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

John Milne Excerpts

2nd reading
Wednesday 9th September 2026 Commons Chamber

[Heidi Alexander]

I can guarantee my hon. Friend that there will be meaningful consultation with local communities about airspace changes—this Bill does not change the processes around that. I also appreciate the impact that noise has on local communities, and nothing in the Bill changes the process that will take place, for example, in the case of expansion at Heathrow. My hon. Friend will be aware that the draft Heathrow expansion national policy statement, which we have consulted on, includes a proposal for a night-time ban for 6.5 hours, between the hours of 11 pm and 7 am. I guarantee that I will continue to work with her and other London colleagues on these important and sensitive issues.

Airspace modernisation is important, both to tackle noise issues and to reduce greenhouse gas emissions from aircraft—if we can have planes pursuing simpler, more direct flight paths, that will reduce the amount of time that those planes are in the air. However, the truth is that if we do not act on airspace modernisation, it will be passengers and businesses that end up paying the price, with up to one in five flights estimated to face significant disruption by 2040 unless we act. That is why we have wasted no time in setting up the UK Airspace Design Service, which is already getting on with the job. This Bill strengthens the Government’s ability to ensure that airspace changes that have been properly consulted on and approved are delivered. We are also updating the rules on who can be charged for air traffic and air navigation services, so that costs can continue to be recovered fairly as new airspace users emerge. Finally, we are making it easier for the Government to respond quickly and proportionately to pressure on the aviation sector.

[John Milne (Horsham) (LD)]

With regard to noise specifically, the Government recently reduced the height at which noise is considered an important factor, from 7,000 to 5,000 feet. Noise between 5,000 and 7,000 feet now has less impact on decision making. That change was not meaningfully consulted on; it was just made and enforced on everybody. It has an impact in my constituency, and perhaps in many others. Will the Secretary of State comment on how that decision was reached and whether it is changeable?

[Heidi Alexander]

It is not the case that noise above 5,000 feet will not be considered in airspace design changes. This is about the relative balance between noise considerations and greenhouse gas emissions. We need to find a simpler way of making these changes, because the previous mechanism was too cumbersome, and I believe that this is a sensible and proportionate change.

I was talking about some of the changes that this Bill will enable the Government to make in future, so that we can be more responsive and flexible as a Government. As Members will know, there has been significant uncertainty for the aviation sector, given the conflict and crisis in the middle east and the impact of that on jet fuel. A few months ago, my Department introduced temporary changes to relax slot usage requirements and reduce disruption to passengers. However, some of those measures relied on powers that were introduced after we left the European Union, and the power that I had to act in that way expired in June, which was why we made our decision before that point. The Bill will introduce permanent powers, and will therefore support a more agile and resilient approach to the regulation of airport slots. That means that the UK can continue to act decisively when appropriate, safeguarding passengers and maintaining airport capacity.

--- Later in debate ---

[John Milne (Horsham) (LD)]

In my constituency, people understand the importance of Gatwick to the local economy—not least because many of them have a job there. However, the way that public consultation has been handled over the last decade has created deep anxiety about what changes to airports and airspace will mean for them, their families and the communities they live in. It is on their behalf that I am asking for the introduction of a dedicated aviation ombudsman, especially in the context of the need to lay out new flightpaths.

I am wholly supportive of the need for airspace modernisation, which is being carried out across the whole of Europe. It will bring welcome improvements in both emissions and safety. As part of that process, Gatwick Airport Ltd is looking for a change to a particular currently agreed flightpath, such that planes leaving west and turning south to Europe will be able to do so almost immediately after take-off, instead of building up height first. In doing so, Gatwick will inflict major noise pollution over north Horsham and three rural villages that are not currently overflown to a great extent.

When the same route, known as ADNID, was trialled 10 years ago, it provoked an explosion of public distress. The then CEO swiftly withdrew it and promised never to introduce it again. However, lo and behold, in the last round of public consultation—subsequently cancelled—Gatwick gave Horsham people a choice of three airspace plans, all three of which contained that identical route. It was less Gatwick’s choice, more Hobson’s choice. Why did Gatwick do that: simply because it would enable it to increase the number of take-off slots, which are potentially worth millions. That is a clear conflict of interest, and I have great difficulty believing that the financial incentive had no influence whatsoever on Gatwick’s thinking. Either way, at the very least it risks the perception of bias.

What is particularly aggrieving is that the route is not necessary. Given all the other changes going on at the same time, it would make a negligible contribution to efficiency, emissions reduction or even capacity, seeing as Gatwick is heading for a huge increase in capacity owing to a second runway and other measures.

Unfortunately, the voice of the consumer plays such a small part in the process that no one is able to add up the pros and cons. It is all on the side of industry. I therefore asked the then aviation Minister to include an independent member as standard on airspace review panels. He declined, and now the whole process has been restarted anyway, but we still have a situation where the citizen has no power to challenge major changes that will affect their lives.

Another CAA reform further illustrates my point. The Department’s new air navigation guidance, published last month, lowers the altitude up to which noise must be prioritised over efficiency from 7,000 feet to 5,000 feet—I referred to that in a previous question to the Secretary of State. That means that fewer people will be able to argue against such a route on noise grounds. That happened in the same year that the CAA’s own new research—the aviation noise attitudes survey and the aviation night noise effects study—found that the noise level at which people become highly annoyed is 43 dB, rather than 54 dB, as previously advised.

Communities are more sensitive to noise than the Department’s own evidence said a decade ago, yet the response has been to shrink, not extend, the altitude band where noise takes priority. Where is the voice of the resident in that? It will have a material impact on decisions in my area, as well as at other airports. Why is the CAA allowed to mark its own homework when no one else is? There already is an alternative dispute resolution available for consumer complaints—such as a refund for a delayed bag or cancelled flight—but it is not a usable tool for regulatory decisions, such as where a flightpath goes, how the noise is distributed or which homes end up underneath it.

The Government’s written answers confirm that dissatisfaction with a CAA regulatory decision cannot be pursued through the Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman; it can only go to internal or judicial review. For the great majority of residents, neither of those is a realistic option.

We have been here before. Water is another industry that touches growth, employment, the environment and people’s daily lives, and where trust has been totally destroyed. The Government’s answer to that issue was that there should be a new legally binding water ombudsman. Like campaigners the length and breadth of the country, I believe that aviation deserves the same treatment.

The Minister has written to me arguing that there is already a consultation process, but most residents will be left completely unaware of major changes, and, even if they were aware, they would be unable to do anything significant about it. As proposed, the process is so completely dominated by the industry voice that even a modest request, such as not repeating the same mistake on flight paths around Horsham, can never get any kind of hearing.

I think that the Minister is wrong to assume that the industry always knows what is best in all circumstances. Fairness and objectivity should be offered on CAA regulatory decisions and on consumer and passenger rights alike. I therefore ask the Government to look again and to shore up this Bill with an independent ombudsman for aviation.