DVLA: Staffing Levels

Lord Moylan Excerpts

Tuesday 23rd June 2026 Lords Chamber

[Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill (Lab)]

I just thought I should say that so that nobody thought it was in somebody else’s name. It is important that, as people get older, they consider whether they are capable to continue driving and have the right medical history to do so. I realise that it is a real issue for their mobility, particularly in rural areas. That is why the digital medical services platform, to which I referred, enables much more of this to be done online. If the noble Lord would like to give me some further details of his very young wife’s licence application, I will look into it.

[Lord Moylan (Con)]

My Lords, I imagine that my noble friend Lord Hamilton of Epsom put his name on his licence application as well, though with slightly different results. The DVLA used to be, not so long ago, one of the more highly regarded agencies, rather like the Passport Office. It was pretty efficient and reliable, but it seems to have gone downhill. Taking another example, the Government committed last year to reduce the wait for driving tests to seven weeks by summer 2026. Here we are in the height of summer 2026 and the waiting time is still 23 weeks. What are the Government going to do about this? What date can they now give for saying that they will bring these waiting lists within bounds?

[Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill (Lab)]

Some issues of government are more intractable than others. Given the statistics I quoted earlier about a 10% rise in medical licence notifications yet a reduction in the timescale dealing with them, I think that the DVLA is not an example of an organisation in crisis but one that is seeking, together with technology, to address the issues it faces on a real-time basis. However, the noble Lord is right that the Government anticipated reducing the waiting time for a driving test to seven weeks; the Secretary of State recently said that it was taking a long time to sort it out and that it will not be sorted out until autumn next year.

That is not to say that nothing has been done. The number of examiners has gone up by 147. In the period between June 2025 and May 2026, the DVSA conducted 242,000 more tests than in the same period. Pass rates are going up, which is very satisfactory. The noble Lord ought to know the effects that the actions to make the booking system fairer—limiting learners to two changes to their driving tests, restricting bookings so that only learners can book and amend tests, and limiting the area a learner driver can move a test to once booked—are already producing. Those actions were taken at the end of March, in the middle of May and in early June, and they are already clearly increasing the availability of test slots. He is right that it is taking longer but we will solve it.

HS2 Ltd: Consultants

Lord Moylan Excerpts

Monday 22nd June 2026 Lords Chamber

[Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill (Lab)]

I certainly thank the noble Lord for his clarity about the purpose of HS2. I am not the best person to stand here and talk about consultancy expenditure in government in general, but I sympathise with him about getting long-term work done, because the cheapest way of getting it done is to get people to do it on an employment basis. However, if we look at what has had to be done by Mark Wild, under the supervision of Mike Brown and the new board, we see that a company that does not know how it spent its own money and what work was done for it, in circumstances where there are currently cost-plus contracts, is in need of serious help. That serious help, frankly, can be established in the short term only with the use of consultants.

[Lord Moylan (Con)]

My Lords, on behalf of these Benches, I also express my condolences to the family of the driver who lost his life in the tragedy on Friday—happily, a very rare event on Britain’s railways. On HS2, one of its principal contractors has warned that the Government’s steel tariffs are “ill-timed and unhelpful” and will “exacerbate” existing challenges facing HS2. Why have the Government chosen to make HS2 even more expensive by putting these tariffs on imported steel?

[Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill (Lab)]

Fortunately, nearly all the steel for HS2 has already been purchased so, although it suffers from many things, it will not suffer from changes in steel prices going forward. If the noble Lord looks at either social media or at pictures, or even goes to see the route, he will see that a vast amount of steel has already been erected on the route to Birmingham.

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

Lord Moylan Excerpts

Committee stage
Thursday 18th June 2026 Grand Committee

[Baroness Pidgeon (LD)]

My Lords, this is an important group of amendments, and this has been a useful debate. It goes to the heart of what the Bill could enable and the safeguards clearly needed to protect communities that will be impacted by any changes to airspace use. As my noble friend Lord Russell outlined, Amendment 60, in the name of my noble friend Lady Grender, would put those guardrails in place. It would require the Secretary of State to consult affected communities, alongside making environmental and noise impact assessments, before being able to make a direction. This is critical. As we know, altering flight paths and redesigning airspace will have a significant impact on a surprisingly large area, as those communities impacted by the existing Heathrow and Gatwick airports, for example, are only too aware. A Secretary of State must understand the impact on people, noise and the environment of any potential decision. It is an important part of the decision-making process.

I understand that the Minister has given assurances that the Bill is not intended as a vehicle for airport expansion, but that is not a legal safeguard, as my noble friend Lord Russell outlined. Putting a duty in the Bill would ensure that Parliament and the public can distinguish between a necessary operational change and a change that, in effect, facilitates additional capacity without the transparency that would accompany a normal expansion decision. Without mandatory consultation and that impact assessment, there is a real risk that expansion could be delivered through the back door. This amendment matters to residents under the flight path, including communities such as those in Richmond, Kingston and Hounslow. They already live with the consequences of aircraft noise and emissions. If the Secretary of State is to have this power, the Bill must clearly specify procedural safeguards.

As we have heard from noble Lords, the other amendments in this group test the same principle of whether airspace modernisation is being carried out in a transparent, accountable and proportionate way. We are sympathetic to their aims as detailed by my noble friend Lord Russell. I am rather nervous about the noble Viscount, Lord Goschen, getting lost in the sky, as he said earlier. I am very grateful that we have modern navigation systems these days. If we are to redesign our skies, we should not do so in a way that leaves people on the ground with less say, less information and fewer protections than we had before. I look forward to the Minister’s response.

[Lord Moylan (Con)]

My Lords, I am impressed by the enormous experience of aviation and ministerial responsibility for aviation present in the Committee. I do not claim either, but I will do my best to respond to this group. First, I say that we support the principle of airspace modernisation. If we have a complaint about it, it is that it is taking so long. If it needs legislation, why is that legislation is arriving only now, seven years after it started? The Minister might explain that and what sort of timetable he is expecting to pursue with airspace modernisation.

The Bill gives the Minister new powers of direction that are extremely broad, and that is the basis for most of the complaints and concerns—I think concerns rather than complaints—expressed in the Committee so far. They are very broad powers of direction and are almost unconstrained. I think it fair to say that no part of the Committee believes that those powers should be unconstrained. We believe that there should be processes that allow for consultation and accountability. Indeed, one could even argue that it would be more appropriate than giving directions for the Secretary of State to have to have recourse to a statutory instrument. That is not an amendment that has been proposed today, but it would be one way of addressing the Committee’s concerns.

I will briefly deal with the amendments. Both Amendment 60, in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Grender, and Amendment 61, in the name of my noble friend Lord Grayling, seek to impose a consultation requirement of a general character on the Minister. I do not think that that can be gainsaid; the Minister will have to agree it in one form or another. If he cannot give us assurances today that he will bring forward an appropriate amendment on Report, I very much hope that the noble Baroness and my noble friend will work together to draft an amendment that we can all rally behind.

Amendment 62 is in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Tunnicliffe. As at Second Reading, I found his speech most enlightening and interesting. I will make a small diversion to comment on it in a moment. However, the general principle is whether pilots—either through their trade union or in some other forum, as he said—should be consulted, and consulted specifically and early, about airspace changes. The answer is surely that they must be, since, as he explained—I do not need to repeat it—their stake in the business and activity is so high and so responsible that they should of course be involved in consultation at an early stage.

I will comment briefly on the broader question raised by the noble Lord of how this system works. We are seeing automated systems very much on the railways and certainly on London Underground—I know the noble Lord has great experience in rail and not just as a pilot—and in the motorcars with gubbins on the top that one now sees around the streets, driving themselves but with a driver present. The essential point of all these systems is to get them to drive closer together. They will drive closer together more safely under these automated systems. Take the example of the Victoria line, where the trains come practically every 90 seconds: that would not be possible if there was a human driver responsible for stopping and starting, because they would need to make judgments about how to do that.

The crucial difference—here I support the noble Lord—with ground-based systems such as railways, and, I assume, cars, is that the fail-safe if something goes wrong is to bring the system to a total stop. You can do that on a railway; you can just stop it, so that no train moves until you work out what has gone wrong and how to put it right. That is the safety mechanism. You cannot do that in the air, so our approach to aviation safety has to be very different. The input of pilots must be crucial to all of this. If, in the absence of an amendment from the Minister, one were to come forward from the noble Lord that expressed that—although not necessarily in these words, but if he could show himself open to adaptation—we would be very happy to support it.

My noble friends Lord Kirkhope and Lord Goschen spoke about the importance of general aviation. I am happy to second that for all the reasons they gave on both its economic contribution and its role in being a feeder to the skills necessary in the larger commercial aviation sector.

I will focus particularly on what my noble friend Lord Kirkhope said about charging and turn to my own Amendment 64, which is on just that point. There is a striking new subsection in Clause 6. It says:

“Persons may be specified (or of a description specified) if the services concerned are available for their use or benefit, and it is immaterial whether or not the services are actually used or could be used by, or actually benefit or could benefit, them”.


There is something of a contradiction written into that, because they would have to meet both limbs of the test. The first limb says that they

“are available for their use or benefit”.

The second limbs says, “Well, they could not be used by them and could not benefit them”. How can they be available for their use or benefit on the one hand and it still be the case that they could not be used by or benefit them and are still chargeable? I hope that I have expressed that correctly but, if noble Lords read the clause carefully, they will see that that is what it says. It says that they have to be available for their use or benefit but that it is immaterial whether they could use them or benefit from them. That seems like an obvious contradiction.

Introducing the word “persons” obviously requires some explanation. I am sure that the Minister is going to give it. I suspect that the explanation might be along the lines of the fact that there are drones and other things in the skies now, not simply aircraft. If that is the explanation, it has to deal with the clear point made by my noble friend Lord Kirkhope of Harrogate, but I am a little more relaxed about that. What I am not relaxed about is being asked to give the Minister the power to levy charges on people who could not use or benefit from the services in question. As it stands, this clause shows every sign of being hastily and poorly drafted. One would hope that the Minister would come forward on Report with improved drafting, but, if not, I suspect that there will be an amendment to deal with it.

It is fair to say, in these happy circumstances that have arisen, that the whole of the Committee is united on nearly all of the points we have debated in this group. I very much hope that the Minister will be able to join that circle and not disrupt the unanimity that the Committee has so fortunately achieved.

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

My Lords, I am grateful to noble Lords for their thoughtful contributions on this group of amendments. Although I rarely seem to agree with the noble Lord, Lord Moylan, I do so now in admiring the depth of aviation knowledge in this Committee today.

I will respond to the points that have been made and set out how the Bill enables progress on essential airspace reforms while maintaining the appropriate safeguards. I will start with Amendment 60, which was introduced by the noble Earl, Lord Russell, and the comments from the noble Baroness, Lady Pidgeon. It will be convenient for me to address Amendments 61 and 62, in the names of the noble Lords, Lord Grayling and Lord Tunnicliffe, respectively, and to note the comments from the noble Baroness, Lady Bray of Coln.

I assure all of them that environmental assessments and consultation are, and will remain, a fundamental part of the airspace change process. Let me be clear at the outset that nothing in these powers removes or weakens the existing requirements for thorough consultation and robust assessment of environmental and noise impacts. The Bill will extend the Secretary of State’s existing powers under the Air Traffic Management and Unmanned Aircraft Act 2021. It allows her, if needed, to require the implementation of an approved airspace change. For the avoidance of doubt, that means an airspace change proposal that has already been properly developed, consulted on and approved.

The powers introduced by the Bill do not circumvent the existing requirements built into the airspace change process, and any proposal must first go through the Civil Aviation Authority’s CAP1616 process. This requires the sponsor of an airspace change to undertake detailed assessments of the potential impacts of flight paths, including noise exposure and greenhouse gas emissions. Sponsors must hold meaningful consultations on the proposals with affected communities and other stakeholders, including airspace users or groups representing them, and, where appropriate, with pilots and those who represent them. These assessments must be rigorously scrutinised by the Civil Aviation Authority before any proposal can be approved. Where a change is taken forward by the UK Airspace Design Service, it will work closely with airports, in line with the bespoke partnership agreements.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill (Lab)]

I will take some advice and respond further. But I note in response to the comments from the noble Lord, Lord Grayling, that both proposals will have been consulted on and agreed, so it is not the case that consultation would not have applied to either of them. I will write to him with the precise answer to his very reasonable question and copy it to other noble Lords.

Amendment 63 is from the noble Lord, Lord Holmes of Richmond, and he is right that information about airspace changes should be secure and transparent. I take the noble Lord’s point about the choice of technology. The Civil Aviation Authority’s CAP1616 airspace change process is designed to ensure transparency throughout. There is already a legal requirement for directions related to airspace change to be published, as well as any steps the CAA takes to enforce them. In addition, both the sponsor of an airspace change and the CAA are required to publish relevant documentation throughout the process, which is held on the CAA’s airspace change portal—a secure platform which acts as a single source of truth. When an approved design is implemented, it is published in the UK Aeronautical Information Publication, as required by international law.

This is not an area where there is a lack of trust or accountability requiring a more complex or novel audit mechanism. The CAA operates within a well-established statutory framework with clear oversight and requirements for publication and traceability. Introducing a requirement to store this information in a prescriptive or novel format risks adding complexity without corresponding benefit, given that the core objectives of transparency, accessibility, and auditability are already being met. It would also apply irrespective of any identified gap, creating additional cost and rigidity on how information is managed, so I respectfully ask the noble Lord not to press his amendment.

Amendment 64 from the noble Lord, Lord Moylan, relates to a technical change arising from the proposed expansion of who can pay charges for air traffic services, which will ensure that the “user pays” principle can continue to be fairly applied in future. Air traffic services are provided for all users within a block of airspace. Even when an airspace user does not use a service directly, they may still benefit from it. For example, if two aircraft avoid a collision because one is directed away from the other, both benefit even though one did not directly receive the service.

It is right that the charging framework reflects this. The Bill does not say that charges may be imposed on persons who cannot use or benefit from them. We reassure noble Lords that charges are not set without safeguards and that the Bill maintains them. The Civil Aviation Authority accounts for factors such as efficiency and proportionality and follows an established process, including extensive engagement, statutory consultation and rights of appeal.

A requirement to prove the precise level of use or benefit for every airspace user would be disproportionate and unworkable, particularly as an increasing number of emerging uses, especially drones and other unmanned aircraft systems, are integrated into shared airspace and require air traffic services in future. That issue is what the existing provision is designed to avoid and what the changes in the Bill seek to maintain. For that reason, I ask the noble Lord to withdraw his amendment.

[Lord Moylan (Con)]

The Minister says that the Bill does not say that you can be charged if you cannot use the service, but that is precisely what it says. It says that

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

I do not think it is logically coherent, because they have to be available to them to qualify on the first limb of the clause.

It may well be that the noble Lord has the intention he expressed at the Dispatch Box. However, I ask him whether he considers this clause to be drafted to articulate that intention. As it stands, it seems internally self-contradictory. But if it is not internally self-contradictory and he can prove that it is not, I would still object to people being charged for services that they could not use or benefit from.

[Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill (Lab)]

In those circumstances, I will take away the noble Lord’s very detailed point and attempt to either explain why it does what I said, or alter it so that it does what I said.

Finally, I will address Amendment 65 from the noble Lord, Lord Kirkhope of Harrogate. I also listened carefully to the noble Viscount, Lord Goschen, on this subject. As experienced pilots themselves, they know better than most that general aviation is an important part of the UK’s aviation industry, covering a wide range of public service, commercial and recreational activities.

Clause 6 seeks to provide the Civil Aviation Authority 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 cost of providing those services can continue to be recovered fairly and proportionately, in line with the user pays principle. I note the replication of the IATA view on this from the noble Lord, Lord Harper, and I will take that away.

As noble Lords will be aware, these costs are currently recovered primarily from commercial airlines as they are the main users of the relevant services. General aviation is largely exempt. The noble Lord is right that we do have in mind drone operations on operators and other unmanned aircraft. Ahead of any changes in future, the CAA has a statutory duty to consult on its proposals. Those whose interests are materially affected by its decision could appeal if they considered they had grounds to do so.

The CAA already 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 includes any that might be classed as general aviation to the extent that they are affected. Given this duty, the thorough and well-established processes for setting charges and the fact that there is currently no plan to create a new charge for general aviation users, I ask the noble Lord not to press his amendment.

--- Later in debate ---

Amendment 65C on satellite navigation is closely related. Air ambulance crews, along with the wider general aviation community, depend on precise, reliable navigation. EGNOS, the European satellite-based augmentation system, which we have debated many times in the past, provided that reliability. We lost it after Brexit, and the timeline for its replacement is unclear. A requirement for a report from the Secretary of State on access to EGNOS or an equivalent service is a modest ask, and I hope the Minister will be sympathetic. We need to understand where we are and when parity will be restored. I hope the Minister will consider these amendments and I look forward to his response.

[Lord Moylan (Con)]

My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, has brought before the Committee some interesting and valuable amendments. I look forward to hearing what the Minister has to say about them.

On EGNOS, I never quite understand why everyone wants to crawl back to Europe. The problem with that is that, every time you ask the Europeans for something, they want to exact a very large price, simply because they are still very cross with us for voting to restore our representative democracy in this country and for taking advantage of Brexit.

It is worth asking the Minister if he has discussed whether this service might be available, with a bit of expenditure, from Mr Elon Musk. As I understand it, Elon Musk is now in command of around two-thirds of the satellites going around the earth. I am sure that a man of such ingenuity and enterprise could easily develop a navigation system that depended on these satellites. Would that not be a sensible alternative? It might keep the Europeans on their toes, should we want to use their system, if they thought of taking advantage of us. Otherwise, I look forward to hearing what the Minister has to say. There is a bigger world out there—it is not just Europe—and we should all take advantage of it.

[Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill (Lab)]

My Lords, this grouping covers resilience, infrastructure and connectivity. I begin by addressing my noble friend Lord Berkeley’s Amendment 65B. I listened carefully to the noble Viscount, Lord Goschen, and the noble Baroness, Lady Pidgeon, on this subject. The Government support the life-saving work of air ambulances and the department, alongside the Civil Aviation Authority, regularly engages with air ambulance charities to understand their unique needs. Air ambulances already operate under a special regime from the Civil Aviation Authority that allows them privileged access to airspace and ensures that they can land wherever they need to in order to carry out their life-saving work. If my noble friend or the operators have any concerns about how this is working, the Minister for Aviation in the other place would be more than happy to hear them and deal with them. I hope that reassures my noble friend that his amendment is not needed.

On my noble friend’s Amendment 65B, the Government recognise the importance of satellite navigation services to support operations in all weather conditions. As my noble friend notes from his observation of the Answer to a Written Question in the other place, the Government are actively reviewing the viability of these services, including our access to the European geostationary navigation overlay service, or EGNOS, and the output from that is expected later this year, as he said. I will not pre-empt that review by accepting this amendment. I have not personally spoken to Elon Musk on this, or indeed any other subject, but I am sure that the Government are considering the full range of possibilities to do what EGNOS delivered in the past. I hope my noble friend understands that I cannot pre-empt the outcome of that review.

Finally, I thank my noble friend Lord Berkeley for his amendment relating to an airfield advisory team. The CAA carries out extensive engagement with aerodrome operators and values the insights and feedback that they provide, which play an important part in informing policy development in this area. At present, there is no clearly established rationale for creating a statutory panel for this group of stakeholders, particularly when similar arrangements are not in place for other stakeholder groups. Introducing such a panel could risk creating an imbalance by conferring a status on one group over others. But, having noted the concerns of the noble Lord, Lord Harper, I will take the issue away and inquire further about this team and the reasons for its disbandment. I hope that my noble friend will not press his amendment.

I should add clarity to my comments in Committee on Tuesday, to which my noble friend referred. I said this in my speech:

“Requiring training would not be appropriate for all airfields”.—[Official Report, 16/6/26; col. GC 114.]


I then gave some different reasons, which my noble friend quoted, for why training might not be possible at some airports. It was certainly not intended to suggest that no airfields would be suitable for training, as that would be unacceptable. I hope that that makes things clear.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Pidgeon (LD)]

My Lords, this is a substantial group and I am grateful to noble Lords who have tabled amendments covering how slot allocation powers should be structured, constrained and scrutinised. It is a clear theme in many of the amendments before us. I thought the referee versus regulator point from the noble Lord, Lord Grayling, was powerful in summing up a lot of this.

Before I turn to the amendments, I will remind the Committee of a thread that ran through Second Reading: the question of airport expansion and, in particular, whether the slots regime and the significant new powers that the Secretary of State is taking in relation to it could be used to facilitate or, in effect, predetermine expansion decisions. As your Lordships have heard, slots are capacity. Control over slot allocation is, in important respects, control over how airports can grow and who benefits from that growth. The Government may say that the expansion question is separate, but the mechanisms are not neatly separate, and I suspect that those questions will return on Report.

The regional connectivity concern raised in this group is one that many noble Lords feel strongly about. Hub airport access for regional routes is not just for commercial convenience. It is a question of whether communities and economies across the United Kingdom are connected nationally and then internationally.

Finally, on parliamentary procedure, the House has consistently held that significant regulatory powers should be subject to proper parliamentary oversight. I hope the Minister would not want to resist that principle here. I look forward to his response.

[Lord Moylan (Con)]

My Lords, I will briefly introduce my own amendments and then comment on others. I have Amendments 70, 71 and 72. Amendment 72 is consequential on Amendment 71 so, in effect, I have two amendments, and the first is to do with consultation.

I can see no requirement in the Bill for the Government to undertake any consultation prior to exercising the powers they seek under this legislation. We recently debated the Airports Slot Allocation (Alleviation of Usage Requirements) Regulations 2026, and the industry told us that the consultation on those was extremely short. That was partly to do with getting the regulations done before the powers gap closes or opens, but the consultation was extremely short.

The result of it, according to the Government’s own statement, was that the airlines supported what the Government were doing but the airports were adamantly opposed. They were opposed principally because, as my noble friend Lady Foster said, the slots allocator already has the powers to respond in emergencies; there is no need for this action to take place. I come back to the point about consultation. That was a good example of consultation done badly and not listened to. Here, we have no consultation promised at all. My amendment would require it.

My second amendment concerns the fact that statutory instruments will be used here. The significant ones will be done by the affirmative process, but there is an exemption for those that have temporary effect, which will be done by the negative process. This is a direct downgrading because the airport slots regulations we considered in Grand Committee only last week were temporary in their character; they last only for the coming summer and winter seasons. It is precisely that type of statutory instrument—that type of government action—that will now be moved to be taken under the negative process. This is definitely a downgrade of parliamentary scrutiny and my amendment would eliminate it. Amendment 72 is, as I say, consequential on that.

To come to the other contributions in this debate, it is fair to say that, between them, my noble friends Lord Grayling and Lady Foster of Oxton have driven an entire coach and horses through this section of the Bill. They ask the crucial question: what is the necessity for this? Not only that, but what is the benefit to the public of the Government intervening in something that is, in essence, first, a private market activity and, secondly, working perfectly well at the moment, with no reason to think that that is likely to change? Although I am sure that the Minister will want to defend these proposals when he gets to his feet, the tenor of debate in Committee is that they should be done away with wholesale. My amendments, which would simply require consultation and better processes, are inadequate to the task. When we come back on Report, we will have to challenge clearly why the Government are involved in this at all, with what purpose and to what effect—unless, of course, the Minister can satisfy us today.

[Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill (Lab)]

My Lords, as we have heard, this group concerns the airport slots regime. I am grateful to noble Lords for their amendments. I will address each one in turn but first note two common points that apply across this group.

The UK slots regime depends on independent, fair, transparent and non-discriminatory allocation by the slot co-ordinator. It also operates within international frameworks, such as the Worldwide Airport Slot Guidelines, the global standard for managing airport capacity at congested level 3 and capacity-constrained level 2 airports. The regime already recognises commercial expectations that require clarity, consistency and timely decision-making. Where I refer to independence, proportionality, flexibility or international alignment, these are the common justifications I have in mind. I also say to the noble Baroness, Lady Pidgeon, that the processes in this Bill do not in themselves allow airport expansion; they are about the efficient allocation of capacity created by expansion, which is a different issue.

I begin with Amendment 66, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Grayling. I understand the concern that the Government should not interfere in a liberalised and well-functioning sector, and our policy intent is not to interfere in this. These provisions, however, largely replicate provisions previously available through EU legislation. All the Government are doing is replicating the powers we think we appropriately need to continue. I refer the noble Lord to paragraphs 20 to 24 of the Explanatory Notes to the Bill.

Neither the Government nor airlines have a role in the day-to-day allocation of slots. As noble Lords have noted, that is undertaken by an independent slot co-ordinator who must allocate slots openly, fairly, transparently and without discrimination. The amendment would therefore not have the intended effect and would create uncertainty. The temporary reallocation or suspension of unused slots during an international crisis is already addressed by Clause 7. In our view, Amendment 66 is therefore unnecessary and duplicative.

I turn to Amendment 67, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Empey, which would require sufficient slots at hub airports such as Heathrow to be allocated to flights from UK regional airports. The Government recognise the importance of strong regional connectivity and effective access to hub airports for people and businesses across the United Kingdom.

However, I cannot support the amendment because requiring hub airports to prioritise domestic regional services over international routes could conflict with non-discrimination and fair competition obligations in the UK’s bilateral air services agreements. It could also require the reallocation of slots from incumbent operators that have historic rights where usage requirements are met, raising legal and practical issues. I therefore ask the noble Lord not to press his amendment.

The next amendment, from the noble Lord, Lord Grayling, seeks to remove the ability to create regulations on enforcement of the slots regime through criminal and civil sanctions. Existing assimilated law already contains criminal and civil enforcement provisions, which the Government believe are necessary. Removing this power would freeze the current enforcement regime, meaning that even proportionate updates could be made only through further primary legislation. I do not believe that that is the noble Lord’s intention.

[Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill (Lab)]

I will respond to the noble Lord after today.

Clause 7 already reduces the severity of sanctions by removing the possibility of imprisonment for breaches of slots regulations. Any exercise of the power to amend enforcement provisions would be subject to the affirmative procedure, ensuring scrutiny and debate in both Houses. For those reasons, I ask the noble Lord not to press his amendment.

I turn to Amendment 70, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Moylan, which would place a statutory duty on the Secretary of State to consult airlines, airport operators and others before making any slots regulations under Clause 7. The Government recognise the importance of proper engagement and, where new policy is developed under this power, will carry out appropriate consultation, including with industry and, where relevant, communities. However, an inflexible statutory consultation duty would not be appropriate. The power may need to be used urgently in response to significant disruption, as was necessary during the pandemic. In those circumstances, government must be able to act swiftly and proportionately. I therefore ask the noble Lord not to press Amendment 70.

I will take Amendments 71 and 72, also tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Moylan, together. They would require all regulations relating to slots to be subject to the affirmative procedure. I recognise the desire for parliamentary scrutiny, but the Bill already draws a proportionate distinction. The negative procedure is available only where there is a significant threat to public health, or another substantial reason, and only for temporary changes to slot-usage requirements. Requiring the affirmative procedure in every case could delay necessary action during disruption, where speed may be essential. I therefore ask the noble Lord not to press Amendments 71 and 72.

Amendment 73, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Harper, would—

[Lord Moylan (Con)]

The point that the Minister makes about emergencies and so forth is not reflected in the text of the Bill, which says on page eight:

“Regulations are excluded regulations if the Secretary of State considers that their only substantive effect is temporarily to disapply or modify a requirement as to regularity of use of slots”.


That would cover the airport slots regulations that we debated last week. Those would move from being affirmative procedure SIs to negative procedure SIs. The additional stipulations that the Minister mentioned are not reflected in the clause that defines an excluded regulation.

[Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill (Lab)]

I thank the noble Lord for that observation. I will of course take it away and consider what he has said.

Amendment 73, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Harper, would place the slot co-ordinator under the oversight of the Civil Aviation Authority. I understand the intention to strengthen oversight, but the amendment would cut across a fundamental principle of the slots regime: that the co-ordinator must remain functionally and financially independent of all interested parties, including government. The noble Lord asked whether we are content with the current system, and we are. That principle is reflected in the Worldwide Airport Slot Guidelines, which align these matters across all level 2 and level 3 airports across the globe and are essential to ensuring that scarce airport capacity is allocated fairly, neutrally and without bias towards any airline, airport or Government. They protect new entrants and maintain confidence in the global system. Creating a statutory CAA oversight role would risk putting the UK at odds with established international practice and creating legal and operational uncertainty. I therefore ask the noble Lord not to press Amendment 73.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Foster of Oxton (Con)]

My Lords, I will comment briefly on the subject in general. I have long been an advocate for airport expansion, particularly at Heathrow. On that note, I support the Government taking this brave step. Having lived in south-west London and under the odd flight path from time to time, I recognise that there was an airport there long before me and before most people who live in the area. It was unfortunately most regrettable—I now intend to be quite party political—that the fortunes of the Liberal Democrats relied on objecting to every element of expansion at Heathrow, whether for new terminals or runways. Most people would agree that we should have had a third runway more than 30 years ago, when the cost would have been substantially less.

My final point is that, while I fully support the Government pushing ahead with expansion and a third runway, the decision on this particular project, at a cost of £49 billion, with disruption to areas around the M25 and elsewhere, is completely wrong. I see it ending up like some of the other massive infrastructure projects that we have had in rail. I do not believe this is the best way forward. There should be a rethink. Other projects would be less disruptive but have not been fully considered. As a general point, I fully support the Government’s ideals to expand but think that the initial decision is wrong at this time.

[Lord Moylan (Con)]

My Lords, I note the publication, while the Committee has been sitting, of the revisions to the Airports National Policy Statement. Obviously, I have not read it, and I do not imagine that other Members have, apart from the Minister and his close associates.

It is worth saying that that this publication does not take us forward; it takes us back to 2018, when the Airports National Policy Statement was published. It was then taken through the courts. There were some ridiculous objections to it, but it got through the High Court. It fell on one particular objection only at the Court of Appeal, which turned, as I recall, on the question of the definition of the word “policy”—this is how great infrastructure projects proceed in this country. It eventually went to the Supreme Court, which took a different view on the definition of “policy” and finally approved the ANPS. By that stage, of course, it was totally out of date and Covid had intervened, so the work had to be started again by the department. The fruits of that work are what have been published today. As I say, I am not in a position to comment on it. We are back to where we were in 2018 and have made no progress in that period. We will see whether this new ANPS survives the sort of process that the previous one was subjected to and whether we will need a third ANPS a few years down the road.

In relation to these amendments, I unfortunately find myself not entirely able to agree with my Liberal Democrat colleagues on the two in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Grender. It is not because of the intention, because that is of course important—there should be consultation, an environmental impact assessment and a noise impact assessment if Heathrow is to be expanded—but because I think those things will happen anyway without this amendment. Nor can I honestly say that I support Amendment 105. One cannot create powers for the Government in specific areas of aviation and then say that they cannot be used for one particular purpose within the field of aviation. That makes no sense so, sadly, I am slightly out of sympathy on those two.

I understand the comments about the amendment proposed by the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett of Manor Castle, but, sadly, this time, I do not feel I can pursue that either. There are other amendments relating to the environment later on, not least one in the name of my noble friend Lord Harper, which raise some interesting questions.

I find myself very much in support of the amendment tabled by my noble friend Lord Harper. I sympathise with his remarks about the financial consequences and financial circumstances relating to Heathrow expansion. Perhaps I can give a few figures that will help the Committee put this in some context, and then put a couple of questions to the Minister.

Heathrow is a private company and it is very difficult to know its market valuation, because its shares trade so rarely. There was a trade 13 or 14 years ago, which valued the company at approximately £14 billion. That was roughly the same as the value of the airport’s regulated asset base at the time. There was then a trade approximately two years ago—there was quite a reorganisation of shareholders approximately two years ago—and I understand that the valuation implicit in those trades was that the airport was now worth only £10 billion, roughly. Its value had fallen over that period. Meanwhile, its regulated asset base has gone up to in excess of £20 billion, so the shareholders bought a regulated asset base for half its price.

Of the capital structure of the company, there is a large amount of debt—in fact, more debt than there was some years ago. The amount of equity belonging to the shareholders in the company is therefore probably no more than £2 billion—let us say £3 billion to be generous. Now we hear of a company with £3 billion of shareholder commitment that wishes to embark upon a project costing, conservatively, £49 billion at current estimated prices. This is vaunting ambition at the very least. If it were purely a private company, it would be completely unfinanceable without a huge new infusion of shareholder capital, because no bank will lend £49 billion to a company that has only £3 billion of equity and already has several billion pounds of debt on top of that. It is simply an unfinanceable project.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill (Lab)]

My Lords, this group concerns airport expansion capacity. I am grateful to noble Lords for their amendments.

I will address Amendments 69, 105, 110 and 114 in turn. Before doing so, I will make two points that apply across the group. First, as I made clear at Second Reading, the Bill is not a route to airport expansion. It does not grant planning consent, remove environmental safeguards or predetermine the outcome of any expansion proposal. Secondly, where airport expansion is proposed, the relevant issues, including noise, carbon emissions, air quality, economic benefits and local impacts, are considered through national policy statements and the development consent order processes, with consultation, assessment, scrutiny and independent examination. Those are the common justifications, which I will refer back to. Expansion decisions sit within the planning regime, while this Bill concerns aviation consumer protection and regulatory reform.

I turn first to Amendment 69 spoken to by the noble Baroness, Lady Pidgeon. This amendment would require the Secretary of State to undertake consultation impact assessments before laying slot regulations that facilitate airport expansion. I reassure the noble Baroness that the Government are fully committed to meaningful consultation with communities and to thorough environmental and noise assessment before airport expansion proceeds. However, slot regulations do not grant planning for physical expansion, nor do they increase the legally permitted cap on aircraft movements. They determine how capacity at co-ordinated airports is allocated between airlines. The slots measure in the Bill would allow regulations to be updated if needed so that any capacity already approved through the planning process can be used effectively. Amendment 69 would therefore duplicate consultation and assessment processes that already take place before slot allocation becomes relevant, and for that reason I ask the noble Baroness to withdraw the amendment.

I turn next to Amendment 105, also tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Grender. This amendment would prohibit the powers in the Bill being used for the purposes of airport expansion. The Bill and the question of airport expansion are distinct. The Bill is focused, as I said, on consumer protection reform of the aviation regulatory framework. The Government would take forward these measures, irrespective of any expansion decision. The Government support Heathrow expansion, but any decision on the third runway is subject to the national policy statement and the development consent order processes, both of which include consultation and scrutiny. Airspace modernisation is also needed, whether or not a third runway is proceeded with. Its purpose is to make UK airspace more efficient, resilient, quieter and cleaner, not to provide a shortcut to expansion. Similarly, slots regulation does not create airport capacity; it manages capacity after it has been approved through the planning process.

Amendment 105 would undermine the workability of the Bill’s regulatory framework. For example, it could prevent reforms to slot regulation where those reforms are needed to manage new capacity that has already been approved. I therefore ask the noble Baroness not to press it.

I turn next to Amendment 110, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Harper, on a third runway at Heathrow. The Government agree that decisions on airport expansion should be evidence-based and subject to transparency, consultation and scrutiny. However, Amendment 110 is not necessary to achieve that, because decisions on Heathrow expansion will be taken through the national policy statement and development consent order processes.

As noble Lords have noted, the department has today published the revised airports national policy statement, which has been renamed the draft Heathrow expansion national policy statement, to clarify that it applies only to Heathrow expansion and its associated infrastructure for consultation.

In response to the noble Lord, Lord Harper, and others, I am not going to be in a position to respond to the detail of what has literally just been published, which I am sure he and others will understand. However, I have no doubt that the points he and others raise will be discussed both in your Lordships’ House and in the other place. I have also heard the noble Earl, Lord Russell, the noble Baroness, Lady Foster of Oxton, and the noble Lord, Lord Moylan, but as I say, this is for discussion at another time.

I have also written today to all noble Lords with further details. I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Moylan, will accept that I am not going to answer his questions now, because the Written Statement was laid less than two hours ago.

[Lord Moylan (Con)]

Would the noble Lord be so good as to answer them by letter before we reach Report?

[Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill (Lab)]

I will certainly consider what I can say to the noble Lord before Report.

The Heathrow expansion national policy statement includes the full suite of appraisal and supporting analytical documents. Alongside the public consultation, that draft policy statement will be laid before Parliament and subject to parliamentary scrutiny by a nominated parliamentary Select Committee. Following the consultation, the Government will carefully consider all responses received, alongside the report of the parliamentary Select Committee, before deciding whether to designate an amended national policy statement. If the Government decide to proceed, the amended policy statement will be published and laid before Parliament, in accordance with the requirements set out in the Planning Act 2008, and be subject to a vote in the other place before it can take legal effect. Any development consent application for expansion at Heathrow must include detailed, project-specific assessments, including operational and system-wide impacts, and will be published and examined through the Planning Inspectorate process.

Not all the matters covered by Amendment 110 can be determined at a single point. Airspace design, in particular, is developed iteratively and requires sufficient certainty about an expansion scheme before it can be finalised, approved and implemented. Airspace change proposals are also subject to their own oversight processes, including detailed assessment and public consultation, and do not pre-empt planning decisions. It would not be appropriate to include requirements for a specific infrastructure project in this Bill, which is concerned, as I have said, with consumer protection and regulatory reform. Given the extensive information and scrutiny that will already apply to Heathrow expansion, I ask the noble Lord not to press his amendment.

Finally, I turn to Amendment 114, tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, but spoken to by the noble Earl, Lord Russell. I agree that tackling climate change and reducing aviation emissions must remain central to aviation policy. However, I cannot accept this amendment. Elements of Amendment 114 would duplicate existing duties under the Climate Change Act 2008, but the provisions on airport capacity go significantly further. This Government support airport expansion where it is justified. The UK needs sufficient airport capacity to support economic growth, trade, freight and connectivity across the country. Proposals are, and will continue to be, assessed case by case against strict climate, environmental and economic tests.

Amendment 114 would prevent the Secretary of State using powers under the Bill to support any expansion of airport capacity and go further, by requiring a reduction in capacity. That would remove the Government’s ability to respond to real capacity constraints, even where a scheme could meet the rigorous tests I have described. This Bill is not the vehicle for making those determinations. I therefore ask for Amendment 114 not to be pressed.

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Lord Moylan]

76: Clause 8, page 9, line 15, leave out “CAA may by rules (to be known as “CAA rules”)” and insert “Secretary of State may by regulations”
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment would provide for CAA rules to be made by regulations by the Secretary of State.

[Lord Moylan (Con)]

My Lords, I have a lot of amendments in this group, but I assure noble Lords that a number of them are duplicative, because they seek to replace “document” with “guidance” wherever it appears in the clause. None the less, it will take me a moment to go through my amendments.

We are dealing here with the CAA’s rule-making powers. It is worth reminding noble Lords that the first part of the Bill is about consumer protection and the CAA’s role as the direct enforcer of consumer protection powers. This is a very different part of the Bill. It is about making rules. It gives the CAA huge, unprecedented powers to make rules, including ones that may have criminal penalties, and it does so with practically no supervision—certainly not by Parliament and, as far as I can make out, very little by the Minister either. That is what these amendments are intended to deal with.

The first one probes why it is necessary for the Civil Aviation Authority to have rule-making powers at all. Until recently, the rules it made emanated from the European Union; in fact, they often came through from the ICAO, trickling down in that fashion. But, for all their faults, regulations made by the European Union were not made in secret. One could see what was happening. We had, here in your Lordships’ House, a committee that reviewed regulations and statutory instruments relating to European Union legislation.

All these rules were made under air navigation orders, which are a form of statutory instrument—again, it is a parliamentary process. In future, neither will apply. There will be no scrutiny whatever. But, since these rules have been made by statutory instrument and similar in the past, a question arises: why should they not be made in that fashion in the future?

The Minister said—or I may have read this somewhere in some of the supporting documentation—that there is a backlog of 100 or so of these that have to be got through, and that using parliamentary time for this purpose is not appropriate. It is disturbing to think that there is a backlog, but that is not an excuse in itself. After all, we are all being made to sit here in Grand Committee for five hours rather than four, and for three hours on a Tuesday morning. There is no lack of parliamentary time for considering statutory instruments. We are all being held to the last, and we work very hard. There is no excuse that there is no room for them when the Chamber is full of debates on subjects such as tackling child poverty, rather than legislating, which is what it should be doing while we are in here. We will carry on in here; we will do the statutory instruments and put the time in, so there is no problem there.

At an earlier stage—I cannot remember whether it was on our first day in Committee or at Second Reading—the Minister said he had a trump card. He said that the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee thought that it was appropriate for this regulator-led rule-making approach to be adopted. But he did not read the next sentence:

“Inherent in the proposition is that CAA made rules would be highly technical in nature”.


But this Bill does not limit the CAA to making rules that are highly technical in nature. It does not limit it simply to implementing ICAO powers.

In fact, this has caused concern to another committee of your Lordships’ House: the Constitution Committee. The chairman of that committee, my noble friend Lord Strathclyde, has written to the Minister saying among other things that:

“This Bill strengthens the secondary law-making and rule-making powers of both the Civil Aviation Authority and the Secretary of State”


and that this

“will, by the nature of negative parliamentary approval of secondary legislation, be subject to minimal parliamentary oversight. We are concerned that this will result in a scrutiny gap”.

We will wait to hear, but so far the Minister has had no answer to that.

So my first question is: why should we make such a dramatic change at all? Secondly, if there is going to be a rule-making power of this character, the Secretary of State should publish the underlying principles. It is not all given to the Secretary of State: it is for the Secretary of State, following the enactment of this Bill, to decide which rule-making powers are given over. There is no limit in the Bill on what those powers are. The second amendment, Amendment 77, would require at least a statement of principles, in advance of enactment of the Bill, as to what basis the Secretary of State is going to use for deciding which powers should be transferred over into this new process. Amendment 79 would require consultation by the Civil Aviation Authority when making rules. There is no requirement for consultation in the Bill.

Amendment 81 in my name probes why the Secretary of State’s priorities and objectives statement is described as a “document” rather than “guidance”. As I said at Second Reading, this is the oddest part of the Bill. It says that the Secretary of State is allowed to issue a document that gives guidance to the CAA on what the Government’s priorities are in relation to rule-making. The word “document” is used and the word “guidance” is avoided. I fear that that is a deliberate choice. The word “guidance” has a legal weight to it; we understand what guidance is in relation to the action of public bodies and how they are bound to it, but we do not understand what obligation a public body has to pay attention to a document issued by the Secretary of State. Does it have the weight of guidance? What weight does it have? I am trying to replace it with the word “guidance” so that we have clarity.

Then we come down to this further point: the Bill prohibits the Secretary of State from issuing this “document”, which I would change to “guidance”, without the agreement of the Civil Aviation Authority. This is truly remarkable. I do not think that I have ever come across an example where a regulated body acting on behalf of the Secretary of State can refuse to accept the document or guidance that the Secretary of State is going to issue. I raised the point at Second Reading, and the Minister made no defence, although no doubt he is better prepared now—but what could it possibly be, and how could your Lordships possibly agree to such a thing?

There are other matters here. For example, on Amendment 98. The Bill states that the Civil Aviation Authority “may” publish a consolidated set of rules so that people can look at them. That is a good idea, but it would be a better idea if the Bill said that it “must” publish a set of consolidated rules. How could this be left to the discretion of the Civil Aviation Authority? Then the Bill has the cheek to say that anybody who is so impertinent as to ask for a printed copy of that set of rules can be charged a fee, with no limit placed on the fee or on how that might be used. My amendment would take away the fee.

This whole section gives new and unprecedented powers. There is no justification given for them and it is very difficult to understand why the Government would want to do this. I have respect for the Civil Aviation Authority because, as a safety regulator, it is of the highest quality. It is in the box of good regulators; there are bad regulators, but the CAA is not a bad regulator. I do not like to say something disobliging about the CAA, but it seems that this Bill has been written as an enormous power grab by the Civil Aviation Authority. It muscled its way into the digital markets Act in relation to consumer protection, and now it is taking over a whole swathe of rule-making powers. I just remind the Minister that, when we voted for Brexit, one thing we voted for was that rules should not be made by unelected bureaucrats. This Bill moves from a system where there is some scrutiny and understanding of the process and some parliamentary scrutiny of how these rules are made, to one where they are all being made by unelected bureaucrats, without supervision. It is a retrograde step, and not one that we should support. I beg to move.

[Lord Tunnicliffe (Lab)]

My Lords, I have Amendment 78 in this group. I shall only say a few words, and I suppose the very few words I could say are that, if we are to get new powers that may affect pilots, we wish to be consulted. In many ways, it is as simple as that. Hopefully, the Minister can give us a better feel for what this piece of legislation will be used for. I find myself almost agreeing with the noble Lord, Lord Moylan. If we are to have powers where we are not clear what they will be used for and what their extent will be, there are two sensible outcomes: either you do not bother with the powers, or you have an appropriate set of checks and balances to make sure that the powers are sensible.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill (Lab)]

My Lords, this group concerns Civil Aviation Authority rule-making. I begin with the amendment from the noble Lord, Lord Moylan, which would require aviation safety regulations to continue to be made by the Secretary of State, and on which the noble Lord, Lord Harper, also spoke. That would prevent the delegation of technical rule-making to the Civil Aviation Authority, which is a central purpose of the Bill. As I said at Second Reading, the current process risks the UK falling behind its international safety obligations. Delegating technical rule-making to that authority will allow the regime to keep pace with international standards and industry change, while retaining robust safeguards, ministerial oversight and parliamentary accountability. As I will say on a number of amendments in this group, the Bill is designed to create a quicker, more responsive regulator-led system, without removing proper democratic controls.

The words of my noble friend Lord Tunnicliffe at Second Reading strongly resonated with me then, as they do now, but I note that the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee clearly recognised a case for such an approach. The noble Lord, Lord Moylan, referred to the letter from the chair of the Constitution Committee, which as yet I have not seen but will obviously fully consider when I do. I will reply to it as soon as I can and take on board all those matters that need to be considered in the Bill before Report.

[Lord Moylan (Con)]

The argument is that these rules have to be made by the CAA because parliamentary scrutiny slows things down and there is a risk that we fall behind meeting our international obligations. That is the case for change, but how often in the past have we fallen behind our international obligations using the existing system?

[Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill (Lab)]

I will certainly consider what the noble Lord says and respond to him. I am sure that what I have said is correct, but I will produce an answer for him as soon as I can.

Amendment 102 from the noble Baroness, Lady Grender, and Amendment 77 from the noble Lord, Lord Moylan, respond to the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee’s recommendations. Amendment 102 would move the relevant regulation-making power to the affirmative procedure, while Amendment 77 would require the Secretary of State to publish principles explaining how the power to prevent CAA rule-making in certain areas would be used.

I am grateful to both noble Lords for seeking to address the committee’s concern. The power is important because it helps to define the boundary between the Civil Aviation Authority and the Secretary of State. We are considering these points carefully, and, as I said at the previous Committee hearing, I fully intend to return before Report. I strongly note the advice of the noble Viscount, Lord Goshen, to be careful about what we wish for, given the possibly hundreds of technical amendments. On that basis, I hope the Committee notes that I will fully answer the points of the Constitution Committee and the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee, and that noble Lords will not press those amendments at this stage.

My noble friend Lord Tunnicliffe’s amendment, which is supported by the noble Lord, Lord Empey, would require the CAA to consult the British Airline Pilots Association. The Bill already requires the CAA to consult. The Secretary of State will expect it to consult appropriately with all relevant stakeholders, and the British Airline Pilots Association will of course be able to respond to consultations. However, a specific duty to consult that organisation in all cases would not be appropriate, because, as the noble Lord, Lord Empey, pointed out, the British Airline Pilots Association is not the only trade union representing pilots, and pilots are not the only people affected by CAA rules. Nor would it be proportionate to require that trade union to be consulted on every rule, including matters unlikely to affect pilots. I hope that reassures my noble friend. I will, of course, be happy to meet him to discuss how consultation will work in practice.

The next amendment from the noble Lord, Lord Moylan, would give the Secretary of State a power to direct the Civil Aviation Authority to consult specific persons. As with the previous amendment, I recognise the importance of appropriate consultation. However, new Section 61G, inserted by Clause 8, already enables the Secretary of State to direct the CAA in how it uses its rule-making functions, including by requiring consultation with specific parties. The amendment is therefore unnecessary and I ask the noble Lord not to press it.

Amendment 80 from the noble Baroness, Lady Grey-Thompson, would require the Civil Aviation Authority to prepare a disability impact assessment for significant rule changes. Accessibility is a priority for the Government, and we are committed to ensuring that anyone who wants to fly can do so without barriers. The Civil Aviation Authority is already subject to the public sector equality duty and must have due regard to equality impacts when making rules. As the noble Baroness, Lady Pidgeon, remarked, that should be considered automatically where appropriate. It includes careful consideration of the impact on disabled people and people with reduced mobility. I hope that reassures the noble Baroness and that she will not press her amendment, but, as I said on Tuesday, I am considering the many powerful points raised about disabled travellers and what we can and should do further in this Bill.

I will deal next with the 10 amendments from the noble Lord, Lord Moylan, which would replace references to a document setting out the Secretary of State’s priorities and objectives with references to guidance. As he notes, the distinction matters. This is not statutory guidance; it is intended to be an agreed administrative framework and work programme for the CAA’s functions. That approach allows Ministers to set clear expectations, maintain appropriate oversight and secure visibility of future rules, while respecting the CAA’s statutory independence. Labelling the document as guidance would weaken that intended effect. I therefore ask the noble Lord not to press those amendments.

Amendment 83, also from the noble Lord, Lord Moylan, would require the Secretary of State to explain how the CAA’s new rule-making function supports regional connectivity. The Government fully recognise the importance of strong air connectivity across the United Kingdom. However, most technical safety rules will have no direct bearing on that policy. Those wider objectives are more properly addressed through aviation strategy and policy, rather than through technical safety and operational rules. I therefore ask the noble Lord not to press this amendment.

I will speak to Amendments 89 and 91 together, as both concern the governance of the priorities and objectives document. Amendment 89, from the noble Lord, Lord Kirkhope of Harrogate, and my noble friend Lord Barber of Ainsdale, would replace the requirement for agreement with the CAA with a broader duty to consult stakeholders. Amendment 91, from the noble Lord, Lord Moylan, would similarly remove the CAA’s role in agreeing the document.

Here, I return to a common point in this group: the Bill seeks to create a streamlined, effective system with clear roles, while preserving regulatory independence. Replacing agreement with broad consultation would duplicate consultation that already takes place on individual rule changes and would slow the process. Removing agreement would also undermine the CAA’s ability to stand behind the programme it is asked to deliver. Agreement is not a veto; it ensures the programme is credible, deliverable and consistent with the Civil Aviation Authority’s statutory duties. If agreement cannot be reached, the Secretary of State retains existing powers, including the ability to make regulations directly. I will further explore the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Harper, on this. I therefore ask noble Lords not to press Amendments 89 and 91.

The next amendment, also from the noble Lord, Lord Kirkhope of Harrogate, and my noble friend Lord Barber of Ainsdale, concerns parliamentary oversight of the priorities and objectives document. I recognise the importance of transparency. However, Ministers must retain clear backstop powers to direct or intervene quickly where appropriate. Where directions are issued, they will be published, and the Secretary of State will remain accountable, including through the Transport Select Committee. In that context, laying the document before Parliament may not add significant transparency. We will continue to reflect on the points raised but, meanwhile, I ask the noble Lord and my noble friend not to press the amendment.

I turn to Amendment 96 from the noble Lord, Lord Holmes of Richmond, on AI technical standards. Artificial intelligence and automation are already important to aviation safety, and automation has contributed significantly to the high levels of safety achieved over recent decades. The Civil Aviation Authority takes developments in AI seriously and has a developed AI strategy, which it will continue to review as technology evolves. The Civil Aviation Authority already scrutinises technology used in safety-critical systems, including AI, through expert, system-specific certification and oversight. A single framework for all AI use would not be workable, and mandatory human intervention in every decision could undermine safety by introducing avoidable human error. I therefore ask the noble Lord not to press his amendment.

I will take Amendments 97 and 98, from the noble Lord, Lord Moylan, together. They would require the Civil Aviation Authority to republish the entire rulebook whenever a new rule is made, or an existing rule is updated. The CAA rulebook runs to many thousands of provisions. Republishing it in full for even minor changes would be disproportionate, costly and time-consuming, and would frustrate the aim of an agile, consolidated rulebook. The Civil Aviation Authority will publish new rules and updates to existing rules in a timely way. I therefore ask the noble Lord not to press Amendments 97 and 98.

[Lord Moylan (Con)]

Can the Minister give a commitment that the Civil Aviation Authority will maintain an up-to-date rulebook on its website at all times? Any changes made could simply be inserted on the website. That is what I am asking for; I am not asking for a book. The amendment says “publish”; it does say “publish a book”. At the moment, the Bill does not require the CAA to do that; it specifically exempts it from doing so.

[Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill (Lab)]

The noble Lord makes a reasonable point; I will take it away.

Amendments 99 and 100, also from the noble Lord, Lord Moylan, would require the Civil Aviation Authority to provide a free paper copy of the rulebook to anyone who asks. As I have just noted, the rulebook is extremely large, so requiring free paper copies would create a significant cost and administrative burden and, frankly, could be open to abuse. It is right that the CAA may charge for that expense, while ensuring that rules remain available to view for free on its website. I ask the noble Lord not to press Amendments 99 and 100.

I am grateful to the noble Lord for Amendment 101. The provision he seeks to remove is needed to ensure that the transition to CAA-led rule-making works coherently, including by enabling necessary consequential changes to existing legislation and enforcement provisions. Without it, gaps could arise that would require further primary legislation, which would not be proportionate or efficient. This is not an unfettered power. It is limited to what the Secretary of State considers necessary to facilitate or give effect to CAA rules, and it is subject to parliamentary procedure—affirmative where it amends primary legislation and negative in other cases. That provides proper oversight while allowing the new regime to operate effectively. Therefore, I ask the noble Lord not to press Amendment 101.

Finally, Amendment 118 from the noble Lord, Lord Empey, concerns flight time limitations. The CAA is responsible for ensuring that operators comply with those regulations. It already has powers to audit and enforce compliance, and is currently reviewing flight time limitations and enforcement. That review will be published later this year and will inform the CAA’s future approach. I will write to the noble Lord on the points he raised. I hope that that reassures him, and I ask him not to press Amendment 118.

[Lord Moylan (Con)]

My Lords, I note and am grateful for the assurance from the Minister that he will return on Report with an amendment—or amendments—that will address the points raised by the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee. I am sure that the noble Baroness, Lady Grender, and I will study that carefully, to see whether it will allow us not to press our own amendments. Beyond that, I am afraid to say that the Minister has, I think, disappointed the Committee with his response.

I will briefly comment on the relationship between the Secretary of State and the CAA. In normal circumstances—we might take Great British Railways as an example, as it is being created at the moment—we expect the Secretary of State to issue a document setting out the Government’s priorities and to impose them on the body being regulated. However, in this case, the Minister seems to envisage a partnership arrangement—a contract of some sort—between the Department for Transport and the Civil Aviation Authority, in which the CAA can say, “No, we don’t accept that part of the contract. We want something else”.

That seems to be unprecedented, although it is possible that the Minister can find precedence for it elsewhere in the regulatory environment in which we exist. It seems unprecedented, but it also seems to requires its own supervisory structure. In the end, if the Civil Aviation Authority can decide what it is willing to do, and the Secretary of State does not have the power to issue guidance requiring it to do those things, then we have created a monster that is totally outside of our control. I hear the Minister’s justification, but, as far as I understand it, it seems to raise more questions than it answers. I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.

Amendment 76 withdrawn.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Pidgeon (LD)]

My Lords, this group of amendments focuses rightly on the environment and climate impacts. My noble friend Lord Russell has set out clearly Amendments 106 and 107. They are modest, sensible asks and the Government should not find them difficult to accept, given that the aviation sector accounts for a significant and growing share of UK emissions and that it is one of the hardest sectors to decarbonise. We strongly support my noble friend’s amendments and look forward to hearing from the Minister how the Government intend to address this gap.

[Lord Moylan (Con)]

My Lords, between them, my noble friend Lord Harper and the noble Earl, Lord Russell, have drawn attention to the unreality of this debate. Everything in this Committee and everything to do with this Bill is about growth—economic growth, building new airports, having a new runway at Heathrow and so on. However, elsewhere there are, as I mentioned, government policies and statutory commitments that are undeliverable unless that growth is restricted. It is a great advantage to the Committee that the two noble Lords between them have drawn attention to that.

My Amendment 111 asks for a review of the cost of sustainable aviation fuel and takes us back to the issue that we discussed when the Sustainable Aviation Fuel Act was before your Lordships’ House.

Ministers have said that SAF costs are subject to fluctuation but are currently based on costs of £3.30 per litre for conventional SAF and approximately £4 per litre for power-to-liquid fuel. They have also set out estimated RAF market costs rising from £16.5 million in 2025 to £187 million by 2040 as a result of SAF. That has been reported as the RAF spending more than £1 billion over 15 years on switching to sustainable jet fuel. Wider commentary has suggested that sustainable aviation fuel can cost up to eight times as much as conventional jet fuel.

It matters because, as we know, the mandate requires an ever-increasing amount of SAF to be used by the commercial aviation sector. For passengers, it will mean higher fares, and therefore less demand. For airlines, it may mean higher operating costs, but also weaker competitiveness and a reduction in aviation activity. If the demand is falling, the number of planes in the air will be fewer, the number of destinations served will be fewer and the amount of regional connectivity that we can look forward to will be less.

If the Government are imposing this policy, they should be prepared to assess openly what it means for airfares, airline costs, public expenditure and national security for the UK. My amendment calls for the Government to make that assessment within two years—plenty of time—of the passing of the Bill and to publish it. It is the least they can do.

--- Later in debate ---

My final question is to test whether the Government are going to remain completely hands-off and allow the CAA to finish its consultation, decide which of those four models it prefers and just go along with whatever the CAA says or are the Government going to take a view on whether what the CAA has come up with is actually going to enable it to deliver the Government’s preferred choice of the more expensive £49 billion option for the third runway? That was the purpose of tabling the amendment, and I hope that the Minister can set out some detailed answers when he responds.

[Lord Moylan (Con)]

My Lords, I wholly support the amendments proposed by my noble friend Lord Harper. I keep coming back—I must—to the absolutely cruel imposition of increased business rates on airports. They are a smash and grab of deliberate design; they can have no effect other than to make aviation less accessible to ordinary people, despite what the Minister has just said is the Government’s policy. Equally, if the CAA is to have these very substantial new powers, it is reasonable to ask why it should not also have a clear duty to promote competition. For that reason, I strongly support the amendments in this group.

[Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill (Lab)]

I thank your Lordships for the debate on this group regarding economic impacts and competition, and I thank the noble Lord, Lord Harper, in particular for his amendments. I turn first to his amendment on the impact of business rates revaluation. At the Budget, the Valuation Office Agency announced updated property values from the 2026 revaluation. This revaluation is the first since the pandemic to result in significant increases in rateable value for some property, which includes some airports. The Government recognise the impact that these changes can have. We have considered this carefully and have put in place measures to ensure that the effects are manageable. We are delivering a support package worth £4.3 billion over the next three years, including a £3.2 billion transitional relief scheme. That provides more generous support to the largest ratepayers, including airports. It caps increases in airport bills arising from revaluations to just over double by 2028-29, before any supplements and reliefs are applied, preventing the much larger increases they otherwise would have seen.

The Government believe these arrangements strike the right balance, reflecting updated property values while ensuring a smooth and manageable adjustment for airports. Looking ahead, however, the Government recognise that businesses with decades-long capital cycles need stability and predictability to deliver capital investment plans. To provide this, the Government published a call for evidence around the receipts and expenditure valuation methodology and its impacts on long-term, high-value investments. This will allow the Government to work constructively with airports and other ratepayers ahead of the 2029 revaluation. I should also note that if an airport, or indeed any business, disagrees with their business rates valuation, they may challenge it with the Valuation Office Agency and, if that fails to produce a satisfactory outcome, the affected party may escalate the case to the independent Valuation Tribunal. As a result, I hope the noble Lord feels able to withdraw this amendment.

I turn to Amendment 116. The Government agree that effective competition, where it can be delivered, plays an important role in improving outcomes for passengers, airlines and the wider sector. The CAA already has a clear statutory role in economic regulation and a duty to further the interests of air passengers, both of which it actively applies. The Civil Aviation Act 2012 provides a well-established framework designed to give the Civil Aviation Authority clear focus on furthering the interests of passengers. The framework ensures that competition is properly considered as a means of furthering those interests, while allowing the regulator to take a balanced and proportionate approach in markets where competition may not always be effective. It is important that the CAA continues to have discretion in how it regulates airports, including by balancing the promotion of competition with other ways to further the interests of consumers where those are more appropriate. Although the CAA’s competition remit is targeted, the Competition and Markets Authority is able to intervene when wider competition issues arise.

We recognise that there are arguments for looking more broadly at the CAA’s role in relation to competition, but so far we have seen no evidence that the current framework is not working effectively, although we will continue to keep it under review. If we consider it necessary, we will, indeed, as the noble Lord, Lord Harper, suggested, add competition to the next letter to the Civil Aviation Authority chair.

Changes in this space could have wide-ranging implications for investment, passenger costs and regulatory independence, so it is important that those impacts are fully considered before any changes are made. Amendment 116 does not address those broader questions, and it risks cutting across a more considered approach. The proposed reporting requirement is unlikely to add significant value, given the CAA’s existing transparency and reporting obligations. For those reasons, I hope the noble Lord feels able not to press his amendment.

Finally, Amendment 117 seeks to enable the CAA to impose pro-competition remedies at Heathrow. As noted, the CAA already has a well-established framework of powers relating to economic competition. These enable it to act where competition is not working effectively. It can impose and enforce licence conditions on dominant airports and has concurrent competition powers alongside the CMA. In short, the tools to act are already in place, and competition consideration is already embedded in the statutory duties.

We note, as the noble Lord did, that the CAA is currently consulting on aspects of the future regulatory framework at Heathrow, including options, as he mentioned, that relate to competition and the delivery of airport infrastructure. In answer to his question, the CAA does not believe it needs further powers if it chooses a more radical option. On his second question, about whether the Government will take a view on the CAA’s choices, I cannot say at the moment, but since the Heathrow expansion national policy statement has been launched, we will no doubt be able to in due course. I have no doubt that the noble Lord is engaging with those processes and, for that reason, we do not believe that this amendment is necessary.

The noble Lord asked on Tuesday about the department’s role in reducing the administrative burden of regulation on business by 25% in this Parliament. I can confirm that the department is working closely with regulators and with the Department for Business and Trade to identify legislative and practical changes to deliver that. We have already made progress: for example, changes to rules for large vehicle licence holders with diabetes, which reduce costs by several million pounds a year; and there are some examples of Civil Aviation Authority initiatives that contribute to a reduction in the administrative burden incurred by businesses, including investment in systems modernisation, the recent update to the Airspace Coordination and Obstacle Management Service, and the general aviation licensing and training simplification programme. I am very happy to write to him further, and I will do so.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Moylan (Con)]

My Lords, I shall briefly oppose Clause 10 standing part of the Bill. This is a wide-ranging Henry VIII power, and wholly unnecessary. In a letter sent by the Civil Service to the Delegated Powers Committee, civil servants identify every Act that this Bill interacts with and states that all amendments necessary are already made in the Bill. Why should the Government be seeking a Henry VIII power to amend even further legislation, yet unknown and undiscovered, when the case has been closed off already?

[Baroness Pidgeon (LD)]

My Lords, the Clause 10 stand part notice tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Moylan, raises a point of constitutional principle that the Committee will wish to consider carefully. I draw attention to subsection (6), which enables regulations to be implemented using the negative procedure. Have the Government considered whether the affirmative procedure should apply to all regulations made under this clause, rather than only to those presently specified? Given that the power extends to modifying primary legislation, there is a reasonable case that every exercise of it should require the active approval of both Houses, rather than passing on the nod. Can the Minister confirm whether he is prepared to reflect further on that question before Report?

[Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill (Lab)]

My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Moylan, opposes the inclusion of Clause 10 in the Bill. I recognise the importance of proper parliamentary scrutiny where powers are taken to make consequential provision, particularly where those powers may be used to amend primary legislation. However, I reassure the noble Lord that this clause is both limited and appropriate. I note that the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee did not draw this clause to the attention of your Lordships’ House.

Clause 10 gives the Secretary of State a power to make consequential regulations so that the statute book properly reflects the changes made by the Bill. It is not a power to make substantive policy changes. The clause allows regulations to amend, appeal or revoke provision made by or under an Act passed before this Bill or later in the parliamentary Session, but only when that is consequential on the Bill. Importantly, where regulations made under this power amend or repeal primary legislation, they must be laid before Parliament and approved by both Houses under the affirmative procedure.

Such consequential powers are a common and practical feature of legislation used to ensure that the wider statute book works coherently once a Bill is enacted. In this case, the power is appropriately constrained and subject to the necessary parliamentary safeguards. Removing this clause would mean that the Government may need to rely on primary legislation to make minor changes and that, if there were delays, this could create inconsistencies in legislation and legal uncertainty.

I note the suggestion made by the noble Baroness, Lady Pidgeon, to reflect on Clause 6. I will, of course, consider that further. For those reasons, the Government consider it necessary to retain this power, and I hope the noble Lord will withdraw his opposition to Clause 10 standing part of the Bill.

[Lord Moylan (Con)]

My Lords, the fact is that the job has been done. The Minister did not address the point that all the relevant Acts have already been identified and that no further amendments are required. He did not explain—perhaps he cannot explain—what legislation this power should be used for. It is not constrained and, as the noble Baroness, Lady Pidgeon, said, some of its provisions, although not those that allow the alteration of primary legislation, can be processed using the negative procedure. It is not appropriate.

I will conclude very briefly. We started by identifying this Bill as a massive power grab. Our last discussion in Committee is yet more about massive power grabs. This is not the way to treat Parliament. I think many of these issues are going to come back on Report and there will be widespread opposition to the way the Government are conducting themselves. For now, however, I withdraw my opposition to Clause 10.

Clause 10 agreed.

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

Lord Moylan Excerpts

Committee stage
Tuesday 16th June 2026 Grand Committee

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

and

“protect the rights and interests of consumers”.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Lord Davies of Gower (Con)]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

which are parts that GA is very interested in, and

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

and

“to make provision about aviation offences”,

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Harper (Con)]

My Lords, I declare my interest, as set out in the register, as non-executive chair of RVL Aviation. I strongly support the purpose clause which my noble friend Lord Moylan has set out because I think most of the discussion on the other amendments will look at passengers by talking about airlines and concentrating on the experience of passengers. I draw attention to the fact that his Amendment 1 also talks about the international competitiveness of the sector, economic growth and the rights of those who purchase air transport services. My understanding of his amendment and of Clause 1 is that the definition of air transport services is not just passengers but those people who purchase freight and cargo services. I see the Minister is nodding assent.

That is important because it is critical to the growth of the economy. Air freight accounts for over 40% of non-EU trade by value, even though it is only about 1% of freight by volume. That is incredibly important to the overall economy, especially for some sectors, such as pharmaceuticals and high-end manufacturing, where we are particularly competitive, and it contributes to our balance of payments. An amendment that means that Ministers, when making regulations, have to ensure that our international trade remains competitive would be extremely valuable.

That is important, because the conversation about rights and the regulatory burden on airlines is often had while not thinking about the cost of those regulations. It does not mean that you do not make regulations if they have a cost; it just means that when you think about regulating, you have to think about the cost, look at the benefit and balance those two things. You also have to look at them cumulatively. My noble friend Lord Moylan touched on that when he talked about the Government’s target to reduce the cost of administrative burdens by 25% over this Parliament.

It is worth putting on the record—this is why the competitiveness of the sector is important—that overall, in 2024, European airlines had a net profit margin of around 3.9%. They are also expected, once all the results are in, to have had a net profit margin of around 4.4% in 2025, with a profit per passenger of around $8 or $9. I accept that that varies hugely by carrier, but it means that we have to think carefully about the costs that we load on to the industry so that we ensure that it remains competitive for both freight and passengers.

[Lord Moylan (Con)]

Does my noble friend agree that, as the European Union has said, for European airlines the cost of regulation to date is approximately €8 per ticket?

[Lord Harper (Con)]

I note that point; it is important when you look at the margins. It is clear that relatively small changes to the regulatory burden will have a direct impact. Businesses with relatively low margins have a relatively low ability to absorb those extra costs, which means that they flow through on to ticket prices and fall on passengers and those who use freight services. The briefing from Airlines UK, which I suspect all Members have received, makes the point that the cost remains the single biggest barrier to flying, which is why it is important that we keep the cost burden as low as we can. Pricing people out of flying is not, ultimately, very sensible.

Let me touch briefly on the other amendments tabled by my noble friend Lord Moylan. Amendment 23 is specifically about the desirability of promoting economic growth. The Minister was nodding but it would be helpful if, when he responds, he sets out that that encompasses not just passenger transport but freight providers. A significant amount of freight goes in the belly of passenger planes, of course, so those two services are absolutely interconnected. It would be helpful if the Minister could confirm that.

On Amendment 24, I strongly agree with my noble friend. This seems a very unobjectionable amendment to me. In effect, it would ensure that Ministers have to be transparent. It would not mean that they could not align our regulations with those in the European Union, but it would mean that they have to think about why they are doing it first. It would also mean them having to set out their rationale for us all to see and having to be transparent about the costs and benefits of doing so. There may be good reasons why we may wish for our rules to be aligned with those in the EU, in which case Ministers should have no problem with setting out the rationale for doing so and why they have decided to make the changes that they have, so that we can all see them.

I agree with my noble friend Lord Moylan that what we do not want is an automatic, knee-jerk approach where, as soon as the European Union changes its rules, we assume that we have to change ours as well, even if we are not clear about the benefits and costs of doing so. This is a transparency measure, basically, and I cannot think of a good reason why the Minister could not accept it—or why, if he does not think that it is drafted well enough, he could not come back on Report with a similar amendment of his own.

My final point concerns the Government’s target to reduce the administrative costs of regulations. I am not sure what exactly they are using as the definition of “administrative costs” but of course—I am not going to rehearse this argument now—this Government have already increased the costs for businesses significantly through the Employment Rights Act. Their own impact assessment said that that Act had a cost to businesses of around £5 billion. It means that, if they are going to reduce the administrative costs for businesses by 25% over this Parliament—I assume that that is a net reduction—if they increase costs in one area, they will have to reduce costs by more than 25% in other areas in order to hit the overall cost reduction target of 25%.

Again, this is a transparency measure that insists that the Government have to track how they are doing against that target and whether they are on track. If we are two years through a five-year Parliament, we should be able to look at the 25% target; that is roughly 5% a year and, if the Government have not already reduced costs and are not on track to reduce them by 10% by this point, they clearly do not have a hope of doing so by the end of the Parliament. This is a welcome piece of transparency, which is why I support it.

Finally, I think that my noble friend Lord Davies is right explicitly to flag the importance of general aviation, not just to the very significant number of people who use general aviation services, both purchasing services and flying themselves—it is also a very important sector in generating pilots and those who are skilled in aviation services, which then goes into the wider sector. An explicit recognition of the importance of general aviation, reminding people of its importance, is very welcome, and his amendment has served us all by putting that on the record.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill (Lab)]

I will certainly see what information I have, and whatever I have I will tell him about on Thursday.

[Lord Moylan (Con)]

My Lords, I note that the Minister quotes the Delegated Powers Committee favourably. I hope, therefore, that he will be willing to accept, when we come to it, my later amendment, which gives effect to the recommendation of the Delegated Powers Committee that certain powers in the Bill be constrained. We will debate that, as I say, at a later stage.

I am grateful to noble Lords who have spoken on these amendments. I say a particular word of thanks to my noble friends Lord Davies of Gower and Lord Goschen for their contributions on the general aviation sector, which, as they say, is not always remembered with the prominence due to it. I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Grender, for the support that she found able to give to my amendments in general and to raising a case that we will pursue. I thought that the Minister might have been able to agree with my amendments in the same way, but he was not. He found somewhat footling reasons for saying that they were unnecessary. That only makes it more likely, I am afraid, that we will return to them on Report.

I am persuaded that when the Minister says that he is committed to a competitive and successful aviation sector, he is right. But he is not the only voice in Whitehall. That is why these amendments are so important. I do not imagine that the Minister was consulted when the Chancellor of the Exchequer decided to impose bone-crunching increases in business rates on the aviation sector that he wants to see remaining internationally competitive. I do not know the extent to which the Minister is consulted when DEZNZ—I hate that expression —is pushing for ever-increasing drop-off charges at airports. This is something that we will discuss again in considering further amendments, which clearly imposes a cost on flying for ordinary families, and is intended to do so, and which can only damage the aviation sector and make it less competitive. I was disappointed by what the Minister had to say. None the less, at this stage I beg leave to withdraw my amendment, although I expect to return to the matters on Report.

Amendment 1 withdrawn.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Grender (LD)]

My Lords, we support these amendments because they test whether the Bill does more than just create broad enabling powers. If we are giving the Secretary of State and the CAA new regulatory and enforcement functions, Parliament should also be clear about the statutory floor, the scope and the standards against which those powers are to be exercised.

We believe that Amendment 9, tabled by my noble friend Lord Russell, should be agreed to because it would insert a specific passenger safeguarding obligation to prohibit carriers separating children from accompanying adults. In doing so, it would remove a gap in the consumer protection framework and prevent airlines monetising what is, in practical terms, a safeguarding issue. It would also give statutory weight to the principle that family seating should not be treated as an optional extra, which is consistent with the Bill’s wider consumer protection purpose. Although we are aware of the CMA’s present investigation into Ryanair, we think that this an excellent opportunity to embed something in this legislation. We think that that is the right approach.

My Amendment 13 is technically important because it would refine Clause 1 by requiring air passenger rights regulations to standardise hand baggage dimensions by reference to recognised industry standards. This matters because the present position is too often defined by variable carrier policies rather than a clear statutory baseline, which makes the operation of Clause 1(2)(d), on price transparency, much harder in practice. A uniform volumetric standard would enable genuine, like-for-like comparisons at the point of sale. We all know people who have to hold three different sizes of hand luggage if they are using three different airlines. It just does not make any sense.

This amendment would still preserve commercial freedom because it would standardise the box but not the fee. It would also give the CAA an objective benchmark for compliance and enforcement, which is preferable—we can all agree on this, I think—to relying on what is, after all, very patchy guidance or post hoc disputes at the gate. We have all seen those, I am sure.

My Amendment 20 would provide a non-regression safeguard as domestic aviation consumer law replaces assimilated EU-derived protections. The amendment would require the Secretary of State to ensure that new regulations are at least equal to, and ideally better than, the protections that are already in place. I mentioned this in our debate on the previous group. It would provide an important constraint on delegated power because it would prevent the framework being used to dilute rights over time. It would also convert what is currently a permissive approach into a continuing duty of review, which is a sensible way to ensure that consumer rights do not fall behind evolving standards.

Amendment 36 would give the Bill a more coherent accountability structure through providing a passenger charter—I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay, not only for her support but for bringing to life the realities of being on a plane in some difficult circumstances. At the moment, the risk with the Bill as it stands is that powers exist in principle but passengers have no clarity or codified statement of what service standards they can expect or how failures will be remedied. Embedding a charter with objective performance measures and a defined redress framework would make the regulatory architecture more intelligible and more enforceable. That said, I recognise that the Minister has set out the challenge to us about being more specific about this passenger charter and we will continue to attempt to do that, including in the run-up to Report. I thank him for the ongoing discussions about that.

Amendment 2, tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Grey-Thompson, and my noble friend Lady Brinton, is also an important technical correction, because it would turn accessibility from a general policy objective into a legal duty. Disabled passengers should not be left dependent on guidance, voluntary compliance or uneven airline practice. A statutory obligation, accompanied by annual reporting, would create clearer lines of accountability for both operators and the regulator. That is especially significant where the Bill is otherwise expanding the CAA’s enforcement role. I thank the Minister again for his willingness to engage and discuss this issue with us behind the scenes. I feel that there is a door that is reasonably open to achieving some kind of understanding, particularly in this area and particularly in the light of the absolutely hair-raising stories that we all heard in the Second Reading debate.

I added Amendment 59B a bit late. It is—with apologies to the noble Lord, Lord Moylan—about echoing and shadowing EU 261. This is a probing and exploratory amendment, which goes to the coherence of the UK passenger rights regime at the moment, when the European framework is evolving and the Government are asking Parliament to confer broad powers on the Secretary of State. If the Bill is to modernise aviation consumer protection, it should not allow UK 261 to drift away from EU 261 without some kind of explicit policy choice or decision and clear scrutiny here in Parliament with a proper explanation.

The practical concern is straightforward. We know that EU 261 is making progress on embedding greater rights—for instance, about travelling with your child or about compensation after three hours’ delay. It would be useful to make sure that we mirror that, unless we can do better. That is in my other amendment, which is saying, “Let’s not do a race to the bottom; let’s do a race to the top of the highest possible standards”. That is why Amendment 59B should be seen as a non-regression and alignment safeguard, not a mere technical tidying-up provision. That said, I very much look forward to hearing what the Minister says in response.

[Lord Moylan (Con)]

My Lords, I will introduce my amendments in this group and will then make a few comments about remarks made by other noble Lords in the course of debate—not, I assure your Lordships, responding to every noble Lord who spoke, although it was a very valuable and interesting debate. I will speak first to Amendments 4, 5 and 30. I also have Amendments 38 and 39 in this group, but Amendments 4, 5 and 30 stand as a set that work together, so I will speak to them first.

Amendment 4 would require a review of hidden or undisclosed charges imposed on passengers by airlines or airport operators. I am singing from a similar hymn book to that used by the noble Baroness, Lady Grender, the noble Earl, Lord Russell, and others in trying to get to the heart of understanding how, cumulatively, passengers are being charged for various things. I have cast my amendment in the form of asking the Government to have a review. We all have anecdotal experience of this sort of thing. I booked some air tickets the other day. Of course, a very attractive price is offered, but by the time I have chosen the option that includes the suitcase and I have booked my seats, it is a bit more expensive than it started out.

--- Later in debate ---

These arrangements do not exist in a regulatory vacuum. Parking operators function within the bounds of UK consumer protection law and industry standards, allowing for intervention if such practices constitute a breach of these standards. The revenue generated from parking and drop-off charges is an important part of an airport’s wider commercial model, and that income can be used for essential investment in airport infrastructure and passenger facilities, including to support the delivery of an airport’s surface access strategy, directly subsidising cleaner public transport options.

[Lord Moylan (Con)]

My Lords, there is the case of airports such as Heathrow—admittedly few in number—that are economically regulated on the basis of a regulated asset base. Assuming that it was approved by the CAA acting as economic regulator, a Heathrow investment in infrastructure would be added to the regulated asset base, and it would earn its return that way. It does not defray those returns on the grounds that it has income from shops, drop-off charges and so on; they are pure bonus to the shareholders.

[Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill (Lab)]

I note the noble Lord’s point on Heathrow and other airports that have a regulated asset base. Airports must retain the ability to manage their own infrastructure. The Government’s role is to ensure that competition and consumer laws are protected and upheld. Ultimately, each airport operator must justify the charges they levy and show that they are fair, transparent and carried out with proper accountability. For those reasons, I hope noble Lords will feel able not to press their amendments.

I thank the noble Lord, Lord Young of Cookham, for his amendment relating to reimbursement for airlines if delays are caused by air traffic management, and I note the support from the noble Baroness, Lady Foster of Oxton, and others. Long delays and cancellations that are caused by air traffic management decisions are considered extraordinary circumstances under the current law, and therefore compensation is not due to passengers in those cases. None the less, the airlines are responsible for providing refunds, or care to passengers, such as meals and refreshments, when there are such delays and cancellations, provided certain qualifying conditions are met.

I note that National Air Traffic Services is subject to a robust regulatory regime overseen by the Civil Aviation Authority, and it includes performance targets linked to delays and a financial penalty mechanism when these targets are not met, meaning that NATS must reduce what it charges airlines in the following period. This is at least currently the effective penalty on NATS for poor performance.

I recognise that the noble Lord has diligently pursued this issue across the previous Government and this one. With relative joy, I have discovered how many previous Secretaries of State there are not only on the opposition Benches but in this Room. I am very grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Harper, for his explanation of what happened in the case that the noble Lord, Lord Young of Cookham, referred to. He supposes that I have some sympathy with the proposition that, somehow, the charges levied on Network Rail did not act as the incentive that they were supposed to. He is right, which is why the Railways Bill does not go in that direction. I am grateful to him—seriously—for explaining what decision he came to in that particular case, because he is right that the shareholding of NATS is very far from a conventional commercial company with a range of shareholders.

I hope I have never been grudging. I may—as the noble Lord, Lord Moylan, probably thinks frequently—be unpersuasive, but I think I owe the noble Lord, Lord Young, at least the courtesy of a meeting on this subject to understand better what he has said and to see whether the current Government’s position ought to be the same as what the noble Lord, Lord Harper, described in his Government’s case, or whether there is a persuasive case for change.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Grender (LD)]

Wow—how much blood has to boil before this is dealt with? It was striking at Second Reading to hear these stories, and striking that a lot of them came from behind the Minister on the Government Benches. In a sense, that gives me a little hope that there is enough political will and heft here that something can be done. From meetings that we have had with the Minister, I think there is political will here.

We cannot ever hear these stories again without having taken this opportunity and this moment to do something. It is beyond shocking that this happens. It should never happen, but, in a modern age, today, that this is happening on a regular basis is beyond the pale and needs to stop. Whatever support the Minister requires to get this over the line, I know that my noble friend Lady Brinton, the noble Baroness, Lady Grey-Thompson, and the noble Lords, Lord Holmes and Lord Blencathra, are powerful advocates who can help deliver on that.

We support the amendment by the noble Baroness, Lady Kennedy. I have two amendments in my name, one of which is about an accompanying adult with a child. This is an incredibly important issue. We recognise that there is one bad actor at the moment on this and that the CMA is looking into it. That said, embedding this in the Bill would give the reassurance that families need and deserve. When I was talking about this amendment with my noble friend Lady Brinton, she pointed out that it is not simply families who get separated from their children; people get separated from their carers—when you go searching, you find that there are plenty of examples of that. Again, surely this is a small change that can and should be implemented.

I am incredibly hopeful that there is an opportunity between this Committee and Report to do some serious and significant work, to make use of this Bill to ensure that we never have to hear of this appalling treatment ever again.

[Lord Moylan (Con)]

My Lords, it has been an important, valuable and moving debate. I do not have anything to add that would be helpful to the Committee, except to say that we must all take account of the important stories of people’s real experience, which are illustrative of what so many others have to face.

I said at Second Reading that I hoped that there would be sufficient unanimity on these issues and that the Government themselves would bring forward amendments around which we could rally. The advantage of that would have been that any government amendments would be workable and acceptable, so we would have been able to rally around something that worked rather than struggling as Back-Benchers, with the modest support we have, to devise something and impose it on the Government, which is always unsatisfactory in a certain sense. Unfortunately, the Government have not come forward with amendments, but there is still an opportunity for them to do so on Report. If they do not, I am sure that there will be a wide range of amendments that will almost certainly go to a Division. I do not see that they are going to be defeated, given the attitudes that have been expressed by noble Lords across the Grand Committee.

I urge the Government that it is in their interests to seize this issue and run with it. If they did so, I think that the whole Committee, across parties, would rally round them.

[Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill (Lab)]

My Lords, I am grateful to noble Lords for their thoughtful and powerful contributions on accessibility and consumer protection. The noble Baroness, Lady Grender, is right that we should not have to hear these stories. Some of them are simply dreadful, and the worst thing is that they are only examples.

The Government share the objective behind the amendments that disabled passengers and others who need assistance should be able to travel by air with confidence, dignity and appropriate redress when things go wrong. It is for those reasons that the Government established the Aviation Accessibility Task and Finish Group. I have already welcomed the report of July last year from the noble Baroness, Lady Grey-Thompson.

Before turning to individual amendments, I should make one point that applies to very many of them. Clauses 1 and 2 are designed to provide powers to strengthen passenger rights and enforcement. The Government’s view is that detailed requirements relating to passenger rights are best developed through secondary legislation, following consultation, evidence gathering and impact assessment, rather than fixed in primary legislation now, when the time to do those things is insufficient. I ask noble Lords to keep these common factors in mind as I progress but, to be clear, I will gladly meet interested Members of your Lordships’ House to discuss each individual amendment and describe further the Government’s intentions. To gently contradict the noble Lord, Lord Blencathra, Ministers will have influence on what is brought forward in the regulations; it will not just be civil servants who propose. However, I will be asking noble Lords not to press their amendments, for the reasons I will set out.

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Lord Moylan]

8: Clause 1, page 2, line 4, leave out “or CMA”
Member's explanatory statement
This amendment probes why both the CAA and the CMA require powers to compel information from air transport service providers and airport operators, and whether this function should rest with the CAA alone as the aviation regulator.

[Lord Moylan (Con)]

My Lords, we come now to a debate about the mechanics of the Bill, and it involves a considerable amount of detail. We are focused on the purposes of Clause 1 and 2. The purpose of Clause 1 is to give the Secretary of State the power to make regulations about the consumer protection of air passengers. As we know, those regulations have until recently been made by the European Union. It is right that the Secretary of State should be given those powers. The Secretary of State is accountable to Parliament and to the public, which is all to the good.

We object to the fact that so many of those regulations are to be made by the negative procedure. I know that at Second Reading, the noble Lord, Lord Tunnicliffe, said that it did not matter either way, but it does matter to us as Members of your Lordships’ House that statutory instruments of importance, especially those making regulations to do with consumer protection, should come forward as instruments under the affirmative procedure. We have amendments to that effect in this group. As things stand, the only instruments that would come under the affirmative procedure, as the Bill is written, would be those creating criminal offences. The Government, at least, accept that. But the others, which are matters to do with consumer protection, would be under the negative procedure. That is not good enough.

The second question relates to who is to do the enforcement and how. This is more to the thrust of Clause 2. Clause 2 itself is very short, but it enacts Schedule 1, which in terms of paper takes up about half the Bill. It is a very lengthy schedule, which is why this group might not be as short as one might hope.

Clause 2, with its schedule, splices—I think that is the right word—the Civil Aviation Authority into the Digital Markets, Competition and Consumers Act, which gives the Competition and Markets Authority its power to engage as a regulator with British businesses, looking at matters to do with competition, monopolies, abusive behaviour and so forth. It is interesting that reference was made earlier in the debate to the case being pursued at the moment by the Competition and Markets Authority against a British airline for charging families a fee in order to sit together, particularly a fee that affects younger members of the family under the age of 16. The noble Lord said he was not going to comment on the merits of that case, and understandably; nor am I, but it is interesting that that case, which is clearly a consumer protection case, is being pursued by the CMA.

We are going to have the CAA spliced into the Bill as a parallel regulator. We will have two regulators, with broadly similar powers, regulating the aviation sector. Anyone with even the remotest experience of low-level local government, such as myself, knows that one of the principles of enforcement in British law is that, for one crime, there is one prosecutor, so you cannot be prosecuted twice or pursued twice by different prosecutors for the same offence. That applies to traffic offences. They are enforced by the local authority, as parking generally is, or, if they are moving traffic offences, then, depending on the area—I am speaking of London now, where this is true, but it is not true of the rest of the country—they are enforced by either the local authority or the Metropolitan Police but not both, for the very good reason I have explained. It is simple. Why is the CAA being spliced into this structure—the architecture of the Bill—as a parallel regulator, and how will the two work together?

Well, the Bill has an answer to that: they will work together because the Secretary of State is given powers to sit on top of this Tweedledum, Tweedledee structure and decide—there is no guidance given and nothing explained as to how he will decide—how to co-ordinate the two. One could hardly imagine a more bizarre structure, a sort of pushmi-pullyu horse with two people inside it, and how they will work together. I do not have a solution. My amendment simply removes one of them from the structure and leaves it to the other; I suspect that that is not a wholly satisfactory solution, but my amendment is for the purpose of provoking this debate. But it is wholly unsatisfactory that the Government are proposing this architecture. I think it is for the Government to come forward with something workable that satisfies the Committee that they are actually able to deliver this in a way that will work. At the moment, it will not.

There are amendments from my noble friend Lord Grayling, which I have signed and which I am sure he will speak to himself shortly, but I have further amendments in this group that relate to the enforcement powers. According to the Bill, the way the Civil Aviation Authority will work if it has to take an enforcement action is that it will issue a notice to the miscreant airline or whatever operator it is that comes within the scope of the Bill. That is perfectly all right, but there is no appeal built in against the notice. The only way in which somebody who disputed the notice could appeal against it, as far as I can see, is by way of judicial review, which the Civil Aviation Authority’s decisions are subject to. You would have to proceed to judicial review, which is an astonishingly heavy and wasteful, time-consuming and expensive process, when the Bill is clearly calling out for some sort of intermediary step, tribunal, mediator or body that can sort out disputes where the two are not in agreement and where it is believed that the Civil Aviation Authority has not conducted itself properly or in a way that is reasonable.

--- Later in debate ---

Moreover, passengers are affected by many different causes of disruption, such as technical, supply chain and airspace issues, which often occur outside the UK. It would not be proportionate to single out industrial action for bespoke legislative treatment. Importantly, mandating a review in primary legislation risks creating a rigid and resource-intensive process, which would reduce the Government’s ability to respond to emerging issues flexibly and in a timely way. For these reasons, the Government do not consider this amendment necessary or proportionate; I therefore hope that the noble Lord will feel able not to press it.

[Lord Moylan (Con)]

My Lords, the structure that the Bill introduces is not going to work. Having two regulators that are, frankly, fighting over turf in carrying out enforcement actions will not work. It will fail. I am giving the Government an opportunity now to recognise that and do something about it.

On whether it should be the CAA or the CMA, my amendment would remove the CMA from the process —my noble friend Lady Foster supported this—so that it stays with the CAA, but I am open to an argument either way as to which of the two enforcement authorities it ought to be. That is not my main point, which is that there needs to be just one. The Minister says that this is all going to be sorted out by a statutory instrument. Indeed it will—that is mentioned in Schedule 1 on page 19—but it is going to be a negative statutory instrument, so we will know almost nothing about it.

In relation to powers, I fully appreciate that the Bill does not in itself create new consumer rights nor particular enforcement powers. I was careful to say that Clause 1 gives the Secretary of State the power to give powers to the Civil Aviation Authority; I was clear about that, I think. None the less, all of those powers, which the Minister says are going to be transparent and consulted on, will be carried out under the negative procedure. Except for the powers creating criminal offences, they should not be; they should be carried out under the affirmative process.

This matter is so important to the Bill, as a piece of administrative legislation, that it is very likely, I am afraid, that I will come back to some of these issues on Report. For the moment, though, I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.

Amendment 8 withdrawn.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Grender (LD)]

My Lords, the amendments in my name insist on statutory duties that would secure workforce resilience and international regulatory alignment, rather than leaving these matters to open-ended secondary legislation.

Amendment 103 would require the CAA to prepare an annual report on commercial pilot licence holders, including anonymised demographic data, and an assessment of workforce sustainability as a regulatory monitoring tool. The licensing authority needs to understand whether the pool of qualified pilots has been maintained at a level that supports safe and continuous operations. I thank BALPA for supporting this amendment and helping to draft it. An important point that has not so far been drawn out is the need to identify the proportion of pilots licensed to fly commercial airliners who are women—the kind of important data that ensures that there is a workforce that reflects the future.

The amendment would also require the CAA to consider the future availability of a pilot workforce. As we have heard, commercial airline pilots must retire at 65. An authoritative annual assessment by the CAA would flag issues about the future supply of trained pilots.

I feel that we are all currently dancing on the head of a very particular but extremely useful and important pin. Between now and Report, I hope that we can put some of this together—unless the Minister says in the next few minutes that he is accepting all our amendments. We live in hope.

Amendment 104 would place a statutory duty on the Secretary of State to pursue UK-EU mutual recognition in relation to pilot and engineer licensing and aircraft parts certification. This came through from one of the APPGs, which had particular concerns about this issue. The absence of recognition mechanisms can create duplicated compliance burdens. We are all familiar with this kind of thing: regulatory friction and delays in maintenance and staffing, all of which matter operationally and economically.

I will not take up any more of noble Lords’ time, except to say that I commend the noble Lord, Lord Holmes. We first served together in 2018 on the first Select Committee on artificial intelligence, so never let it be said that Peers are not sometimes ahead of the curve. Its report was entitled AI in the UK: Ready, Willing and Able? and he continues to pursue this issue with his usual energy. I always support and listen to him on these issues, and I look forward to hearing the Minister’s response.

[Lord Moylan (Con)]

My Lords, in the last group, I came up with a modest amendment that would have involved increasing the threshold at which strike ballots had to be passed before a strike could be undertaken—a clear consumer protection measure well in line with the purpose of the Bill. In this group, we seem to have wandered off into discussing pilot training, which I do not see as being intimately connected with consumer protection. Everyone is agreed that something should be done to interfere in the market, and that the Government or one of their agencies should take some sort of responsibility for this. It is entirely opposite to the thrust of the response I had on holding strikes. I find it remarkable.

I understand the problems identified by the noble Lords, Lord Barber and Lord Tunnicliffe, and my noble friend Lord Davies of Gower. I understand that these are indeed serious problems. I am willing to go so far as to accept that the Civil Aviation Authority might want to take cognisance of them and have a sense of how extensive the problems are. But it is surely very clearly for the industry itself to solve these problems, and that is what we must insist on. I imagine that the Minister will be as firm in rejecting these interferences with the market as he was in rejecting my modest amendment in the last group.

My noble friend Lord Holmes made points of great wisdom and vision, and the noble Baroness, Lady Grender, rightly pointed out the assiduity with which my noble friend has brought attention to bear on these important technological issues over a number of years. I do not feel competent myself to make direct comments on them, but I applaud the notion that we should be looking very carefully at the developments that technology will bring. That will include, of course, the abilities and skills required of pilots. I do not want to push it too far, but we have planes that now practically fly themselves—I do not mean that they can do without pilots, but they can practically fly themselves. Of course, in freight, we have drones appearing everywhere and great technological advances being made. That must have an impact on a training curriculum for pilots.

I was astonished to hear the noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, say that the training curriculum for pilots was several decades old. I am not sure if I heard him correctly, but if that is so, then perhaps it needs to catch up with modern technology. There are many things that an aeroplane does nowadays that it could not do 30 years ago and that the pilot ought to know about.

I want to make this point again about UK-EU alignment—

[Lord Berkeley (Lab)]

What I actually said was that the syllabus was 30 years old. I hope the noble Lord understood that correctly.

[Lord Moylan (Con)]

I am very grateful, but does the syllabus not determine the content of the training? It is a matter we can take up outside—it is not something we need to detain the Committee on at the moment—but I am very grateful to the noble Lord for making it clear what he said and putting me right to that extent. I had no wish to put words into his mouth, but I was just struck by what he said.

I wanted to come back briefly to the question of UK-EU alignment on this. It would, of course, be very good if there were mutual recognition between the UK and the EU, but it would also be very good if there were mutual recognition between the UK and the US. I am not entirely sure why there is this relentless focus on the EU. In the days when we had freedom of movement—mercifully, we do not anymore, because we voted against it—mutual recognition would mean that a pilot could move from one country to another and live there and pursue his calling in those countries. That is no longer the case, any more than it is with the United States, so the argument for a specific arrangement with the European Union seems to me to fall largely by the wayside. Apart from that, I thank my noble friend Lord Davies of Gower for his contribution, and I look forward to hearing what the Minister has to say in the four minutes remaining.

[Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill (Lab)]

My Lords, I will do my best to speak as fast as I can, subject only to clarity. I turn to the next group, which covers workforce, skills and innovation. I am grateful to noble Lords for their amendments. Across this group, the Government share the underlying aim of ensuring that aviation remains safe, secure, innovative and supported by the skilled workforce it needs.

Before addressing each amendment, I will make a point that applies to several of them. In areas such as artificial intelligence, cyber security, emerging technology and skills, the Government’s view is that regulation must remain flexible, proportionate and capable of keeping pace with fast-moving developments. Where existing legislation, CAA functions, cross-government work or established programmes already address the issue, placing detailed duties in the Bill risks duplication, inconsistency and unnecessary administrative burden. I will refer back to that common justification where relevant.

I begin with Amendment 31, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Holmes of Richmond, on artificial intelligence safeguards. As he does, I recognise the importance of ensuring that AI is used fairly, transparently and responsibly. At present, the CAA does not use AI to make regulatory decisions, and any future consideration will require board approval. However, there are protections already in place should it do so. The CAA is subject to data protection legislation and Equality Act duties, which require fairness, transparency, accountability and appropriate human oversight in decision-making. Amendment 31 would duplicate those obligations and introduce a prescriptive statutory framework in an area where guidance, assurance processes and evolving standards are more suitable. AI policy is also being developed on a cross-government basis, led by DSIT, and legislation here in isolation risks cutting across that wider work. For those reasons, and applying the common point about flexibility and avoiding duplication, I ask the noble Lord to withdraw Amendment 31.

Amendment 32, also from the noble Lord, Lord Holmes, is on cyber security and legacy systems. Robust cyber security across aviation is essential. The CAA already has deep cyber experience and robust protocols and is subject to expectations in the Government’s cyber action plan. The Network and Information Systems Regulations require regulated entities to manage risks and prevent and minimise the impact of incidents. That already includes considering risks from legacy systems, with compliance assessed and enforced by the CAA.

There is also a wider legislative context. The cyber security and resilience Bill is designed to strengthen the UK’s cyber regulatory framework on a system-wide basis and allows further security and resilience requirements to be introduced through secondary legislation, following consultation. Stand-alone requirements in this Bill would risk fragmenting that coherent approach. I therefore ask the noble Lord not to press his amendment.

I thank the noble Lord, Lord Davies of Gower, for Amendment 65A, and the noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, for his observations on this matter. Instrument approaches to airfields are subject to specific CAA approvals that ensure that pilots can safely land using their instruments when a visual approach is not possible, usually due to poor weather. These focus on ensuring that instrument landings and approaches can be undertaken safely, rather than adding an additional requirement for the airfield also to train pilots for instrument approaches.

There are also detailed requirements for training in international and UK safety regulations. Requiring training would not be appropriate for all airfields. Smaller airfields may not be able to accommodate this, and it may also be unsuitable for larger, busier airports where the operational environment and potential disruption to commercial flights make such requirements impractical. This amendment could, therefore, decrease the number of airfields that allow instrument approaches, making it more difficult for pilots to find places to land in poor weather. We will ask the CAA to give further consideration to this issue, but we are not convinced that it is a matter for primary legislation. I therefore ask the noble Lord not to press this amendment.

Airports Slot Allocation (Alleviation of Usage Requirements) Regulations 2026

Lord Moylan Excerpts

Wednesday 10th June 2026 Grand Committee

[Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Con)]

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

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

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

[Lord Moylan (Con)]

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

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

Clean Air Zones Central Services (Fees) (England) (Amendment) Regulations 2026

Lord Moylan Excerpts

Tuesday 9th June 2026 Lords Chamber

Moved by

[Lord Moylan]

At end insert “but that this House regrets that the draft Regulations will increase the fee payable in respect of clean air zone payments processed through the central services website from £2 to £4; risk additional costs being passed on to motorists who are already facing high fuel costs; fail to provide sufficient assurance that drivers will be protected from any direct or indirect increase in clean air zone charges; and extend the charging period until 31 March 2031 despite the continuing financial pressure on motorists.”

[Lord Moylan (Con)]

My Lords, I start by saying that if the purpose of the recent changes in procedure for dealing with statutory instrument regret amendments and fatal amendments was to limit the scrutiny applied to government instruments, it has already proved very successful. What we see is that there are three speakers in this debate and they are all from the Front Benches. I suggest that the use of the list system for this purpose is already showing signs of failure. That remark of course is not addressed to the Minister, who is not responsible for the change, but I think it is important that it should be said.

I take as my starting point what the Minister said about the fuel duty. He claimed credit for not increasing the fuel duty in a way that was envisaged by the Treasury, but that occurred only because of a sustained and effective campaign led by the Conservative Party. The Government were embarrassed into falling back on that because of those efforts. It is wrong that they should claim credit for it. Any motorist who thought they might be able to relax in the light of that circumstance obviously has to think again because we now have, in effect, another stealth tax on motorists.

The instrument doubles the fee paid by local authorities to the Secretary of State for each clean air zone payment—namely, every trip that incurs a clean air zone payment charge—that is processed through the central service. That is for all the cities mentioned by the Minister; I believe that London is not part of that system, but all the other cities that he mentioned certainly are. It doubles that from £2 to £4. The Government are trying to get away with that as a cost recovery item, and they say that they do not expect it to be passed on to motorists by local authorities.

But, if you take the case of Birmingham, for example, where the daily charge is £8, this is now fully half of the fee. Of course this is significant, and local authorities will seek to recover it one way or the other. The Minister says that they do not need to do that because local authorities are generating a surplus—it is true that many of them are—and he imagines that local authorities just sit there with the surplus in the bank smiling at it and counting it as it accumulates. But in fact those surpluses are used for desperately needed transport improvements in their cities. So, if they are to be told, “You can’t pass it on and you will have a smaller surplus to spend”, something will have to give—and it will be local transport improvements. In fact, that is very unlikely because those expenditure plans, which are often laid several years in advance, will require funding, and that funding will no longer be available from this source, so it will come out of the motorist’s pocket.

I appreciate that today the Minister copied me into his letter to the chairman of the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee, and he has explained the levels of cost recovery that are now expected as a result of this measure being implemented. But there is no transparency, and nothing has been offered to us to show that the central system is operating efficiently or that it needs fully half the revenue from the fee. It will not be half in every city, admittedly—it is half in Birmingham because the fee is £8, and in Bath it is £9—but it is approximately half. Fully half of the fee, or approximately that, is being snaffled for a processing system when it could be spent—and is being spent—on necessary and important improvements.

The burden of these fees, and the increase that I feel confident in saying will ensue, does not fall evenly. The vehicles that fail to qualify for these clean air zones are typically older vehicles likely to be owned by people on lower incomes, older motorists and so forth. This is not an abstract consideration about clean air; it affects people’s lives.

The clean air zones themselves should wind up in the very near future. They are, after all, a measure that work only if they achieve a certain objective within a certain timeframe. But we now find that the other effect of this instrument is that they are being extended out as far as 2031. The reality is that this is almost certainly redundant already. The vehicles that qualify for these charges are disappearing from the streets; that is happening simply through the passage of time and the fact that older vehicles are taken out of the fleet. I imagine that it could very easily be the case that the same effect could be achieved by 2031 as keeping these charges in place is likely to achieve.

We have all heard cases in the past where the Government have said that there will be a charge that will be levied for a certain period and then it will fall away. When the time comes for it to fall away, it is extended or kept in place, and sometimes it is even made permanent. The Government have more regard for their own finances—that is the simple fact—than they do for the life of the motorist. They should be ashamed of what they are doing. I beg to move.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Moylan (Con)]

My Lords, it is not a revenue-raising measure, the Minister says—unless you are the Department for Transport, which will raise the revenue to cover its costs, as that is the prime directive it is following.

It has been a useful debate. There is little to be superadded to it at this stage. I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.

Amendment withdrawn.

E-scooters and E-bikes

Lord Moylan Excerpts

Tuesday 9th June 2026 Lords Chamber

[Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill (Lab)]

The noble Lord is right, and in pursuit of his desires, the Metropolitan Police recently seized 52 illegal e-bikes and mopeds. A total of 2,741 were seized across 2025-26. West Midlands Police seized more than 50, and Greater Manchester Police seized six and removed 55 locally. Merseyside Police seized over 500, Nottinghamshire Police around 100 and South Yorkshire Police over 150. So, we are starting to see proper enforcement across Britain, and the more publicity all that gets, the better.

[Lord Moylan (Con)]

My Lords, I want to throw my tuppence into this. Building on the question asked by the noble Lord, Lord Krebs, what strikes me is just how shoddy and tawdry our great city streets are looking. They have been turned into great parking lots of bikes for the benefit of private companies. Is the Minister not moved to do more than simply recite a series of legal requirements imposed on bicyclists that nobody ever complies with?

[Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill (Lab)]

Gosh. The answer to that is the ability, through the English Devolution and Community Empowerment Act, to allow local leaders to license shared cycle schemes. This is precisely the measure that will enable local authorities to clean up streets, at least in respect of bikes. As we go forward with proposals for e-scooters, I have no doubt that the same powers will feature. The noble Lord does have a good point, especially in relation to people with partial or no sight, or other disabilities. Littering the pavements and streets with these things is hugely undesirable for ordinary people trying to walk about and make use of their towns and cities.

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

Lord Moylan Excerpts

2nd reading
Tuesday 2nd June 2026 Lords Chamber

[Lord Moylan (Con)]

My Lords, it has been an excellent debate. Most of my points have been made; in the course of the afternoon, I have been tearing up and disposing of parts of the speech that was prepared for me, so I hope noble Lords will forgive me if what is left is a little disjointed.

I thank the officials who provided me with a briefing and the Minister for arranging that, and I thank noble Lords for their speeches. I learned a great deal, particularly about the experience of those with disabilities. From my own background, I have had to engage with those having experiences with disabilities on trains and on the railways in particular; to hear the stories today about those who have had problems in the air, and the sorts of problems they have had and the responses they have encountered, has been a very important experience for me. I can certainly say that we will consider sympathetically amendments brought forward to try to offer some sort of redress. I hope that some of those amendments could be brought forward by the Government, because I know that the Minister himself is not unsympathetic to that case. I would have thought that it would be helpful all round if the Government could take a lead. If they do not, I am sure that others in your Lordships’ House will do so.

Like other noble Lords, I want what this Bill does. For example, I want the “powers gap”, as it is known, to be filled. The retained EU law Act expires on 23 June and there is a whole range of areas for which we can no longer make regulations without primary legislation. This Bill addresses that in respect of civil aviation. In fact, I have been berating the Minister in various fora over the last couple of months, saying, “What are you doing about this powers gap arising on 23 June?” I will also take time out now to berate him about it because, while this is being dealt with in relation to aviation, his department still has no answer on the regulation of the marine sector, for example, and in other areas where we will be left completely bereft as a result of a perfectly foreseeable development—namely, the expiration on a known date, which happens to be this month, of an Act passed several years ago.

To go beyond that, not just the Department for Transport but other departments will be affected by the powers gap—but the Government have done nothing except in regard to aviation. We want to see that done: we want to see airspace modernised. My way of putting it is that we want to give a legal basis for passenger protection rights to substitute for their basis in EU law, which will no longer exist. That is what the Bill does: it creates a legal basis for those passenger rights. We want to see that done, but I do not think we really want to see it done this way. We do not want to see it done by the creation of a huge, baggy, all-powerful new regulatory body. We have had 25 years of creating regulators as the answer to everything, and it does not work. We have had 25 years of taking powers away from Ministers and Parliament and giving them to wholly unaccountable regulators, and here we are doing it again. The Civil Aviation Authority is, in essence, a safety regulator, an economic regulator and a regulator of airspace. It is a very focused body and it is very good, but we are now giving it a far broader range of powers.

I am going to read the bits that matter from the memorandum on the European Convention on Human Rights. We find that Clause 1 engages Articles 6 and 8, and Article 1 of the first protocol. Clauses 2 and 3 engage Articles 6 and 10. Clauses 4 to 6 engage Article 6 and Article 1 of the first protocol. Clause 7 engages Article 1 of the first protocol. Clause 8 engages Articles 6 and 7. Clause 9 engages Article 6.

Whole swathes of the Bill are open to challenge. Of course, civil servants believe that they can rebut those challenges in court, but it is no wonder that my noble friend Lord Redwood talked about the possibility of delay because, in effect, large parts of the Bill will be determined not in this Parliament but in a foreign court, as we discover whether these clauses will stand should they be challenged. As an illustration of how wide the powers that are being transferred are, I almost feel that parts of the Bill were written by the Civil Aviation Authority. I will come to some of them, but there is also the question of delegated powers.

Tomorrow or soon after tomorrow, thanks to the information offered by the noble Baroness, Lady Ramsey of Wall Heath, we will get the report of the Delegated Powers Committee. Huge swathes of power are being delegated to the Civil Aviation Authority and there are extensive Henry VIII clauses in the Bill. All this needs to be explored and the role of Parliament in it needs to be properly understood. At the moment, we are being emasculated in this. With the great swathes of powers being granted to the CAA, I see no provision in the Bill for parliamentary accountability or, indeed, for any accountability of the CAA to anybody, including to the Minister. How can that be an acceptable way of making law and regulation for the future?

I am going to disappoint the noble Lord, Lord Tunnicliffe, but, before I do, I want to say that his speech was one of the most interesting in the debate, because he brought alive for me, in a remarkable way, the experience of being a pilot—even if not a captain—and the things that can happen. I know that other noble Lords with that experience spoke, and I greatly enjoyed his speech and learned from it, but I am going to disappoint him. Of course, I agree with him that, in drafting and preparing regulations, you should consult people who know about things. You should consult pilots, airlines and so forth, and bring them together, but that can be done alongside proper parliamentary scrutiny. While the statutory instrument is an unsatisfactory method for doing so, it is the only one we have. To give up on it completely would be an abandonment of our duty.

I will run through some of the clauses. As I say, many of my points have been made, so I will try not to repeat them, but some things need to be raised. Clause 1(3) gives the Secretary of State the power to confer enforcement powers on the CAA, so why do we need Clause 2? Clause 2 is one of the bits that I think was written by the CAA. It puts into the Bill all the powers that the Secretary of State already has the power to confer, and these powers are extensive. What is going on there?

Then subsection (3)(e) of the new section inserted by paragraph 6 of Schedule 1 creates provisions for the Secretary of State to manage what is going on if two bodies are doing the same enforcement. I do not know which two bodies are meant; I suspect they are the Civil Aviation Authority and the Competition and Markets Authority, but they might be others. One of the principles of enforcement, which those of us with local government experience come across all the time, is that, for one crime, there should be one enforcement agency and one prosecutor. Only in that way do you get clarity and avoid somebody being punished twice for the same thing. We are actually building dual enforcement into the Bill and then giving the Secretary of State some power to manage it from the centre. The Bill should not be doing that; it should be clarifying whether the enforcement is by one or the other—not by both and certainly not by more than two.

Clause 4 is on airspace modernisation. Subsection (2) amends Section 2 of the Air Traffic Management and Unmanned Aircraft Act 2021 to extend the existing ministerial direction powers, so that the Secretary of State can compel implementation of approved airport changes. This is what we are calling the level of last resort. As a last resort, the Minister can step in and force things to happen. But there is nothing here—I echo the remarks made by the noble Baroness, Lady Grender, and my noble friend Lady Bray—about the consultation of the communities that will be affected by airspace modernisation. There will inevitably be winners and losers from that, but where are the communities in this? There is no answer to that, but the Secretary of State can exercise that lever without any regard to community consideration. Is that not too large a power for the Secretary of State to have?

Clause 8 on CAA rule-making is another example of a part of the Bill that I think must have been written by the Civil Aviation Authority. It is astonishingly extensive. First, I want to know what a “rule” is. We have rules in football. There is the offside rule. I know what a “law” is, but I do not know what a “rule” is. What is the force of a rule? Does it have the force of law? The CAA is going to make rules. It has no accountability in how it is going to make rules. There is no requirement in the Bill, particularly about consultation.

Then we have—this must be one of the most bizarre things that anyone has ever written into a Bill, which is one of the reasons I think the CAA wrote it—more in Clause 8 relating to CAA rules. In new Section 61F, we have the power for the Secretary of State to issue a document—note the careful avoidance of the word “guidance”—that

“sets out the Secretary of State’s priorities and objectives for the exercise of the CAA’s rule-making functions”.

I have no problem with that. That makes a great deal of sense. We then then go down to new subsection (6), which says:

“The Secretary of State … must consult the CAA in preparing or revising the document and”—


just listen to this—

“may not issue the document without the agreement of the CAA to the contents of the document”.

So we have an arrangement where the Secretary of State is allowed in effect to give guidance—of course, if you use the word “guidance” that has a legal meaning, but it is effectively guidance, I hope—to the CAA that the CAA can veto. Does anyone read these things before they print them? How can that possibly be justified?

Then we come to Clause 9 on offences. This is no criticism of noble Lords, but nobody in the course of this debate has mentioned the fact that the CAA is being given the power to create criminal offences—something that Parliament normally reserves to itself. The CAA can create criminal offences and you can get a fine. You can be taken to the magistrates’ court and you can get a fine. Again, what is the parliamentary scrutiny for that? What is the justification for leaving that in just that fashion?

We then have the Henry VIII powers. These are completely unnecessary, because the Government’s delegated powers memorandum, which they have written for the benefit of the Delegated Powers Committee, identifies every Act that this Bill interacts with and states that those amendments are already made in the Bill—so why should they need Henry VIII powers to amend further legislation? What is the further legislation, if they have already identified all the legislation with which the Bill interacts? Unnecessary Henry VIII powers have been loaded in that are simply not needed.

We support aviation. I agree with everything that has been said about its economic importance and its contribution to growth. I cannot none the less allow the Government to sit there and say that that is solely their objective when they themselves have done so much damage to aviation in the country. The SAF mandate, for example, is adding significantly to the costs of fuel, and that is feeding through to what passengers are having to pay. Then we have the astonishing, bone-crunching increases in business rates being imposed on airports. This Bill could be a chance for the Government to do something for the benefit of aviation and make good on their commitment to use aviation as a means for growth. It could be that, but it needs drastic change if is to do so credibly.

King’s Speech

Lord Moylan Excerpts

Wednesday 20th May 2026 Lords Chamber

[Lord Moylan (Con)]

My Lords, it has been a truly interesting and wide-ranging debate. I hope that noble Lords will forgive me if I confine my remarks to the transport aspects of the debate. There were a number of interesting speeches in respect of transport. I do not propose to respond to them all, but I would like to single out the remarks made by the noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, who I think deserves a rather doleful prize. For over 15 years now, he has been the Cassandra figure wandering across the stage from left to right periodically, telling everyone that HS2 was going to cost £100 billion. There is a great deal of blame to go around in respect of HS2, but none of it falls at the door of the noble Lord. Cassandra eventually has to be shown to be right; we know now that he has been right all along.

I want to start by referring to the circumstances, rather than the content, of the gracious Speech. I think it is fair to say that it was, frankly, painful to see His Majesty peering over the top of his Speech at a Prime Minister standing below Bar, of whom nobody knew whether he would still be in office 24 hours later. How has it come to this after less than two years? When Disraeli referred to Gladstone’s Front Bench as being like

“a range of exhausted volcanoes”,

he was at least acknowledging that they were volcanoes. We have been inflicted with something more like a row of molehills, from which the moles have departed. The rapidly leaving ranks of Ministers who are flooding out are now saying quite openly that the Labour Party was wholly unprepared for Government. How have we got to this stage?

However, we have a ready-wrapped solution at hand: Mr Burnham, and what is known as “Manchesterism”. I have looked into Manchesterism. It is very relevant to this debate, because it boils down to a transport policy. Manchesterism is, in essence, the fact that Mr Burnham has taken control of the buses and put a £2 fare cap in. It is worth saying that the £2 cap was, of course, a Conservative policy; that it was the Conservative policy to continue it, and that it was the Labour Party that put it up to £3 in every other part of the country.

When we think about the mechanism by which Mr Burnham has taken control of the buses in Manchester, let us remember that it was a Conservative Government that gave him the powers to do so. The mechanism he has used to take control of the buses is, of course, a franchising system in which the buses are still owned and operated by private companies, but he sets the fares, the routes and the timetables. In other words, it is a system wholly copied from what has been operating in London since roughly the 1980s. One could almost call it “Londonism”. Who was it who, in the 1985 Act, created that system in London? It was, of course, Mrs Thatcher. We might even say that it comes down to being called “Thatcherism”.

However, there is another paradox here. That very system of franchising, where contracts are let on a concession basis to private companies to provide the bus services, is exactly the system that the noble Lord the Minister has vehemently rejected in relation to the operation of the trains. In his paradise, the trains have to be owned and run by Great British Railways, and there is to be no room at all for any sort of competition, except where it exists already. Since we know where we are coming from, that makes me wonder whether the noble Lord the Minister has yet made the pilgrimage to Wigan to knock on a few doors and make inquiries of Mr Burnham as to whether he still backs the Great British Railways Bill with this mechanism, which is not part of the Manchesterist approach at all.

There is more to say about this Great British Railways Bill. Another thing that is going on is that, overnight, the Labour Party has become a party that wants to rejoin the European Union. Mr Streeting—I am putting Mr Starmer aside as being what might be described as a short-dated stock—wants to join the European Union, and he says so. Mr Burnham also wants to join the European Union, but he would prefer not to say so. Yet the one thing that is absolutely not compatible with being a member of the European Union is a Great British Railways structure in which there is no competition allowed—except, I grant you, temporarily for existing open-access operators. To exclude competition is completely incompatible with the EU’s railways directive.

Indeed, if we did rejoin the European Union, and Deutsche Bahn, or SNCF, or one of the private Italian railway companies turned up and said that they would like to run a service on Great British Railways’ tracks, and we were to refuse them on the basis of this Bill, we would find that the whole principle of the Bill would collapse immediately and we would lose the case under European Union law.

So there we are: we have the Bills, but we do not really know anything about the direction of travel and what is going to happen under an imminent new Prime Minister. We have a civil aviation Bill that replaces the EU regulation of airlines and airports, including consumer protection. We welcome that, but the way in which regulations are to be made is going to be an entirely private matter for the Civil Aviation Authority. I do not think the Government have got the message. We voted Brexit to get rid of unelected bureaucrats making laws for us—but at least we had parliamentary scrutiny. We had an array of European Union committees here in your Lordships’ House that would look at those laws before they were implemented. We are to have none of that: there will be no parliamentary scrutiny of the new regulations made by the Civil Aviation Authority and to some extent by the Secretary of State. That cannot be an acceptable Bill, and it is one that we are unhappy with as a matter of principle: we can support the substance, but the mechanisms are not appropriate.

My noble friend Lord McLoughlin spoke warmly about the highways finance Bill. We support the idea of finding new mechanisms for financing the building of roads, but I am really puzzled, and I want the noble Lord to address—if not today then later, when we get to the Bill—why the regulated asset base model is an appropriate way of attracting private finance, given that we know from experience elsewhere that it tends to encourage overspecification and gold-plating, and anyway is designed for infrastructure where assets are incrementally added, such as they might be at Heathrow, rather than for building a road or a bridge, which presumably once built is built and one does not periodically add to it over time. That is something else that we are going to want to look at.

Finally, I come to the Northern Powerhouse Rail Bill. Both the noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, and the noble Baroness, Lady Pidgeon, spoke in favour of this. In fact, they spoke as if the Bill were likely to make Northern Powerhouse Rail happen: as if it were pushing it forward. I do not want to raise the anxiety level of the noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, but as is explained in the document produced by the Government, the Northern Powerhouse Rail Bill is actually only a renamed High Speed Rail (Crewe-Manchester) Bill. That was a Bill introduced by the Conservative Government. It was carried over into the last parliamentary Session, nothing was done with it, and it is being carried over into the current parliamentary Session. It does not build Northern Powerhouse Rail; it simply creates certain powers to take land for the purpose of building the parts around Crewe and Manchester that are necessary for Northern Powerhouse Rail. There is no objection to this Bill from our side—as I say, it was our Bill originally—but, if anyone thinks that the Government are building Northern Powerhouse Rail, I point out that there is not a penny available to build Northern Powerhouse Rail, unless the Minister is going to tell us that that is what is coming up.

I have to congratulate the Government on acceding to the Conservative Party campaign not to increase fuel duty. That is a small win and something we can call a win-win for both of us, I think.

I will conclude by referring to something for which no legislation is provided. It is not in the gracious Speech, but it is an important matter: the electric vehicles mandate. The electric vehicles mandate is already destroying our automotive industry and is going to ruin the country in many ways, destroying many jobs in relation to cars. But that is not enough for the Government, who now want to extend it to HGVs. I simply say to the Government that they really must think very carefully about this. Indeed, there is simply not enough electricity in the system to power electric HGVs. The Government must move very cautiously on the electrification of HGVs. I hope that, if not today then soon, there will be an announcement from the Government that they are going to reflect on whether this is something they really want to push forward.

We have had a gracious Speech written for His Majesty the King by the Prime Minister, Sir Keir Starmer. We do not know, as we debate it, who is going to be the Prime Minister a few weeks from now. We do not know, as a consequence, who the Secretary of State for Transport or for Health, or the Chancellor of the Exchequer, is going to be a few weeks from now. There is a degree of unreality about this debate. I am grateful to all noble Lords who have taken part and treated it very seriously, and I look forward to hearing the Minister perhaps try to give some gloss to all this that will make sense of it to the rest of us.

Merchant Shipping (Port State Control) Regulations 2026

Lord Moylan Excerpts

Monday 27th April 2026 Grand Committee

[Baroness Pidgeon (LD)]

My Lords, I thank the Minister and his officials for their helpful briefing last week. As we have heard, this instrument revokes and replaces the Merchant Shipping (Port State Control) Regulations 2011, which implemented the UK’s commitment under the Paris memorandum of understanding and the associated EU directive. As I learned from last week’s briefing, the Paris MoU obligates the UK to operate a regime of port state control for the monitoring, inspection and control of foreign-flagged ships calling at UK ports, to reduce the risks that such ships may pose to health, safety or the environment by ensuring that they meet relevant international standards. We have been part of the Paris MoU and its predecessor since the 1970s.

The MCA has around 100 inspectors and inspects around 1,300 ships a year. This instrument will mean that new maritime conventions are properly referenced and reports will be written in the international context, which will improve shipping safety. However, this SI shows just how much work there still is to amend legislation a decade after Brexit. Does the Minister agree that the time and effort that have to go into technical tweaks and amendments such as this distract from tackling other important issues and take up resource?

[Lord Moylan (Con)]

My Lords, I am very sorry to hear the noble Baroness, Lady Pidgeon, say that making laws for our own country, through our own processes, is somehow a distraction from what we should be doing, and that it would be better, presumably, if we were to hand this responsibility over to unelected bureaucrats in Brussels. I cannot say how much I would want to distance myself from such a position.

Since I have very little to say about the instrument, I shall add a little local colour. I did on one occasion seize an unseaworthy ship. When I was the third secretary in the British embassy in South Africa, I was the duty officer one weekend. In those days without mobile phones, that meant I had to stay home all weekend, very close to the telephone. Nothing ever happened but to my astonishment, I got a telephone call from the harbourmaster at Durban, saying that there was a British-registered vessel—or, rather, I think it was registered in some territory, dominion or whatever in the Caribbean that none the less fell under the Crown—in his port. It was so unseaworthy that he intended to seize and immobilise it but, apparently, he needed the permission of Her Majesty’s consul-general. I knew nothing about consular services, but there we were: I was the representative, for that weekend, of Her Majesty’s consul-general in South Africa. After a moment’s thought, I reached the conclusion that, on the whole, it was probably safer all round for me to say, “Yes, you have my authority to seize this vessel”, than to say no or prevaricate in any way—so that is what I did.

It has not happened since, but I am therefore not wholly unfamiliar with the idea that there is a degree of port inspection going on and that vessels not meeting appropriate standards are appropriately dealt with. This instrument affects no change whatever in current arrangements. It advertises itself as achieving no change in current arrangements, and that is absolutely fine. I have no objection to this instrument.

However, I will raise the same point that I raised when we discussed a statutory instrument—I think on aviation safety—a week or two ago. This instrument is made—the Minister said “in part”—using powers under the retained EU law Act. By common agreement, that Act expires in June. From that date onwards, we have no capacity to amend regulations of this sort, which are crucial in the world of transport. Statutory instruments are the normal means by which these regulations are made in the field of transport, but this spreads across the whole of Whitehall and many other departments as well. I say that we have no power to change them—we have no power to do so other than by primary legislation and Act of Parliament; we cannot use statutory instruments.

This failure of foresight on the part of the Government seems a massive dereliction of duty. Even if the Minister was able to assure us today that there will be legislation in the King’s Speech to correct this oversight—I fully appreciate it is unlikely that he can tell us today what will be in the King’s Speech—it is most unlikely that it will possible to pass it in both Houses and enact it by the end of June, when it will be necessary. As I say, I regard this as a massive dereliction of responsibility on the part of the Government, and I expect there to be serious potential consequences unless something is done.

[Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill (Lab)]

My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Pidgeon, and the noble Lord, Lord Moylan, for their consideration of these draft regulations. I am grateful for the scrutiny and interest that they have shown in ensuring that the UK’s port state control regime remains relevant and compliant.

The noble Baroness invited me to comment on whether this and other changes distracted the Government and officials from more pressing matters. She would not expect me to do other than make an official reply, which is that the development of the new regulations has been a lengthy process, due to the complexity of the existing legislative regime. There have been a number of changes as a consequence of leaving the EU; my understanding is that this is one of the last. It has been left until late because the Paris memorandum of understanding is behind all this. As the noble Baroness said, we were a signatory when that started in the 1970s, and therefore this could be left until quite late.

The noble Lord, Lord Moylan, has one on me: he has seized a ship. I was thinking of withdrawing the whole lot and changing the regulations so that, in the future, he had to seize all the ships. He would be very busy doing that, or might at least be very busy attending ships. However, on reflection, it is better if we leave the arrangements just as they are in the way that this statutory instrument is drafted. The noble Lord certainly has some experience there that I have never had, and I doubt that I ever will.

The noble Lord makes a more serious point about the remaining EU legislation. My information on the maritime sector is that this is one of the last things because the Paris MoU is there and we can revert to it. I will not comment on what might be in the King’s Speech; the noble Lord and I, and everybody else, will have to wait for it.