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

John McDonnell Excerpts

2nd reading
Wednesday 9th September 2026 Commons Chamber

[Heidi Alexander]

We have sought to prioritise work on airspace changes in the London region, given the benefits that it could bring to London and the south-east. I am aware that there has been agreement over the summer to resume work on airspace modernisation in Scotland, which will be important to my hon. Friend’s constituents. We have to get the balance right by bringing benefit quickly to the communities that are currently seeking changes, which will improve the quality of my hon. Friend’s life and those of her constituents.

[John McDonnell (Hayes and Harlington) (Lab)]

I apologise to my right hon. Friend; I should have checked this before the debate. The proposed new section 61G refers to priorities and objectives of the Secretary of State, which include a requirement for the Secretary of State to issue a document setting out those priorities and objectives for the CAA. That is to be the guiding light from the Government to the CAA. The provision specifies, for instance, how the Government and the CAA are to consult and how it will take on board environmental principles. Is that new document to be published after the passing of the legislation, or have I missed something and a document has already been produced? If so, I apologise, but this seems quite fundamental to me. If there is to be a revised document, can my right hon. Friend give us a timetable for its publication?

[Heidi Alexander]

I regularly produce a letter for the CAA setting out my priorities, and I would be happy to write to my right hon. Friend in detail about the timeline, as he requests.

The Bill is also about improving safety. The Government are determined that UK airspace should remain among the safest in the world. Our current safety framework is fragmented, and updating it is cumbersome. It holds back innovation, and it puts the UK at risk of falling behind on its international obligations. To fix that, the Bill will hand over responsibility for technical aviation safety and operational rule-making to the CAA. This is not a blank cheque; it follows a well-established model in which trusted regulators make rules within boundaries set by Parliament. Indeed, ministerial and parliamentary oversight was strengthened during scrutiny in the other place. The Bill also reinstates the Government’s ability to update or create aviation safety-related criminal offences in assimilated legislation, which was lost after our exit from the EU. That will allow safety rules to keep up with international standards while ensuring that they are enforced consistently, now and in the future. These steps will create a clearer, more workable system that maintains the UK’s strong safety record and sustains public confidence in air travel.

I know that some Members will be interested in what the Bill means for airport expansions. I should make clear that it does not determine whether any airport should expand, and neither does it change the processes involved in that. These measures are sector-wide reforms that will support a safe, efficient and resilient aviation industry. Questions about airport expansion will continue to be considered separately, outside the Bill process.

Despite a bad day yesterday, aviation has refused to stand still for over 100 years. The industry remains at the forefront of innovation and progress, taking every challenge and every opportunity in its stride. Quite simply, the type of country that we want to be—aspirational, outward-looking and full of opportunity—depends on giving the industry the tools that it needs to go from strength to strength. This Bill will do just that by bringing passenger protections into the 21st century, unlocking sustainable growth that works for our communities, and maintaining the UK’s safety record in an ever-changing world.

I hope that hon. and right hon. Members will agree that this is not a Government who drag their feet. We have moved swiftly to address the concerns raised by the Lords, particularly on accessibility, accountability and passenger protections. The Government have not just listened but acted, and I believe that provides a strong foundation for the Bill to continue its passage. I commend this Bill to the House.

--- Later in debate ---

[John McDonnell (Hayes and Harlington) (Lab)]

First, I want to mention the events of yesterday. I will usually get letters from constituents all over the country about such experiences, because Heathrow is located in my constituency and they therefore think I am responsible for it—I usually send apologetic replies back. Behind the suffering that people went through will be a large number of staff who were working incredibly hard at all levels of the organisation to put it right. This happens on every occasion.

Nevertheless, NATS management needs to be held to account. The Secretary of State has said that she will expect a report within six months, so it would be helpful to have statements during that period to reassure people about exactly what did happen, as well as covering the actions that need to be taken.

[Luke Taylor]

Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that particular reference should be given to the previous failures and to the 37 actions, I believe, that should have been completed to resolve the previous incident, as well as explaining quite how this was allowed to occur again? As he says, it is critical that we get to the bottom of what happened, but also that we are able to hold it to account.

[John McDonnell]

I think that goes to the heart of the debate that we are having, which is about levels of accountability within our structures themselves. NATS is accountable to the CAA, but who is the CAA accountable to?

I have raised with the Secretary of State proposed new section 61G of the Civil Aviation Act 1982, on the priorities and objectives of the Secretary of State in relation to aviation, which sets out that they must issue a document that is a directive to the CAA. The reason I asked about the proposed new clause is that, given the way it is drafted, I thought we were eventually going to move towards a more expansive document that would set out in detail some of the issues, particularly on the environment, for my interest, but also service delivery and so on. In fact, the document is currently simply a letter, a couple of pages long, that will be sent on a regular basis, usually annually, and laid before Parliament.

I thought that this legislation would be useful in giving us something more substantial; something that would be consulted on in more detail; and something that would set out a more detailed direction to the CAA as to how it should implement its responsibilities and role, as a result of which the CAA would then become more accountable to the Secretary of State and therefore to this House. The point is that when things go wrong, actions are agreed, but we never really get the substance of the follow-up on those actions. That is the problem.

I will just raise another example that people might remember taking place at Heathrow, which is when the substation went up in flames, and we then discovered that the fall-back operations were not working effectively either. There is a real vulnerability for the future. I think we need a bit more of an authoritative role for this House, in terms of how the Secretary of State can influence the CAA and make it more accountable. That is the main point I wanted to make.

I do not think that people realise the massive power that the CAA has and the implications that has for the lives and health of literally millions of people when it determines flight paths and standards of performance. The legislation needs further debate on other aspects as well, but I do not think we have got much further in establishing an effective structure for airspace decision making. There is very little independent monitoring in the decision making, and it becomes impossible to challenge, as the hon. Member for Horsham (John Milne) said, because local communities do not have the resources for judicial review—they are just on their own.

There does not seem to be the basic accountability mechanism that we would expect of other bodies performing similar public duties.

[Noah Law (St Austell and Newquay) (Lab)]

I understand what my right hon. Friend and other colleagues across the House are saying about the need for independent oversight, particularly on the aviation side, but on the consumer side, does he agree that when the CAA works, it really does work, as in the case of the constituent of the hon. Member for Mid Dorset and North Poole (Vikki Slade)? Therefore, does he agree that is absolutely right for the Government to bring forward those powers for consumer protection?

[John McDonnell]

I fully agree, and let me also say that wheelchair compensation is significant in this legislation. Most of us have dealt with cases like that.

Going back to accountability in the process, a number of different organisations have provided us with notes on the legislation. The Heathrow Association for the Control of Aircraft Noise, which I have worked with for over 20 years now, provided us with a helpful note. HACAN reminds us that when the CAA sets out airspace changes, the CAA oversees the progress of the stages and approves whether the consultation—its own consultation—has been adequate or not. In addition, it decides whether the proposals may proceed. It operates its own complaints route, and complaints on issues around airspace are almost impenetrable. The CAA has immense power, and it seems to be a law unto itself in many instances. It has been said in the House today that the lack of consultation is one of its main vulnerabilities.

New flight paths are already being prepared, discussed and considered. In the Heathrow expansion, when Heathrow puts forward its plan for a third runway, it will not be Heathrow that says what the flight paths will be. It cannot be; it is now the airport service that has been set up under NATS. In all my experience with Heathrow, I have never known a thorough and adequate consultation process to take place with regard to the development of airport routes.

I was hoping that we might get more detail in the legislation. That is why I come back to the issue of the Secretary of State’s document, which could be a really powerful mechanism. We could determine, through debates here—therefore, instructions to the Secretary of State—how the CAA will operate in the future.

On the environment, I feel that there is a real lack of firm duties and responsibilities set out in the legislation and guidance procedure that takes into account the health and wellbeing of people and communities. Reference has been made to noise. I cannot believe that we are still in the same situation where we have different noise criteria used in different mechanisms when it comes to decisions being taken. The Gatwick and Luton developments are using two different criteria—two different levels—from which they place the restrictions.

I have gone through the debates and discussions we have had over time and, as some hon. Members will know, we have gone from 57 dB to 53 dB, and then to 43 dB, which is the World Health Organisation’s figure—for the life of me, I do not understand why we do not respect its expertise in all this—and we apply different measures for different decisions, which are driven largely by factors other than the health consequences for people and the impact of noise.

The hon. Member for Sutton and Cheam (Luke Taylor) mentioned the all-party parliamentary group meeting we had on Monday, when we received the latest research. May I put on record my thanks to Dr Charlotte Clark, professor of environmental epidemiology and population health? She has done research on all of this over the years and is the expert. She looked at some of the health implications at the lowest levels of noise that we have been debating, and there was an element of shock for some of us: we knew about the cardiovascular impact, but we now know much more about the impact on mental health in particular.

One of the issues that has come out of our discussions—this includes the Heathrow expansion consultation—is that the latest research on noise and health impacts has not been sufficiently monetised in the discussions and consultations that have taken place. So decision making—particularly on the latest Heathrow expansion proposals—could be on the basis of health impact monetisation as a result of increased noise whose level should be perhaps four times what the Government have put forward so far.

Our constituents are becoming increasingly aware of the health impacts of noise in particular and are demanding greater protections However, from the legislation we are debating, I cannot see how those greater protections will be translated unless we have a stronger capacity in this House to determine the guidance given to the CAA and the parameters set for it in the decision-making process.

I will give hon. Members this example of the debates that have taken place. For the aviation policy framework, we dealt with 57 dB. For the survey of noise attitudes, we looked at 54 dB. We then went to 51 dB and, as I said, 43 dB in the aviation noise attitudes survey and the aviation night-time noise effects study analyses, which relate to the World Health Organisation. We cannot keep going on without a proper noise standard applicable across our whole decision-making process that reflects the latest research on health impacts. I do not think we are there at the moment.

I am pleased with the legislation, because there are some meritorious proposals that will no doubt improve the passenger experience, but it really does not take into account the community experience and the impact it will have. That is why the running theme is that somehow— I will table amendments with others—we have got to get a greater level of accountability, a greater level of transparency and a greater level of empowerment of those communities who are impacted. The proposal by the hon. Member for Horsham for an ombudsman is one mechanism that could be used and could be helpful as a longstop. At the moment, when people in my constituency are faced with these problems, they do not know where to go; it is as simple as that.

Finally, the debate that we will have on Heathrow expansion and the new policy statement will be interesting, given that we do not know what the flight paths will be. If I was a constituent of my hon. Friend the Member for Uxbridge and South Ruislip (Danny Beales), I would be extremely worried.

In my constituency, because the flights are largely east-west and west-east, we have the bizarre situation that they affect Longford where, when the aircraft fly over you feel like throwing yourself to the floor, and they affect a number of the Heathrow villages, but they do not as yet impact on the centre of my constituency. We now have the risk that the flight paths might well do that. So, again, we are talking about maybe another 1 million or so people being impacted by the development of Heathrow, yet in our debate in this House about the policy statement we will not have certainty about those flight paths. That cannot be right when making such a major decision. That is why I am hoping that when the Committee meets and when we come back on Report we can have a sensible debate about the sort of amendments that can be brought forward on that theme of accountability, because if we can increase accountability, we can increase confidence in Government decision making on this issue in the long term.

I agree with hon. Members who have raised the importance of aviation to our economy. Of course it is important; it employs a large number of my constituents, and we are trying to make sure that we create aviation capacity that is economically beneficial to the country while protecting our constituents’ health and wellbeing overall.