North of England: Rapid Mass Transport System

Lord Kirkhope of Harrogate Excerpts

Monday 28th June 2021 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Vere of Norbiton (Con)]

I can reassure the noble Lord that the Government are considering all options as part of the integrated rail plan and of course, Northern Powerhouse Rail is a very important part of that. Once the IRP is published, Transport for the North will submit a business case consistent with policy and the funding framework.

[Lord Kirkhope of Harrogate (Con) [V]]

My noble friend’s idea of an underground magnetic railway between northern cities certainly has a strong attraction, especially following Elon Musk’s proposal for 1,000 mph trains in the United States, and especially coming from a former deputy chair of Transport for London. However, as Transport for the North has said, our aims in the north should be to improve the frequency, capacity, speed and resilience of our transport system. Can my noble friend go a little further in telling us, in a realistic way, how the Government intend to facilitate those aims in the near future?

[Baroness Vere of Norbiton (Con)]

The Government are working extremely hard on setting out plans as to how we will improve connectivity in the north. As I mentioned previously, the integrated rail plan will be published soon and will bring together the benefits of not just High Speed 2 but Northern Powerhouse Rail and other very significant projects across the north. Of course, our investment in traditional rail and upgrading and improving our current lines also continues.

Drivers’ Hours and Tachographs (Temporary Exceptions) Regulations 2021

Lord Kirkhope of Harrogate Excerpts

Thursday 18th March 2021 Lords Chamber

[Lord Kirkhope of Harrogate (Con) [V]]

My Lords, while it is inevitable that, in debating these regulations, one might legitimately feel that we have missed the bus, it would be more appropriate to apply the term déjà vu. Taking note of something that has already happened is of rather less value that scrutinising proposals and offering advice before implementation. It is now only a matter of a few days before these temporary provisions end. I assume that we might hold a similar debate in a couple of months if we see a further extension of the provisions but, with déjà vu, we can at least look back at the approach to drivers’ hours and conditions to contrast and compare. In doing so, perhaps we might better judge the validity or otherwise of these regulations.

Since the 1930s, Governments have recognised that commercial pressures can lead transport operators and drivers to indulge in excessive driving that can endanger themselves and other road users. Fatigue and its effects on driving safety were first properly recognised in the Road and Rail Traffic Act 1933, which, incidentally, was two years before we even had driving tests in this country. It was introduced to protect us all from the negative effects that I mentioned, and it began a process in which Governments ever since have followed some basic principles, namely: promoting road safety by requiring drivers to have adequate rest and breaks, and preventing excessive driving; a desire for common international rules and to ensure that competition between hauliers and coach operators is fair; and giving drivers reasonable conditions of work and leisure, and stopping exploitation.

UK legislation on drivers’ hours was introduced by the Transport Act 1968. When the UK joined the then EEC, it adopted the European social regulations of 1969. The use of tachographs had been compulsory in the EU since 1975, but the UK initially failed to implement this requirement until obliged to do so in 1981. The only major changes since then have been to incorporate the provisions of the working time directive in 2005, limiting total working time, although we have introduced many detailed provisions of implementation by statutory instrument since then. By and large, with the agreement of business and the unions, we have adhered to these provisions, with the drivers’ hours regulations being especially strictly followed.

In 2009, the then Government held a consultation on the clarity of the rules which indicated that the complexity and finer details were still misunderstood. Governments have expressly stated that only in exceptional circumstances could there be any amendment to the rules. Looking back, that policy has been correctly followed. Examples of variance and relaxation came about with the foot and mouth disease in 2007, a derogation for military reservists, also in 2007 and the proposed fuel tanker drivers’ strike in 2012. The current Government introduced emergency relaxation, as we know, to protect the supply chain because of Covid-19 between March and May last year. They are continuing to pursue this by successive extensions, citing not only the Covid situation but the effects from us leaving the EU. To the extent that the pressures are temporary, the regulations can be accepted but, as we move out of the pandemic, any wish to continue these arrangements to cover ongoing problems brought about by our new EU status and our cross-border trade should be examined more vigorously.

There are some concerns that there could be either repeated temporary easing of regulations, or a longer-term or permanent situation. I would like the Minister to give greater assurances on this in her concluding remarks. I would also be grateful if she could confirm that the proposals we are looking at today change only drivers’ hours and rest periods, and that the more extensive rules and regulations dealing with the way in which driving periods and rest are allocated in the course of any week, and compensation arrangements for reductions in rest periods, are not being affected by these provisions. Employers and operators need reassurance on this point. Employers in particular have great difficulty in interpreting anything that is not crystal clear as to the legal position. It would be most unfair if these changes encouraged unfair competition. We all have a duty to protect both employers and employees, just as was described and hoped for back in 1933—but, of course, I will support my noble friend on these measures.

Road Vehicles and Non-Road Mobile Machinery (Type-Approval) (Amendment) (EU Exit) Regulations 2020

Lord Kirkhope of Harrogate Excerpts

Monday 16th November 2020 Lords Chamber

[Lord Kirkhope of Harrogate (Con) [V]]

My Lords, here we are again, debating yet more of the necessary instruments ahead of the end of the transition period, following our leaving the EU. Of course, they are necessary; without them we would have no suitable regulations in place to replace those where the ultimate arbiter at present is the European Commission. However, these changes, like so many others in this plethora of statutory instruments, present us with a number of questions. I intend to concentrate on the third instrument, which deals with carbon dioxide emissions from heavy-duty vehicles.

To prepare for this debate I took it on myself to consult logistics managers and vehicle constructors. I have also looked with interest at some of the Department for Transport’s own plans and ideas for the future of road transport in the UK. The statement by the UK Government that they now aim to see the end of sales of new diesel and petrol engine cars and vans by 2030, not as previously planned, is interesting but it does not extend to heavy-duty vehicles, including buses and trucks. These are covered, as we all know, by the current EU regulations that set out targets for CO₂ emission reductions of 15% in 2025-29 and 30% from 2030. It is those regulations that we seek to retain but under UK control.

We must realise that in recent years EU truck standards have tended to focus on air quality rather than CO₂ emissions, hence the current Euro 6 standard for new trucks, which has radically and successfully reduced emissions of nitrogen oxide and visible soot but has made much smaller impacts on CO₂ emissions. Transport emissions of CO₂ in the UK have fallen by only 3% since 1990, compared with total domestic CO₂ emissions, which have reduced by 43%. The provisions before us say nothing about the replication or replacement of Euro 6 standards. Can my noble friend point us in the direction of how this will change? Will we need to replace Euro 6 with “UK 6”?

UK logistics providers work on the basis of investment in trucks with useful lifespans to them of at least 10 years. This means that new diesel vehicles being ordered now will still be in service in 2030. Many of these vehicles that reach the age of 10 are then placed in a world marketplace and can enjoy many more years of active service in other parts of the world. In the case of UK trucks, that is normally in other right-hand drive markets, in Africa and elsewhere in the developing world.

As my noble friend knows, the DfT is working on an interesting set of future possibilities in its transport decarbonisation plan, which is promised by the end of this year. Can she confirm that in the deployment of the regulations we are debating today the outcome of that plan will be part of the process of future guidance to logistics operators and manufacturers? Among the areas being considered as replacements for petrol and diesel power are battery electric, hydrogen fuel cells, electric road systems such as trolley buses, biogas and synthetic fuels. Bearing in mind the long lead time for investment, the heavy-duty vehicle industry needs as much certainty as possible as to what the future direction will be.

The UK is lucky that we have many experts in engineering and academia who are willing to assist, but in order to meet future emissions standards we must be clearer as to our desired direction soon. With the hosting of COP 26 next year, the UK has a great opportunity to find a new set of objectives, not only for cars and vans but for HGVs. These regulations do what they have to do but, like so many other EU SIs, they answer only half the question. I mentioned the Euro 6 standard for nitrogen oxide and we have here specific targets for limiting CO₂ but even if we adopt the agreed EU position now, how do we intend to maintain the standards which might be enhanced by the EU in future? Will we always agree to maintain international standards? If not, we could be left on our own in a gloriously isolated way, with implications for our manufacturers and operators of vehicles.

I note, and my noble friend confirmed this in her opening speech, that the Government maintain that the instrument has been designed to

“ensure the UK can meet its commitment to ensuring that UK CO₂ emissions regulation is at least as ambitious as current arrangements; and … provide certainty to vehicle manufacturers”.

This is welcome but will my noble friend explain how, if we wish to improve on EU regulations, we will ensure that those improvements will be acceptable to the EU so as not to disadvantage our businesses? HGVs currently do not have the same time limits on their propulsion systems as cars and vans, but it is in everybody’s interest to deal with their emissions as part of our environmental improvements. I just want to be sure that after the end of the EU transition period we do not end up with confusion, contradiction or a deprivation of our businesses’ ability to succeed in this new and challenging international marketplace.

Flybe

Lord Kirkhope of Harrogate Excerpts

Thursday 5th March 2020 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Vere of Norbiton]

I thank the noble Lord for his comments. I will certainly make sure that the Treasury sees them.

[Lord Kirkhope of Harrogate (Con)]

Will my noble friend acknowledge the fact that, often, the slots available to airlines are of more value than the trading conditions? Can she confirm that we will not see here a market for slots, from which a number of airlines will benefit without taking the social responsibilities that will be lost as a result of this failure?

[Baroness Vere of Norbiton]

My noble friend makes an important point about the tension between the slots, social responsibility and regional connectivity. The Government will be looking at that issue with keen interest as the Flybe assets go through the insolvency process. As my noble friend will know, slots are subject to an independent system of allocation managed by Airport Coordination Limited, which follows international rules. The Government are alive to what my noble friend is saying.

Air Traffic Management and Unmanned Aircraft Bill [HL]

Lord Kirkhope of Harrogate Excerpts

Committee stage & Committee: 2nd sitting (Hansard): House of Lords & Committee: 2nd sitting (Hansard)
Wednesday 12th February 2020 Lords Chamber

[Lord Craig of Radley]

My Lords, I too support the thrust of these three amendments. On the first of them I would need to be quite clear, though, whether the requirements of particular safety features are a legal requirement. If they are not, I believe that they should be; but I assume that they are, which is why they are mentioned in this way. I also note in passing that the phrase

“in charge of a small unmanned aircraft”

is used. We have been talking about various ways in which those aircraft are managed. Is there somebody controlling them or are they being operated? For the sake of clarity, if we are going to use a word such as “controlling”—or any other word—it should be part of the legislation to define what is meant by the phrase or phrases that are used in it.

The amendment regarding one single unmanned aircraft could be restrictive but, to start with, that is perhaps the right way to go—not to immediately talk about allowing two or more, or even a swarm, of small unmanned aircraft to be flown. In passing, if such an arrangement were allowed would the collective weight of the swarm be taken into account, rather than just the weight of an item within that swarm? That could affect it, bearing in mind the weight limitations that are already in legislation.

On the point of the third amendment, alcohol, I know that the Minister talked about alcohol in the letter that she wrote. She said that if it were necessary, it would be a matter for an air navigation order because alcohol and drugs are of such significance in the safety of aviation. The Explanatory Notes refer to anybody fulfilling an aviation function, but surely the operator or controller—the man, woman or child in charge of a small, unmanned aircraft—is performing an aviation function. The Railways and Transport Safety Act 2003 seems a very appropriate place for alcohol and drugs to be covered, rather than leaving it to an air navigation order.

[Lord Kirkhope of Harrogate (Con)]

My Lords, I add my support for these amendments, particularly Amendment 33C. Perhaps my noble friend the Minister needs to go no further than to look at the provisions and requirements in the armed services for those who are engaged in the use of drones. Although the rules here will presumably apply to civilians, those provisions are sensible in regard to the questions of alcohol and drugs, and of control. Maybe she could find the precedent that she needs if she looks at the service agreements for those involved with operating drones in the services.

[Viscount Goschen]

My Lords, I certainly support the thrust of what the noble Lord, Lord Whitty, seeks to achieve with his series of amendments but there are perhaps dangers in them as well, considering how these aircraft might be utilised in the future. We are back to the central difficulty with the Bill: how to future-proof it. There could be circumstances in the future where a system of small, unmanned aerial vehicles is used for inspecting pipelines, patrolling beaches—looking for those who are smuggling or bringing in illegal immigrants—or monitoring weather conditions. All sorts of things could require a system of small UAs to be operated. It is entirely conceivable and technologically possible that they could be operated at the moment by computer systems: by algorithms with a single, nominated person in charge of a system of multiple vehicles. That might be much safer than having someone with little experience looking out of the window and trying to control a single aircraft. While I sympathise with the thrust of the amendments, when my noble friend comes to her response perhaps she might care to address that point. The noble Lord, Lord Whitty, might think about it as well.

Air Traffic Management and Unmanned Aircraft Bill [HL]

Lord Kirkhope of Harrogate Excerpts

Committee stage & Committee: 1st sitting (Hansard): House of Lords & Committee: 1st sitting (Hansard)
Monday 10th February 2020 Lords Chamber

[Lord Kirkhope of Harrogate (Con)]

My Lords, I disagree with Amendment 2 because narrowing the Secretary of State’s powers would not be desirable. I know that the powers under discussion relate directly to the modernisation programme, but they should be maintained permanently regarding the control of airspace. The CAA is not a good place for these matters to dwell, particularly as the Secretary of State is of course accountable to Parliament—so there is a way in which the Secretary of State can be challenged, which is rather more democratic and relevant than a narrowing of the powers. We do not want a shift in the balance of power from the Secretary of State to the CAA. That point goes for Amendments 2, 3, 8 and 9.

Amendment 4 refers to a consultation process and appeals. As we know, there was a very effective Aviation 2050 Green Paper last year, which was a mammoth consultation. The consultation here proposed might duplicate the effort that has just gone in and could be a waste of resources. Aviation interests would be consulted in any event, but I am not sure that an initial consultation, as envisaged here, would be helpful.

Some airfields are obviously commercially able to find the resources to be involved, but some are not. It is, therefore, important that smaller airfields are looked after. Amendment 6, which would ensure that smaller airports have appropriate funding, is important and should be supported. Amendment 7 would allow a system of compensation to be set up, to cover the cost of airports being compelled to make changes. That seems reasonable, as airports are commercial entities.

[Lord Tunnicliffe (Lab)]

My Lords, for the convenience of the House, I draw attention to the penultimate line on the front page of today’s list, which states that the target for the day is to complete Amendment 23. That means that we are not going to do drones today. No Member has moved from their seat; never mind.

The essence of this group of amendments, with which I broadly agree, is to prevent mission creep. Having sat on the Front Bench opposite, I recall that whenever you create a right for the Government to do something or other, civil servants will creep up to you and say: “Make sure it is not restricted, because you might need it.” I fear that, far too often, they do.

The Minister wrote to me and several other noble Lords. On the second page of her letter, under the heading “Proportionality”, her second sentence states:

“It is the government’s intention that, at least initially, the powers to direct in clauses 2 and 3 would only be used by the Secretary of State in relation to ACPs that have been identified within the airspace change masterplan, currently being developed by NERL through the Airspace Change Organising Group (ACOG) with a view to incorporation of the masterplan into the CAA’s airspace strategy”.


I read the whole sentence for the avoidance of doubt. The words that sprung out at me are, “at least initially”. Further on in the letter, the Minister seeks to soften those words with a series of intentions. However, intentions are not law: they are the words of the Minister. If she repeats those words into Hansard they become a little more useful. Nevertheless, there is a serious issue with that part of the Bill ending up in mission creep. There are so many things for which the CAA or the Government might wish to use these powers.

I share the view that the task in front of those who are trying to deliver the programme is such that consultation—ideally on the face of the Bill, as put forward by Amendment 4—would be useful. It would certainly be useful to hear the extent to which the Minister can assure the House about consultation. On the appeals procedure, I refer again to the noble Baroness’s extremely useful letter, in which she says:

“There is no formal appeals process against an ACAA decision relating to individual ACPs. CAP1616 is a fully transparent process in which consultation and engagement exercises are run throughout.”


With the greatest respect, a consultation and engagement exercise is not an appeal. Because of the extent to which this process is entirely within the CAA’s ambit, one can see a situation where, without some hook in primary legislation, small fish in this sea could find themselves swamped. A formal appeals procedure somewhere in the Bill might usefully add to it. I hope that the Minister will be able to react to those ideas.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Kirkhope of Harrogate]

My Lords, I hope the noble Baroness does not want to give the impression that there is a high preponderance among those engaged in general aviation—whether for business or, as she put it, leisure—who are not using the latest technology and training in the work they do. I speak as a private pilot and others here are similarly qualified. “General aviation” is a very wide term, but in our discussion on regulated airspace the noble Baroness should be quite clear that a considerable number of people involved at the leisure end are very well-equipped, technologically and personally.

[Baroness Randerson]

One of the key reasons behind my intervening on this point was to make it absolutely clear that “general aviation” is a very broad term. There are many people involved in it with extremely high-tech equipment, but it is not realistic to expect all smaller leisure pilots to have the latest equipment. I do not know whether the noble Lord was in the Chamber for the Question earlier today, but, if he has read the reports that came from the sad experience of that accident, he will be aware that there are many key issues associated with the regulation of smaller planes and the way in which some people—I emphasise this—use them.

There are important aspects to this, and in responding to that Question the Minister made it clear that the department was looking at it. It is important that we bear that aspect in mind in this debate, because the vast majority of the general public were, for example, completely unaware of the kind of grey charter flights referred to in that Question. It is an issue not just of equipment but of where the planes have flown. That makes it still safe to fly them, even though they have not perhaps got the latest or highest-spec equipment. That is why this discussion is ongoing and why it is important that these amendments are being tabled. I will read the record carefully and see what the Minister has said. If she wishes to write to clarify some of the things said in this debate, I would welcome that. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Randerson]

My Lords, I will speak also to Amendment 10 in this group, which in my name. Both amendments would ensure that smaller airports have appropriate funding if they are subject to directions that could have severe financial implications for them. We have referred to the cost of airspace modernisation a number of times this afternoon, and I have already said that not all airports are Gatwick or Heathrow; they are not all even Bristol, for example. Some of the smaller airports that might be subject to expensive requirements on their airspace change could find this very difficult indeed to accommodate financially.

One estimate is that the cost of airspace modernisation could reflect 15% of the annual turnover of a small airport, which would be impossible for them to deal with financially. It is one thing to deal with it financially if it will be to your commercial benefit, and another thing if it will be to the benefit of your neighbouring airport. Noble Lords can see why some airports are rather concerned about this, because it could have serious financial implications. On the order of magnitude of the money involved, I gather that it could cost hundreds of thousands or even millions of pounds for each airport, and if a charge is incurred against their will and against their commercial interests, that will be difficult for them.

In our amendments we have tried to take what I regard as a reasonable line, to set a pretty strong test. We suggest that compensation would apply only if it imposed

“an excessively high financial burden”.

They might have to shrug and accept a small financial burden, but if it becomes extremely high, compensation should be considered. Our concept was that funding would come from NATS, but there are other proposals related to that.

These two amendments are designed to protect small airports. They aim to ensure that, in parts of the country where small airports are of huge importance, both to the economy and to people who wish to travel in those parts, those small airports survive. I beg to move.

[Lord Kirkhope of Harrogate]

My Lords, I apologise for misreading my Order Paper and trying to head into areas of amendments before I should be allowed to: I thank my noble friend for correcting me. However, on this amendment, there is a strong case for some compensation to be allowed for smaller airports—in particular, those that are compelled to make changes. The amendment is unclear on whether this covers just the cost of making the change, however that is defined, or the negative commercial impact as a result. That is a totally different area but one that I know is of great concern to smaller airports.

Amendment 10 awards compensation for an excessively high financial burden, as the noble Baroness just said. That is also extremely difficult to assess. I think one would have to be more specific than a “high financial burden”, because there is a lot of argument there. The principle, however, seems right, because whatever we decide to do or is decided, smaller businesses should not be forced to foot large bills for airspace changes forced on them by the Government and may be forced on them through government as a result of pressures from those who can better afford the costs associated with such changes.

[Lord Berkeley]

My Lords, the two points raised by the noble Lord, Lord Kirkhope, and the noble Baroness are well illustrated by Newquay Airport in Cornwall, where I live. I use the airport occasionally. It is subject to a public service obligation which the county council has negotiated to ensure four return flights a day between Newquay and a London airport. It has been very successful. There has been recent discussion, as noble Lords will know, to change the London location from Heathrow back to Gatwick, for reasons we do not need to go into today. The point is that Newquay has a few flights going to other places in the UK, on the continent and in Ireland. It is also the base for Richard Branson’s latest idea of getting to the moon—taking passengers there, or something—which may be the subject of a government grant. It is odd, but if it was required to make changes to its airspace because of some other reason, the airport would be in severe financial difficulties. That is why it has been given a PSO: because it is an important part of improving the transport between Cornwall and London.

One can challenge or disagree with some of the text of the amendment, but the principle is there. If, when she comes to respond, the Minister does not like the wording, perhaps she can go away, have some discussions about it and come back with more acceptable wording. We should hold on to the principle of a small airport not being put to severe financial difficulty because of something over which it has no control.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Tunnicliffe]

My Lords, the amendment would require publication of a report on aviation emissions. Although this information is already available, the report would ensure that it was presented in such a way as to comply with the Aarhus convention, which considers steps to reduce emissions.

According to the Government, the Bill will enable sustainable growth in air travel. In light of climate change, there is of course a debate as to whether it is right for the Government to increase air travel—or, at least, whether they should explain how they will ensure that growth is sustainable and how they intend to offset emissions. The Government should make emissions information readily available and allow for greater accountability over their policies to reduce them.

A key section of the Aarhus convention is about access to information,

“the right of everyone to receive environmental information that is held by public authorities … This can include information on the state of the environment, but also on policies or measures taken, or on the state of human health and safety where this can be affected by the state of the environment. Applicants are entitled to obtain this information within one month of the request and without having to say why they require it. In addition, public authorities are obliged, under the Convention, to actively disseminate environmental information in their possession.”

I beg to move.

[Lord Kirkhope of Harrogate]

My Lords, why do the proponents of the amendment believe that this is the right legislative location for it? Perhaps I am missing something, but should it not be looked at as part of the Environment Bill that will come before us in due course or in some other capacity, rather than in the tight confines of what we are debating today? With great respect, I do not think that the noble Lord has explained precisely where it fits into these proposals.

[Lord Tunnicliffe]

I apologise for that. I just feel that the issue of the environment is so important that one should take every reasonable opportunity to raise it. One area where we all know that environmental information about emissions in this country is deficient is the acknowledgment of aviation and maritime impacts. This is clearly an aviation Bill, so it is reasonable to make the inquiry at this point.

Air Traffic Management and Unmanned Aircraft Bill [HL]

Lord Kirkhope of Harrogate Excerpts

2nd reading & 2nd reading (Hansard): House of Lords & 2nd reading (Hansard)
Monday 27th January 2020 Lords Chamber

[Lord Kirkhope of Harrogate (Con)]

My Lords, in general I welcome the Bill. I declare my interest as a pilot, a former airport board member and chair of the inquiry set up by the All-Party Parliamentary Group on General Aviation last year, looking into the UK’s lower airspace. I will concentrate most of my remarks on airspace elements in the Bill. First, I recognise the importance of the aviation 2050 consultation paper, which was widely responded to. It was extremely helpful in our discussions and will, no doubt, be helpful to the Government. There were general remarks about the constricted nature of airspace in this country, especially in the south of England, where there is a big mix of general aviation and non-general aviation traffic.

As a consequence of the growth in aviation generally in this country, the CAA and the Department for Transport have both rightly recognised how complex UK airspace is—possibly the most complex in the world. Much of the design and principles have not changed significantly since the 1950s or 1960s, as the Minister indicated in her opening remarks. As my noble friend Lord Goschen and other noble Lords have said, there have, of course, been changes in technology. We have moved on, but the administrative and legislative support has not changed to match them. The Bill gives the Secretary of State the power to change, remove or apply an airspace change by directing a party to make such a change. I hope that the Government have properly considered what sort of ethos needs to apply here. I appreciate that we cannot remove the regulations set out in Section 70 of the Transport Act 2000, but it is important to note that those legislative requirements that govern how the CAA must manage its airspace are still significantly important. I will return to the CAA’s responsibility in a moment. When exercising its function, the CAA should, of course, consider safety, primarily, then efficiency and also the equitable treatment of all airspace users, together with a high level of proportionality. Again, the issue of proportionality is important. Our inquiry last year declared that we should always apply the criteria of safety, proportionality and need when looking at changes in UK airspace.

It is also important that proposals made would inevitably extend the powers of the CAA to some extent. I was interested to hear other noble Lords’ references to maintaining the resources of the CAA in order for it to do its job both now and in the future. I very much believe that the CAA must have some form of independent review procedure in any changes or proposals for change that it wants to make, while maintaining the criteria to which I have already referred. I think it is important, in relation to its resources, that the Government should consider exempting the airspace department of the CAA from the financial return requirement. This would allow it to take on the extra responsibilities without worrying about the financial consequences. I also welcome, generally, a sensible enforcement and appeals approach to future airspace diktats. The inevitability of court action is not conducive to speedy and equitable outcomes and it does little to achieve mutually sustainable outcomes.

Throughout our inquiry we were reminded of the pressing need to be able to remove airspace when it is not demonstrably required. Other noble Lords have also, rightly, pointed this out. It is important that such a reduction in airspace is available to us. The Minister’s predecessor, my noble friend Lady Sugg, reassured me in a Written Answer to a Question I raised in March 2019 that,

“a key policy objective is to ensure that the UK has the minimum volume of controlled airspace consistent with safe and efficient air traffic operations”.

How will the Government actually achieve this? Where is the power for the Government or the CAA to maintain it? Surely this must include powers to remove controlled airspace. Indeed, sometimes one wonders about airport operations, particularly, which build up enormous areas of controlled airspace that are not required in due course. One almost feels that this is a virility symbol, or at the very least some form of asset build-up—a bit like a builder’s landbank in the domestic sector—by which some airports wish to increase their asset value through the size of their controlled airspace. It is almost as bad as the use of slots by airlines, which become almost the most valuable part of the entire operation of an airline.

I welcome the proposals for a review process for airspace change programmes and new powers for the Government to require controllers of airspace to consult where appropriate. This must obviously include circumstances, as I said, where there may be a justification for reducing airspace as much as where there is a wish to increase it.

I shall refer briefly to the issue of pressure on those involved. I very much respect the work of air traffic controllers. The noble Lord, Lord Whitty, referred to artificial intelligence and then we heard from my noble friend Lord Naseby, who displays an enormous amount of intelligence which is not computerised but arises from his broad experience. I believe that it is important that we will be relying on individual air traffic controllers—real people—and the pressure on them of any changes we make must be taken fully into account.

I said that I would not refer to much other than airspace, and I do not wish to divert into the question of drones, but I feel that the challenge of the arrival of these unmanned objects puts great pressure and tension on the issue of airspace and those who control it. As technology rapidly improves, it makes it possible to create more flexible airspace. We concluded in our inquiry that systems such as PilotAware and others, coupled with digitisation and the ease of access to NOTAMs—notices to airmen—mean that pilots are far better prepared than they have ever been in the past. Together with all these changes, I hope that the Government will realise that we need to make sure that pilots are adequately trained to deal with not only technology but the changes that are made to airspace and to the rules and requirements upon them of traversing across and outside of airspace.

General aviation in the UK is a substantial contributor to our GDP, greater than some of the other areas we spend a lot of time debating. I will not pick any in particular except to mention that it is greater than fisheries, for example, which is a very difficult subject. We must understand that general aviation is not only important to this country and its future but certainly deserves our full support and encouragement.