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

Lord Davies of Gower Excerpts

2nd reading
Tuesday 2nd June 2026 Lords Chamber

[Lord Davies of Gower (Con)]

My Lords, it is a pleasure to follow the noble Baroness, Lady Antrobus. I begin by declaring my membership of the All-Party Parliamentary Group on Aviation, and indeed as an aviator who contributes greatly every year to the CAA. Let me say at the outset that I broadly support the objectives of the Bill. The Minister referred to the essentials of the Bill in his opening speech. They were the subject of the communication of 20 April 2026 from the DfT to the chair of the CAA outlining the DfT’s expectations and priorities for the next period. They include: growth and innovation; the economic regulation of aviation; airspace modernisation; the decarbonisation of aviation; modernising the CAA’s focus on aviation’s passenger and freight customers, so as to put the consumer first; and efficiency, effectiveness and resilience. I will return to those in a while.

First, I want to identify a glaring omission in the Bill. It is conspicuous by its absence. No reference whatever has been made in the DfT’s priorities to general aviation. There is not one mention in the whole of the Bill to what is, for many in the industry, the front door to their career, whether they be air crew or ground crew. Why should we be concerned that there is no mention of general aviation in the Bill? It is a section of the industry that contributes £4 billion to the UK’s economy and supports some 40,000 jobs. This may be seen as a small slice of UK aviation’s £50 billion to £100 billion GDP footprint, but it underpins things such as pilot training, emergency services and business connectivity.

Since 2018, general aviation has faced pressures from lower disposable incomes, rising costs and economic uncertainty, and this has reduced activity across recreational flying, training and private ownership. Since Covid, GA activity has failed to recover. The CAA’s data reveals a 40% reduction in all GA activities. I understand that the CAA issued only some 1,300 private pilot licences last year. I would expect the DfT to be extremely concerned, instead of which I understand that the department has disbanded its GA section. Perhaps the Minister could confirm and comment on that. As GA supports jobs, skills and pilot training pathways, proportionate regulation and avoiding unnecessary burdens are important to maintaining confidence and investment. Given the circumstances that GA finds itself in, I am extremely concerned that the Government’s enhanced consumer protection measures do not create unintended burdens for smaller airports, aerodromes and GA operators. What assurances can the Minister give in relation to that?

The Minister may well be wondering why there should be concern. Put simply, air crew, such as pilots, do not magically appear fresh out of an easyJet- or British Airways-trained box. They are the result of people starting at the very bottom of the ladder, through gliding, progressing through the private pilot’s licence, many add-on qualifications, instrument ratings and the mountain of exams needed to gain a commercial pilot’s licence—the so-called improver route. All this is achieved at grass-roots level by small flying clubs and schools and small grass airfields at enormous cost to the individual and risk to small businesses with the fluctuating cost of fuel and newly imposed employment taxes.

In terms of airspace, while I accept that the basic design has not changed in 70 years, despite technological advantages—I note that the Government’s policy paper is keen to single out the safe integration of drones, which is to be welcomed, as lower airspace is where congestion, particularly with general aviation, occurs and will continue to do so—I ask: what safeguards are in place to ensure that airspace reform decisions remain transparent and evidence-based and fairly balance commercial, environmental and wider aviation user interests?

The Government seek to expand the CAA’s enforcement powers. What mechanisms will ensure accountability, proportionality and appropriate parliamentary oversight of those powers? I am keen to learn from the Minister how the DfT proposes to safeguard these changes for non-airline operators.

This debate would not be complete without mention of the European geostationary navigation overlay service, commonly known and referred to as EGNOS, the satellite-based augmentation system that improves the precision and integrity of global positioning systems; in particular, the EGNOS Safety of Life Service— note “safety of life”—which is used in safety-critical applications, such as in the aviation sector. Back in June 2022, the All-Party Parliamentary Group on Aviation asked Oxera, the Oxford-based economics and finance consultancy, to assess the business case for a temporary reinstatement of EGNOS. It pointed out that

“prior to leaving the EU, the UK civil aviation sector invested heavily into satellite-based approaches because of the significant safety and reliability advantages that satellite-based approaches offer compared to traditional approaches (i.e. non-precision navigational aids) … Despite these investments, the UK is currently the only state in the G20 without useable access to a precise satellite-based navigation system, whereas other countries are increasingly moving towards relying on precision satellite-based approaches”.

What does this mean in reality? It has really serious consequences. It means that remote areas of the United Kingdom that rely on small regional airlines, such as Loganair in Scotland, are unable to operate in inclement weather conditions. I note that the noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, who was due to participate in this debate, has been stranded for a number of days on the Isles of Scilly, which are fog-bound. As a result of our non-participation in EGNOS, the likelihood of aircraft operating into the islands in such conditions is remote.

In relation to air crew training, in addition to the lack of instrument approach training slots, the whole UK professional flight training industry cannot deliver for UK-based students the full range of performance-based navigation training, which is reliant on satellite-based signals. Worse still, all these GPS-supported approaches are only 2D lateral non-precision; 3D precision requires the EGNOS Safety of Life Service to enable the airport to provide this. So training aircraft cross the channel to places such as Jersey and other European countries where a full suite of approaches are available, as they still benefit from the EGNOS signal in space. This is a major revenue and talent loss to the UK GA sector. Similarly, air traffic control offices cannot do more than train in simulation for 3D approaches.

Lastly, the All-Party Parliamentary Group for Air Ambulances, of which I am a member, is pushing government hard across a range of topics. As we speak, there is a reception to launch a report on the case for safeguarded 24/7 on-site hospital helipads. A big part of its lobbying is on the lack of helimed point-in-space procedures for hospitals, which are EGNOS reliant. The loss of EGNOS access weakens aviation safety and NHS trauma care goals. Without reinstatement, increasing air ambulance mission cancellations put these strategies—and patient outcomes—at risk. Perhaps the Minister can tell us what the Government have in mind in relation to EGNOS.

I will end here but implore the Minister to again consider reinstating EGNOS membership as a matter of urgency. Above all, I implore the Government to give due consideration to general aviation when prioritising their goals and directions to the CAA. At present, I fear they clearly are not doing so.

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

Lord Davies of Gower Excerpts

Committee stage
Tuesday 16th June 2026 Grand Committee

[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 ---

So, this amendment is a call for the CAA to give a lead and shine a spotlight on this challenge, which, if we do not address it successfully, will blight the prospects of delivering the growth that we want to see in the sector. The proposed annual report would show the challenge that the whole sector needs to address. BALPA is keen to engage with the sector and with the Government to think together about how we can successfully begin to address this financial challenge.

[Lord Davies of Gower (Con)]

My Lords, I will speak to my Amendment 65A, through which I am pleased to have the opportunity to address the issue of instrument training. I confess that it is a dry subject, but it is essential and falls within the scope of group 5.

The CAA published its refreshed general aviation strategy in October 2025, setting out its vision for

“A safe, innovative, and sustainable general aviation sector”


operating within

“a proportionate and supportive regulatory environment”.

In the report, the CAA acknowledged that, while progress has been made,

“The GA sector faces … challenges including declining flying hours, a stagnating number of recreational pilot licence holders, as well as an ageing fleet of aircraft”.


One very challenging aspect facing general aviation at present, which has not been adequately addressed, is support for self-improver pilots in instrument training: the pilots who pay their own way from initial training for a private pilot’s licence through to commercial pilot qualification and who have, incidentally, traditionally made up the vast majority of commercial pilots. This access to instrument training challenge also applies to students on approved airline pilot training courses, and this reinforces the points made by the noble Lord, Lord Barber of Ainsdale: no training, no pilots. One of the essential ingredients to becoming a commercial pilot, or indeed an additional qualification for any private pilot, is instrument rating. I assure noble Lords that it is an exacting test of 55 hours of blind flying, mathematics and flying skill that allows pilots eventually to fly in and make approaches to airports in marginal weather conditions.

The challenge pilots undertaking training now face, however, is access to airports with the facilities to enable training for the instrument rating qualification. Currently in the UK, there is a complete lack of instrument approach training slots. The whole of the UK professional flight training industry cannot deliver for UK-based students the full range of navigational performance training which is reliant upon satellite-based signals. As I pointed out at Second Reading, worse still, all these GPS-supported approaches are only two-dimensional, lateral and non-positional. Three-dimensional precision requires the European geostationary navigation overlay service—EGNOS—safety-of-life service to enable the airport to provide this. I will not dwell on EGNOS, as there will be more of that later.

Across the channel, in places such as Jersey and in other European countries, and indeed in the USA, a full suite of approaches to training aircraft is available, as they still benefit—certainly in Europe at least—from the EGNOS signal in space. This is a loss of revenue and skills base to the UK. Similarly, air traffic control officers cannot do more than train in simulation for 3D approaches, which can get as low as 250 feet above the runway.

Many UK instrument rating instructors and CAA examiners have highlighted the issues relating to the instrument rating training. The situation has been ongoing for the past 15 years and has been noticeably worse in the last 10 years. The situation has been highlighted to the Civil Aviation Authority, but as yet nothing has been addressed.

My amendment seeks to find a remedy to account for the lack of opportunity for instrument training through the limited availability of suitably equipped airfields. There are many reasons for it: the closure of UK airfields; the removal of instrument landing systems, partly due to the expense of maintaining them to the approved standard; the availability of navigational aids at the airfields that remain open and which accept training flights; the cost of transit flights for the students to access airfields with required navigation aids; and the general shortage of air traffic controllers, both civil and military. Quite a number of airports in the UK do have facilities, although they are not made easily accessible for one reason or another, yet at varying times of the day they have a certain amount of redundancy. Furthermore, a large number of military airfields with the necessary facilities also have a great deal of redundancy.

In conclusion, the purpose of my amendment is to open the debate to see whether there is a way to encourage availability where there is this redundancy. I fully recognise the challenge this creates across government departments, but the situation has become quite dire and the solution requires some thought. I hope that the Minister appreciates my concern and is willing to give some thought to the solution, together with the CAA, which, of course, is responsible for licensing the instrument approaches.

[Baroness Foster of Oxton (Con)]

My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Holmes, for his very interesting take and amendments in this area.

I want to come to pilot training. I support the noble Lord, Lord Barber, who, as a former trade union negotiator for British Airways cabin crew, worked very closely with our BALPA colleagues for many years—and that continues. I agree with what he said.

My ex-husband trained at Hamble—as I think the noble Lord, Lord Tunnicliffe, will remember—and when I joined the airline industry, our pilots had come from the RAF or the schemes run by BEA, BOAC and then British Airways. Other pilots went to Oxford Flying School, Prestwick or various other places. It was always a costly venture for any pilot not part of the state-owned airline industry as such. But we have moved on, and the noble Lord is right to say that it is fine to complain but we need some action.

As the noble Lord said, it costs in the region of £100,000 to train somebody up to be a commercial pilot. That is an extremely good investment for an airline but, as has been mentioned, British Airways and Jet2 appear to be the only airlines prepared to put their money where their mouth is.

These loans, if they come as loans, guarantee that those pilots will pay them back over the years. Unlike certain students, perhaps, I do not think they are going to disappear into the long grass. So it behoves government to start to look at a student loan-type scheme. Industry and the airlines need to step up, and those complaining of a shortage of pilots coming forward need to look at the schemes run by BA and Jet2 and start to provide some incentive and some action to deal with a possible shortage over the next few years.

This is a fantastic profession and those young men and women who go into it will have a rewarding career until their mid-60s. I think it behoves all of us to do everything we can. While we encourage youngsters to go to university, this is a profession that really needs to be supported. We now need to get outside the box and start to look at ways to get in those young, enthusiastic people who will be our brilliant pilots of the future.