parliament. For too long, the single guiding mind of the aviation sector has operated one step removed from democratic oversight. However, we must go further to prevent the creation of an all-powerful and potentially unaccountable regulator. We support the spirit of Amendment 57 from the noble Lord, Lord Moylan, which would remove the CAA veto over the Secretary of State’s statement of priorities. It is a constitutional nonsense to suggest that a Minister must secure the agreement of the body they are intended to oversee before setting their strategic objectives.

We support government Amendment 56, which correctly identifies that the Secretary of State must retain responsibilities for matters of public interest, including environmental protection and the needs of disabled passengers.

Regarding technical safety, we offer our strong support for Amendments 34 and 37, from the noble Lord, Lord Empey, and the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay of Llandaff. The monitoring of aircraft cabin air for carbon monoxide and other toxins is not a luxury; it is a fundamental safety requirement. If we are to grant the CAA more agile powers to update safety rules, those powers must be used to address the very real concerns of flight crew and passengers regarding air quality.

Similarly, Amendment 66, from the noble Lord, Lord Empey, regarding the enforcement of flight time limitations, is essential to ensure that operational efficiency never comes at the cost of pilot fatigue or of public safety.

Let us all ensure that, as we delegate these powers, we do not defang the regulator or emasculate Parliament. We must fill this skeletal Bill with the furniture of transparent reporting and mandatory safety reviews. I urge the House to support these measures to ensure that the UK remains a safety-led aviation hub that respects both the expertise of the regulator and the sovereignty of this House.

[Lord Moylan (Con)]

My Lords, the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay of Llandaff, and the noble Lord, Lord Empey, raised important points that can only arouse the sympathy and interest of all Members of your Lordships’ House. Cabin air quality is crucial to safety. Without committing myself to the wording of either amendment, I do not think that this subject can be allowed to rest today. The Government will have to commit to come back to it in a credible and convincing way.

The noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, is correct in saying that this group is largely about administrative matters related to Clause 8. Although we have tended to focus so far, quite properly, on the consumer protection parts of the Bill, in Clauses 1 and 2, we are now coming to that part of the Bill where the Civil Aviation Authority is authorised to make rules. These rules were previously made either by statutory instrument or by means of European Union legislation. The complaint from the Department for Transport is that it does not have enough time to do the statutory instruments and that it is all too much, so could we not, by statute, give the power to the Civil Aviation Authority to make these rules for it. I am not making that up. That is actually the complaint that has been made: that there are too many statutory instruments, so the department wants to give them to the unelected bureaucrats, regulators and so on—especially as it is not receiving new regulations from the European Union any more, which would be a different matter.

Many of the amendments in this group are about that administrative process and trying to reverse some of the original draft of the Bill, giving these powers without any accountability to the Civil Aviation Authority. I thank the Minister for his letter on this and for engaging in the concerns that were raised in Committee on this point. I also welcome the fact that the Government have tabled amendments to give effect to the recommendations of the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee. In Committee we were clear that the Bill should set out the principles underlying the exceptions to delegated rule-making, and government Amendment 56 now seeks to do that.

Government Amendment 58 addresses an important scrutiny point by requiring directions for the CAA to be laid before Parliament. I am also grateful to the Minister for adding his name to my Amendment 62, which ensures that the Secretary of State’s power to define exceptions to the CAA’s rule-making powers is subject to the affirmative rather than the negative procedure.

I turn to Amendments 59 and 60. If the CAA is to make detailed aviation rules directly, industry must be able to find, understand and rely on the rules in force. The Bill says that the CAA may publish its rules. It really is not good enough to say that it may publish its rules; these amendments simply say that it must. It will not have to publish them in hard copy—they can be published on the internet—but even if the rulebook is very thick, which the noble Lord told us in Committee was the case, it must be possible to publish it and keep it up to date. Otherwise, how can anybody be sure that they are actually keeping the rules?

There is part of Clause 8 that really upsets me, and I am quite upset about it because I think it is a constitutional outrage. It was referred to by the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, and it is on page 12, where new Section 61F is being added to the existing legislation, the Civil Aviation Act 1982. It says, in relation to these new rule-making powers:

“The Secretary of State must issue a document that … sets out the Secretary of State’s priorities and objectives … and … deals with matters relating to the exercise of the functions”.


That is good; I am all in favour of it. The document, by the way, is going to contain guidance. It says quite clearly, in subsection (2), that it will contain guidance on consultation, for example, and

“guidance about how the CAA should interpret and apply the environmental principles”,

and so forth. I imagine that is statutory guidance. But it then goes on to say:

“The Secretary of State … may not issue the document without the agreement of the CAA to the contents of the document”.


I think this is absolutely unprecedented. In Committee, the Minister said it was a new way of working; it certainly is. He said it was more like a contract. I think this is very misleading.

It is perfectly possible for the department, or the Secretary of State, to enter into contractual-type arrangements with the Civil Aviation Authority. I have no objection if they do that. Contractual types of arrangements exist in various parts of public life. It might contain key performance indicators. It might contain all sorts of things; I am not going to attempt to enumerate them. It would say, “This is your task, this is what we expect from you, this is what you are going to do in exchange for the funding” and so on. That is a contract—I understand that—and it is not precluded by this. But overarching all that, there must be a power, always, for an accountable Minister to issue guidance to an arm’s-length body or executive agency, to issue binding statutory guidance, without having to seek its agreement to the contents of the guidance first. Otherwise, where does ministerial accountability come in?

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Grayling (Con)]

My Lords, I will speak very briefly. I raised the issue of consultation in Committee. The Minister gave me a very helpful response, but he very clearly said that, in a case where the Government took a decision, that approach would already have been subject to detailed consultation. That was only one particular approach. In a situation where there could be three or four different options for an airport, what is his view on the Government’s job in explaining why they have chosen one of the different options available?

That is where we get down to the basic principle in the amendment from the noble Baroness, Lady Grender: the Government cannot simply take a decision out of the blue without detailed explanation and without some degree of clarification to, and discussion with, the communities affected about why they have taken it out of maybe two or three options. I accept the Minister’s very helpful response to my comments in Committee, but can he now set out for us how the Government will approach a choice between numerous options? What approach will they take to consultation in that situation?

[Lord Moylan (Con)]

My Lords, some very important points have been made about consultation. I just want to be clear that I understand what points are being made. I believe these amendments are not about airport expansion. On airport expansion, I would say that, especially as it is subject to a process under planning law—namely, the development consent order—there will not be a shortage of consultation as a result of that development consultation order. Certainly, in the case of Heathrow, if it expands, the consultation will take place.

I think that the amendment that the noble Baroness, Lady Grender, put forward is not about expansion but about airspace modernisation. Although I would not want to commit myself to the wording of her amendment in particular, she has a point which the Government need to be quite clear about and they need to reckon what the difficulties are; that is, the reorganisation of flight paths will have winners and losers. It is not simply that flight paths might be moved from one corner, one area or one approach to another; part of the purpose of airspace modernisation is to concentrate flights, so there could be quite a lot of winners but some very bad losers as a result of this. The Government need to take people with them as they do this. There is a strong case for doing it, and we support modernisation, but the Government cannot leave their successor in a position where people have not been given a chance to be brought along.

My Amendment 39A in this group is about charges for air traffic and air navigation services in Clause 6. I drew attention in Committee to the sheer incoherence of the drafting of this clause. The Government have come forward with an amendment which improves it somewhat, but it slightly misses the point—it still leaves it saying something quite incoherent. I offer this only because I like to see properly drafted legislation. There is no politics in this; the Government should be doing their job properly in the first place. Clause 6(3)(c) says:

“Persons may be specified … if the services concerned are available for their use”—


note that phrase—

“or benefit, and it is immaterial whether or not the services are actually used or could be used by … them”.

I understand the part about it being immaterial whether they are used: “It is available for your use, but you did not use it; we’re still going to charge you”. That may be right or wrong, but that is what the law says. That is the situation. How can the services be available for their use, but they could not be used by them? You could still be charged for them even if they could not be used by you. How is that consistent with them being “available”? I do not understand it. I just think it is very poor drafting.

Anyway, I look forward to hearing what the Minister has to say. I am glad he has corrected the other part of it that was incoherent; we are getting somewhere slowly. Maybe he will come forward with some sensible amendments at Third Reading so that the Bill makes sense in some key areas.

[Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill (Lab)]

My Lords, the next group concerns airspace modernisation, consultation and charging. I begin by thanking the noble Baroness, Lady Grender, for retabling her amendment, and I have also heard the noble Lord, Lord Grayling, and the noble Baroness, Lady Bray, on this matter.

I have considered this carefully, but the Government’s position remains unchanged. The environmental assessment and consultation are, and will remain, fundamental parts of the airspace change process. Nothing in these powers removes or weakens existing requirements for thorough consultation or robust assessment of environmental and noise impacts.

Any procedure or policy the Civil Aviation Authority puts in place, or any decision it makes to change airspace, must be exercised in accordance with the duties set out under Section 70 of the Transport Act 2000. These require the Civil Aviation Authority to take account of the Secretary of State’s guidance on environmental objectives, as well as the interests of any person in relation to the use of airspace.

In practice, sponsors of an airspace change must undertake detailed assessments of potential impacts, including noise exposure and greenhouse gas emissions, and consult meaningfully the affected communities, airspace users and other relevant stakeholders. The CAA then scrutinises these assessments before any proposal can be approved. In response to the noble Lord, Lord Grayling, my understanding is that the CAA will bring forward only one proposal at a time.

--- Later in debate ---

I also reassure noble Lords that the Bill does not affect existing safeguards for charges. Under the Transport Act 2000, the Civil Aviation Authority is already subject to duties to consider relevant interests and promote efficiency when setting charges. Before charges are set, the CAA must consult affected parties, and those who are materially affected have a right of appeal. This established process will continue to apply in future. For these reasons, I believe that the Government’s existing Amendment 40 sufficiently clarifies the charging intent. I hope that noble Lords will support this and that the noble Lord will not press his amendment.

[Lord Moylan (Con)]

Before the Minister sits down, he has again misconceived the point. It is not that you can be charged for something that you do not use. He says that this is a well-established principle. I have already said that it might be rough justice, but if it is what the law says then it is what the law says. What he has to explain is how something can be available—it has to be available before there can be any charge at all—yet be something which the person being charged could not use. What does he understand by “available” in that case, bearing in mind that, unless it is available, there is no charge at all, as that is the first condition?

[Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill (Lab)]

I think I have explained that to the noble Lord. I certainly feel that I have.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Moylan (Con)]

My Lords, any debate on aviation is enriched by a contribution from my noble friend Lord Kirkhope of Harrogate. I am grateful to him for what he said.

The House benefited too from the speech by the noble Lord, Lord Barber of Ainsdale. I have some slight concerns about his amendment. I appreciate that there may be a crisis in the supply of pilots, but I would be very anxious if the Government were to become involved in workforce planning in this sector. I understand entirely that his amendment does not quite call for that, but the last part of it points in the general direction that the CAA should be taking an active role in this, and that would be a very bad thing. Aviation is a very successful part of our private economy, and it should be for the industry itself to take responsibility for recruiting and training the people it needs in order to operate. That is the first principle.

However, the noble Lord does an important service in bringing to the House’s attention the cliff edge that is allegedly being faced. I look forward to hearing what the Minister has to say.

[Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill (Lab)]

My Lords, I begin with Amendment 41. I thank the noble Lord, Lord Kirkhope of Harrogate, for this and for his kind remarks. I also heard the noble Viscount, Lord Goschen, and other noble Lords clearly on this subject.

General aviation is an important part of the UK’s aviation industry, covering a wide range of public service, commercial and recreational activities. As the noble Lord remarked, it plays an important role in introducing people to aviation and helping to develop the skills pipeline for future aviation careers.

Clause 6 seeks to provide the CAA with greater flexibility as to who can be charged for air traffic services provided under a licence. This will ensure that, as the UK’s airspace evolves, the costs of providing those services can continue to be recovered fairly and proportionately, in line with the well-established “user pays” principle.

As the noble Lord will be aware, these costs are currently recovered primarily from commercial airlines, while general aviation is largely exempt. Any future changes would be subject to the CAA’s statutory consultation process, with affected parties retaining rights of appeal. The Civil Aviation Authority also has an obligation under the Transport Act 2000 to further the interests of operators and owners of aircraft, including in relation to the availability and cost of licensed air traffic services. This would and does naturally include considering impacts on the sustainability and growth of general aviation. Given those existing safeguards, the established charging process, and the fact that there are currently no plans to introduce new charges for general aviation users, I do not believe the amendment is necessary.

I turn to the amendment from my noble friend Lord Barber of Ainsdale, which would require the CAA to report on anonymised demographic trends among commercial pilot licence-holders. Demographic trends among skilled aviation personnel are a matter of interest to the industry, the Government and the Civil Aviation Authority.

The Civil Aviation Authority already collects demographic information on commercial pilots and other skilled personnel. This supports robust regulatory decision-making, enables the CAA to identify relevant trends and allows it to publish data on licence-holders where it considers that useful. Indeed, the CAA has published annual data on different categories of licensed pilots, including commercial pilots, broken down by age and sex, since 1994.

The proposed requirement to publish such statistics and analysis with a particular frequency could impose additional costs on the CAA. These would have to be met from the CAA’s scheme of charges and thus would be a burden on the aviation sector. For those reasons, I consider the amendment unnecessary and ask my noble friend not to press it.

More broadly, I reassure the noble Lord, as well as my noble friends Lord Barber of Ainsdale and Lord Tunnicliffe, of the importance that the Government place on maintaining a robust pipeline of flight crew, particularly pilots. The department is addressing workforce challenges through targeted programmes, such as Generation Aviation, and through evidence-based assessments of skills needs. The department will shortly commission a skills gap analysis across all aviation professions as a follow-up to analysis that was conducted in 2023. This will consider factors including retirements and sector growth, helping to identify emerging workforce pressures at an early stage.

In response to the noble Lord, Lord Grayling, the Government recognise and value the important role aerodromes play in their local communities. That is why the National Planning Policy Framework ensures that planning authorities consider their economic, leisure, training and emergency service roles when making planning decisions about them.

I thank noble Lords for their engagement on this matter and I trust that, as a result, they feel reassured. I ask the noble Lord to withdraw the amendment.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Grender (LD)]

My Lords, I turn first to Amendments 42 to 44. Although we understand the desire for commercial certainty, slot allocation is a strategic lever for regional connectivity, as described by the noble Lord, Lord Empey, and for national health. We strongly support his Amendment 46. Hub airports must provide adequate access for regional destinations. Regional routes must not be casualties of best-profit models.

On transparency, we support Amendments 47 and 48, which would mandate formal consultation and parliamentary statements before reforming the slot regime. As we have talked about in the past, Parliament and the public deserve to see evidence regarding impacts on competition and consumers before the rules of the game are fundamentally altered.

Procedurally, we support Amendments 52 and 53. All regulations under new Section 34A should be subject to the affirmative procedure, in our view. We welcome government Amendments 45 and 49, in particular, as referenced by the noble Lord, Lord Grayling, the removal of imprisonment for slot offences, which we see as a vital move toward proportionality. We welcome the Minister’s change on this.

[Lord Moylan (Con)]

My Lords, I have two amendments in this group, and I am grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Grender, for saying that she would support them. Both would change the making of regulations from the use of the negative procedure to the affirmative procedure. I shall not say anything more about them.

Both my noble friend Lord Grayling and the noble Lord, Lord Empey, have made very important points. I have great sympathy with my noble friend, who is trying to ensure that the Government interfere as little as possible with the allocation of slots. I equally understand, and I do not think there is a tension with, what the noble Lord, Lord Empey, says about the importance of maintaining regional connectivity. In fact, as I recall, not that long ago the Minister was the tsar of regional connectivity and wrote a very important report about it for the Government, so I look forward to hearing what he has to say, drawing on his experience and knowledge of the subject.

[Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill (Lab)]

My Lords, I am grateful to noble Lords for these amendments and for the thoughtful debate we have had on the slots regime. I will deal with the amendments in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Grayling, before turning to those from the noble Lords, Lord Empey and Lord Moylan.

The amendments in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Grayling, seek to limit intervention on slot allocation to specified circumstances. I certainly understand the intention behind the amendments but we believe that they would unduly constrain the flexibility that the Bill is designed to provide. The airport slots regime operates in a complex and rapidly changing environment, and future circumstances cannot be anticipated. Limiting intervention to a prescribed set of scenarios could impede timely and effective action in the public interest, particularly in exceptional and unforeseen circumstances. The Government therefore consider it preferable to retain a sufficiently flexible regulation-making power, subject to the appropriate parliamentary scrutiny of any regulations made under it.

Amendment 47 would require statutory consultation before any regulations on slots are made. The Government recognise the importance of proper engagement before changes are made to the slots regime. I commit that, where new policy is developed under this power, there will be appropriate consultation, including with industry and, where relevant, communities. However, it would not be appropriate to place an inflexible statutory consultation requirement in the Bill. This power may need to be used in response to urgent disruption in the aviation sector, as we saw during the pandemic. In those circumstances, the Government must be able to act swiftly and proportionately.

Amendment 48 seeks to require consultation, transparency and regard to commercial allocation for the slots regime. The Government do not believe that this amendment is necessary. A core principle of the slot allocation regime is that slots are allocated by an independent co-ordinator. In the UK, this role is carried out by Airport Coordination Ltd. This principle is reflected in global guidelines, which require co-ordinators to act independently so that scarce airport capacity is allocated fairly, neutrally and without bias towards any airline, airport or government. That independence helps prevent conflicts of interest, protects new entrants and maintains confidence in a transparent global system.

Amendment 50 questions whether criminal offences are needed under the slot allocation regime. I do not believe that this amendment is necessary, as the Government have tabled an amendment to remove the power for any amended slots regime to include provision for new criminal offences. However, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Grayling, for prompting a debate on this matter.

I turn to Amendments 45 and 49, tabled in my name. These amendments provide greater clarity and place a clear limit on the regulation-making power. In particular, they remove any ability for future regulations to create new criminal offences. At the same time, they preserve the effective operation of the existing slot allocation regime and make it clear that, where the existing regulations are restated, any offence already contained in those regulations may also be restated. This strikes an appropriate balance. It avoids conferring an unnecessarily broad power to create new criminal offences, while ensuring that restatement of the current regime does not inadvertently remove or undermine existing enforcement mechanisms. The amendments therefore support legal certainty, maintain continuity in the regulation of airport slot allocation and respond proportionately to concerns about the scope of the delegated powers on slots. For these reasons, I hope the noble Lord, Lord Grayling, will not press his amendments, and that he and other noble Lords will support my amendments.

The amendment from the noble Lord, Lord Empey, seeks to require that

“adequate slots at hub airports are allocated to flights from regional airports in the United Kingdom”.

The Government recognise the importance of strong regional connectivity and are committed to ensuring that people and businesses across the country benefit from effective air links, including access to major hub airports. However, the slot allocation regime gives airlines rights to equivalent slots in future seasons where usage requirements are met. This amendment could therefore require the reallocation of slots currently held by incumbent operators, raising legal and practical concerns. Of course, the slot regime applies only where capacity is constrained.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Grender (LD)]

My Lords, we are on the home stretch, and Amendments 51 and 63 are in my name. Throughout these proceedings, the Minister has offered various reassurances from the Dispatch Box that the Bill is not intended to be a vehicle for airport expansion, either directly or indirectly. We take those words in good faith, particularly from him, but, as I have argued previously, faith is rarely the same as an absolute guarantee. For the communities who live daily with the noise and emissions of a flight path, verbal comfort is an insufficient shield against the vast, unscrutinised delegated powers contained in this legislation.

Amendment 51 addresses the technical reality of Clause 7 regarding airport slots. While the Government maintain that slot co-ordination itself cannot increase capacity, it is undeniable that slots are the strategic levers that manage how expanded capacity is utilised. If the Government proceed with their publicly stated ambition for a third runway at Heathrow by 2035, the regulatory framework we build today will be the one that governs those new movements. We cannot allow the rules of the game for slot allocation to be rewritten by secondary legislation without a statutory requirement for community consultation and mandatory environmental and noise impact assessments. The Minister points to the forthcoming review of the airports national policy statement—ANPS—as the proper venue for such scrutiny, but scrutiny of a statement is a far cry from a legal duty in the Bill. Without these safeguards, a future Minister could quietly facilitate expansion through the back door of delegated slot regulations without ever returning to this House for a discrete policy debate.

Amendment 63 provides the ultimate safety catch. It specifies:

“No power in this Act may be used for the purposes of, or in connection with, the facilitation of airport expansion”.


This is a necessary boundary, because the Bill’s reach is so broad, touching everything from airspace redesign to the CAA’s new rule-making functions. If expansion is truly not the intent of the Bill, the Government should have no hesitation in accepting this new clause that makes the limitation explicit and enforceable. Indeed, it should be welcomed as a useful and helpful contribution.

The residents overflown deserve the certainty that can come only from primary statute. We must ensure that the redesign of our skies and the reform of our airports are anchored in democratic consent and environmental transparency, not left to the administrative discretion of an unelected regulator or the temporary reassurances of a Minister. I therefore look forward to hearing the Minister’s response to these two amendments and I beg to move Amendment 51.

[Lord Moylan (Con)]

My Lords, the noble Baroness makes some important points, and I look forward to hearing what the Minister has to say in reply.

[Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill (Lab)]

My Lords, I thank the noble Baronesses, Lady Grender and Lady Jones of Moulsecoomb, for their amendments on airport expansion. I addressed the relationship between the Bill and airport expansion in Grand Committee. Having considered the arguments put forward then, the Government’s position remains unchanged.

This Bill is concerned with aviation consumer protection and the aviation regulatory framework; it is not a Bill about airport expansion. The measures in the Bill are needed regardless of whether any airport expansion proposal comes forward and regardless of the outcome of any such proposal. The Government are supportive of airport expansion where it can deliver economic and connectivity benefits and meet the relevant environmental and planning requirements. However, decisions on airport expansion are taken through separate planning processes, not through this Bill.

Indeed, during Committee, the Government published the draft Heathrow expansion national policy statement for consultation. This underlines the fact that airport expansion proposals are considered through dedicated planning processes, with their own consultation, scrutiny and parliamentary oversight. The Bill does not alter those processes or predetermine their outcome.

The Government are concerned about the practical effect of Amendment 63. Its scope is not limited to Heathrow or to any specific airport expansion proposal. By preventing powers being used “in connection with” the facilitation of expansion, it could create uncertainty around routine regulatory functions that are not themselves about approving airport expansion. For example, slots regulation does not create airport capacity; it manages capacity once it has been approved through the planning process. However, the amendment could potentially call into question the use of such powers where they relate to approved airport expansion.

Regarding the consultation requirements on slots regulations put forward in Amendment 51, the Government are committed to meaningful community consultation and robust environmental and noise assessment before any airport expansion proceeds. These requirements are already addressed through the statutory planning process.

As I have said, slot regulations do not determine whether airport expansion takes place. The Bill simply ensures that, where necessary, slot regulations can be updated to make effective use of new capacity at co-ordinated airports. The amendment would therefore add little, as consultation and assessment on airport expansion already take place through the planning system before slot allocation becomes relevant. I therefore ask the noble Baroness to withdraw her amendment.

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Lord Moylan]

62: Clause 8, page 14, line 31, leave out “negative” and insert “affirmative”
Member's explanatory statement
This amendment changes the power in section 61A(7) of the Civil Aviation Act 1982 to an affirmative procedure, in the light of the recommendations from the DPPRC.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Foster of Oxton (Con)]

My Lords, I support this amendment from the noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, co-signed by the noble Lord, Lord Davies of Gower. We have had discussions on this over the last couple of years.

When I was a member of the European Parliament, I was a rapporteur on GNSS—global navigation satellite systems. That was key when we were looking at how we were covering airspace and airports, et cetera. Switching off EGNOS when we left the European Union affected somewhere in the region of 27 airfields around the United Kingdom, including areas such as the Highlands and Islands, and the Scilly Isles, not just where fixed-wing aircraft go but where helicopters fly in. Therefore, it has reduced the landing limits—for landing and take-off—and the operational aspect, not just for passengers but when they are taking in goods or freight. It is an extremely important issue.

Under the last Government and this one, we have not got very far on this. I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, that we need to seriously look at this and reintroduce something like EGNOS, because it is important for the United Kingdom. To have done this and then just left it has not been helpful at all. I certainly support what the noble Lord said and I hope that the Minister will seriously look at this again, because we need to reinstate this system.

[Lord Moylan (Con)]

My Lords, I have listened carefully to the debate. We do not support the amendment.

[Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill (Lab)]

I thank my noble friend Lord Berkeley and the noble Lord, Lord Davies of Gower, for this amendment. The Government are actively reviewing the case for access to the European geostationary navigation overlay service, or EGNOS. This includes engagement with organisations that have been affected by the loss of the service, as well as those who could benefit from it in the future. I noted in Committee the importance of the service to connectivity; for example, for outlying islands and throughout all seasons of the year.

The output of the current work is expected later this year, but any move to rejoin EGNOS would in any case require agreement with the European Union. It would not be appropriate to pre-empt that review by accepting this amendment. For these reasons, I am unable to accept it. I hope that my noble friend will withdraw it.

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Lord Moylan]

70: Leave out Clause 10
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment deletes a Henry VIII Clause.

[Lord Moylan (Con)]

My Lords, very briefly, or perhaps at length, Amendment 70 would remove a Henry VIII power that allows the Government to rewrite primary legislation. It would do so on the grounds that the Government—or the department—have said in their memorandum to the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee that they have identified all the legislation that is affected by this Bill. Therefore, they do not need a Henry VIII power to make amendments to Bills that may yet appear, because they have already identified all the Bills. Indeed, I must say, they have not just identified them but made the corresponding adjustments to ensure that this Bill is in conformity with existing legislation, or that amendments are made to it through this process.

The power is entirely redundant. It is also offensive in general to your Lordships’ House that Henry VIII powers should exist. The Minister has been so good about accepting, at least in part, many of my suggestions in Committee and today on Report. However, it would be the cherry on the cake and would seal his reputation with all Benches in this House if just at this last minute, before we conclude, he were to rise to his feet and simply say that he accepts the amendment. I beg to move.

[Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill (Lab)]

How disappointed the noble Lord, Lord Moylan, is going to be. Without Clause 10, any amendment to existing legislation which is consequential to this Bill, however minor or technical, would require further primary legislation. That would be an unnecessary and disproportionate use of parliamentary time and that of your Lordships’ House. This clause is needed to ensure that the statute book appropriately reflects the changes made by this Bill and to avoid any potential inconsistencies following the Bill’s enactment.

Powers of this nature are a well-established feature of legislation. They ensure that the statute book continues to operate coherently once Parliament has enacted new legislation. This clause is drafted no more broadly than is necessary. I reassure the noble Lord, Lord Moylan, that the clause is both necessary and appropriately limited. It cannot be used to make substantive policy changes or revisit decisions taken by Parliament in the Bill. Where it is used to amend or repeal primary legislation, regulations are subject to the affirmative procedure, ensuring scrutiny by both Houses. For those reasons, the Government remain satisfied that Clause 10 strikes the right balance between ensuring a functioning statute book and providing appropriate parliamentary oversight where primary legislation is affected. I therefore invite the noble Lord to withdraw his amendment.

[Lord Moylan (Con)]

My Lords, you can always tell whether the Minister is speaking in his own voice or merely as a tool of departmental officials. I will leave it to noble Lords to decide which category that speech fell into. For the moment at least, I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.

Amendment 70 withdrawn.