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.