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

Lord Harper Excerpts

Committee stage
Tuesday 16th June 2026 Grand Committee

[Lord Berkeley (Lab)]

My Lords, I start with an apology. I could not be here for Second Reading because I was gale-bound on the Isles of Scilly due to the failure of the air services. Therefore, it seems an appropriate time to look at the whole subject of general aviation, as the noble Lord, Lord Davies, said, to see what can be done. I have been lobbying hard for improved navigation and improved services to the Isles of Scilly, where I live most of the time, for about 10 years; I shall come to that in later amendments. It is 10 years since we left Europe with Brexit and cancelled our membership of EGNOS, which I shall come to later.

It is important that general aviation is included in the Bill, and I support much of what the noble Lords, Lord Davies and Lord Moylan, have said. I am not sure about the European Union amendment, but we will come on to that later. It is worth reminding ourselves that the long title of this Bill says that it is to:

“Make provision for the protection of purchasers and users of air transport and airport services”,


and it then mentions

“air traffic and air navigation services”,

all of which are part of general aviation, just as much as they are part of the rest of the aviation world. It is right to have something at the start of the Bill which demonstrates that this is an important subject which needs full consideration.

Much of what is in the Bill is really good, but, as the noble Lord, Lord Davies, said, all the issues relating to general aviation need discussing, such as training, access to small airfields—on the islands or different parts of the country—and how things compare with what has been going on in Europe. I support the amendment from the noble Lord, Lord Davies, and certainly part of the amendments from the noble Lord, Lord Moylan, and look forward to discussing these issues more in subsequent amendments.

[Lord Harper (Con)]

My Lords, I declare my interest, as set out in the register, as non-executive chair of RVL Aviation. I strongly support the purpose clause which my noble friend Lord Moylan has set out because I think most of the discussion on the other amendments will look at passengers by talking about airlines and concentrating on the experience of passengers. I draw attention to the fact that his Amendment 1 also talks about the international competitiveness of the sector, economic growth and the rights of those who purchase air transport services. My understanding of his amendment and of Clause 1 is that the definition of air transport services is not just passengers but those people who purchase freight and cargo services. I see the Minister is nodding assent.

That is important because it is critical to the growth of the economy. Air freight accounts for over 40% of non-EU trade by value, even though it is only about 1% of freight by volume. That is incredibly important to the overall economy, especially for some sectors, such as pharmaceuticals and high-end manufacturing, where we are particularly competitive, and it contributes to our balance of payments. An amendment that means that Ministers, when making regulations, have to ensure that our international trade remains competitive would be extremely valuable.

That is important, because the conversation about rights and the regulatory burden on airlines is often had while not thinking about the cost of those regulations. It does not mean that you do not make regulations if they have a cost; it just means that when you think about regulating, you have to think about the cost, look at the benefit and balance those two things. You also have to look at them cumulatively. My noble friend Lord Moylan touched on that when he talked about the Government’s target to reduce the cost of administrative burdens by 25% over this Parliament.

It is worth putting on the record—this is why the competitiveness of the sector is important—that overall, in 2024, European airlines had a net profit margin of around 3.9%. They are also expected, once all the results are in, to have had a net profit margin of around 4.4% in 2025, with a profit per passenger of around $8 or $9. I accept that that varies hugely by carrier, but it means that we have to think carefully about the costs that we load on to the industry so that we ensure that it remains competitive for both freight and passengers.

[Lord Moylan (Con)]

Does my noble friend agree that, as the European Union has said, for European airlines the cost of regulation to date is approximately €8 per ticket?

[Lord Harper (Con)]

I note that point; it is important when you look at the margins. It is clear that relatively small changes to the regulatory burden will have a direct impact. Businesses with relatively low margins have a relatively low ability to absorb those extra costs, which means that they flow through on to ticket prices and fall on passengers and those who use freight services. The briefing from Airlines UK, which I suspect all Members have received, makes the point that the cost remains the single biggest barrier to flying, which is why it is important that we keep the cost burden as low as we can. Pricing people out of flying is not, ultimately, very sensible.

Let me touch briefly on the other amendments tabled by my noble friend Lord Moylan. Amendment 23 is specifically about the desirability of promoting economic growth. The Minister was nodding but it would be helpful if, when he responds, he sets out that that encompasses not just passenger transport but freight providers. A significant amount of freight goes in the belly of passenger planes, of course, so those two services are absolutely interconnected. It would be helpful if the Minister could confirm that.

On Amendment 24, I strongly agree with my noble friend. This seems a very unobjectionable amendment to me. In effect, it would ensure that Ministers have to be transparent. It would not mean that they could not align our regulations with those in the European Union, but it would mean that they have to think about why they are doing it first. It would also mean them having to set out their rationale for us all to see and having to be transparent about the costs and benefits of doing so. There may be good reasons why we may wish for our rules to be aligned with those in the EU, in which case Ministers should have no problem with setting out the rationale for doing so and why they have decided to make the changes that they have, so that we can all see them.

I agree with my noble friend Lord Moylan that what we do not want is an automatic, knee-jerk approach where, as soon as the European Union changes its rules, we assume that we have to change ours as well, even if we are not clear about the benefits and costs of doing so. This is a transparency measure, basically, and I cannot think of a good reason why the Minister could not accept it—or why, if he does not think that it is drafted well enough, he could not come back on Report with a similar amendment of his own.

My final point concerns the Government’s target to reduce the administrative costs of regulations. I am not sure what exactly they are using as the definition of “administrative costs” but of course—I am not going to rehearse this argument now—this Government have already increased the costs for businesses significantly through the Employment Rights Act. Their own impact assessment said that that Act had a cost to businesses of around £5 billion. It means that, if they are going to reduce the administrative costs for businesses by 25% over this Parliament—I assume that that is a net reduction—if they increase costs in one area, they will have to reduce costs by more than 25% in other areas in order to hit the overall cost reduction target of 25%.

Again, this is a transparency measure that insists that the Government have to track how they are doing against that target and whether they are on track. If we are two years through a five-year Parliament, we should be able to look at the 25% target; that is roughly 5% a year and, if the Government have not already reduced costs and are not on track to reduce them by 10% by this point, they clearly do not have a hope of doing so by the end of the Parliament. This is a welcome piece of transparency, which is why I support it.

Finally, I think that my noble friend Lord Davies is right explicitly to flag the importance of general aviation, not just to the very significant number of people who use general aviation services, both purchasing services and flying themselves—it is also a very important sector in generating pilots and those who are skilled in aviation services, which then goes into the wider sector. An explicit recognition of the importance of general aviation, reminding people of its importance, is very welcome, and his amendment has served us all by putting that on the record.

[Viscount Goschen (Con)]

My Lords, I start with a couple of declarations of interest. I am a current pilot of light aircraft. I also own and operate an aircraft and am a member of the Light Aircraft Association, and I have worked and continue to work extensively in the civil aerospace, defence and related fields, supporting those industries. Many decades ago, I was a Minister for Aviation. There are no new issues, perhaps, apart from the effects of withdrawal from the European Union 10 years ago. I sympathise and empathise with the Minister, and I shall of course be very supportive.

At this point, I would just like to make two points, or perhaps three. First, I apologise to the Committee for my absence at Second Reading. However, as I was not a Member of the House of Lords at the time, perhaps the Committee will excuse me and allow me to speak.

I make what is perhaps a rather generic point at the outset. We are considering important affairs with this Bill. The UK has a strong reputation for regulation in the aviation sector, with the reputation of the Civil Aviation Authority being very high in the UK and internationally. Of course, aviation is an international activity and I think that we need to tread extremely carefully when it comes to regulation in this field. Yes, when I was in government there was a transfer of competence, in the technical sense of that term, to the Commission and of course, since that position has been reversed, there has been a transfer of competence, again in the technical sense of the term, back. But we have tremendous skill in aviation regulation in this country and we need to be extraordinarily cautious when looking at such issues as design of aerospace and others. The law of unintended consequences is at play.

On a specific point, relating to my noble friend Lord Davies of Gower’s amendment, there is a curious grouping of general aviation with the overall purpose of the Bill. Notwithstanding that, we have a strong GA sector in this country, despite the costs of operating in the UK and despite the weather that we deal with here. General aviation is important; it is not always the highest-profile issue to government and regulators, but it is important. It is important on its own merits and important as a feeder of pilots, skills and engineers into the broader sector. If we lose or damage that, it will be very difficult indeed to recover.

The noble Lord, Lord Davies, has done the Committee a service by emphasising the importance of general aviation. It is very wide: from training, police helicopter operations, offshore operations and the plight of small airfields, it is a broad subject. But it is important and we must not just view aviation in this country as airline-related, which is incredibly important. It is much broader than that, and I look forward to the deliberations of the Committee as we progress through the Bill.

--- Later in debate ---

Finally, at the start of Committee, I want to say that I am grateful to your Lordships’ Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee for its recent report and I thank the committee for its careful consideration of the Bill. In response to the opening remarks of the noble Lord, Lord Moylan, I will only repeat what the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee said in its recent report, which is that the committee accepts the policy case for allowing the Civil Aviation Authority to make detailed technical rules more quickly and responsibly, given the volume, complexity and frequent updating of aviation regulation. Amendments relating to this matter will arise in a later group and I will address the issue in more detail at that point. However, I want to make the point now that I welcome the committee’s report and will provide a full response on Report.

[Lord Harper (Con)]

I want to press the Minister on my noble friend Lord Moylan’s Amendment 25. I completely understand why the Minister has taken the view that he has about not wanting it in the Bill. I do not expect him to be able to set this out today, but would he be able, perhaps when we come back for the second day of debate on Thursday, to set out for the Committee how the department is doing on its bit of hitting the Government’s target of reducing the administrative burdens on business by 25%? It would be helpful to know how the department is doing. I am sure that it is being tracked, because to hit that target there would have to be some metrics, and it would be helpful if the Minister could provide those to the Committee on Thursday.

[Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill (Lab)]

I will certainly see what information I have, and whatever I have I will tell him about on Thursday.

--- Later in debate ---

Finally, I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay of Llandaff, and the noble Lord, Lord Empey, for their contributions on the effect of toxic air in aircraft cabins for passengers generally and in cockpits in particular. It is a most interesting and important subject. This is a danger. Every form of travel has its own dangers but, as the noble Baroness points out, in this case it is a danger that can almost completely be mitigated away. In those circumstances, I think that what she had to say deserves a serious answer from the Minister.

[Lord Harper (Con)]

My Lords, I wanted to let all the Members who had amendments speak first, notwithstanding the Front Benches. I just wanted to touch on one amendment where I think I can add some level of knowledge. I agree completely with my noble friend Lord Moylan about the way in which my noble friend Lord Young of Cookham set out his case with some charm and tenaciousness. However, I am afraid to say that I do not agree with the ineluctable logic. Let me just share with the Committee why.

I was in post when NATS had its failure and I will always remember getting that phone call telling me that something terrible had happened, with potentially millions of people whose holidays were going to get messed up. You pay a great deal of attention in that situation. I spent quite a lot of my time over that short period engaging with the aviation sector and ensuring that NATS, the airlines, the airports and everybody else worked incredibly closely together at pace to make sure that passengers had the least terrible experience possible in the circumstances.

Once the initial events had taken place and we had got everybody back to where they should have been, we considered—or I considered, as the then Secretary of State—exactly the point that my noble friend set out, about whether we ought to change the legislative regime around compensation. Superficially, there is a case for doing so, but let me deal with the reason why we decided not to.

The first point is that, if you look at the ownership structure of NATS, which I do not think that my noble friend touched on, almost half the business—49%—is owned by the Government or, in other words, the taxpayer. Some 42% is owned by a group of major airlines, 5% is owned by the staff through a trust and 4% by the company that owns Heathrow Airport. The conclusion that I came to was that, if you were to change the position so that NATS was responsible for paying compensation, almost half the bill would land on the taxpayer, just over 40% of it would effectively end up on a different group of airlines—not necessarily all the ones hit by it—and a little bit would effectively land on the staff. The conclusion that I reached was that that did not really get you to a significantly better place than the current position, accepting that the current position is suboptimal.

What made me think was that my noble friend set out the position with Network Rail, which is and has for a long time been completely owned by the taxpayer. There is a question about whether there is a purpose in doing that. The conclusion that we reached, and the present Government’s conclusion, is that we are not sure that the regime whereby Network Rail has to pay money to train operating companies is an effective lever in driving up standards. The conclusion that we reached, which the current Government are following through on and which we will be debating in due course through the Railways Bill, is that the way you get more effective working between the train operating companies and Network Rail is by bringing them together in what will be GBR. I am not sure, therefore, that getting the taxpayer to pay a chunk of money to airlines is the right way in which to deliver what we actually want, which is to stop these sorts of outages and disruptions happening in the first place.

NATS is a regulated business, so it has quite considerable constraints on how it acts, and the Government have a considerable say in how it operates because of that 49% stake and the Government’s role in nominating a number of members of the NATS board. Certainly, when the outage happened, I had a considerable say in putting pressure on the management of the company and appointing the person who conducted the review, effectively ensuring that the company took steps to make sure that that particular circumstance could not happen again.

I understand the case that my noble friend has made. I considered it at the time, but we did not think that moving from the status quo to that position was particularly compelling. I do not think that I have changed my mind on that, but of course I will happily take a question on it.

[Lord Young of Cookham (Con)]

I thank my noble friend, who may have saved the Minister a bit of trouble. I will make just two points. First, as my noble friend said, the airlines are one of the major shareholders. The airlines support this amendment. I have a letter from IATA and I have seen correspondence from British Airways; they believe that this change should be made. The second point my noble friend made, which I have real difficulty with, is that the taxpayer picks up the tab when an organisation owned by the taxpayer makes a mistake. Look at the National Health Service, for example. What is happening here is that, where the taxpayer is on the hook, the Government have decided to penalise an innocent party, namely the shareholders of the airlines. As a Conservative, I cannot see how my noble friend began to defend that when he was Secretary of State. Had the incident happened 20 years earlier, when I was Secretary of State, I would have come to a different decision.

[Lord Holmes of Richmond (Con)]

My Lords, before my noble friend responds, far be it from me to get between two former Secretaries of State for Transport before a Transport Minister comes to respond to either of them, but I want to check something with my noble friend Lord Harper. Is he suggesting, as a point of principle, that for any wholly or partly owned entity where the state has even a minor share, there should never be a question of compensation or liability for redress to be made by dint of whole, partial or even minority public share ownership of that entity?

[Lord Harper (Con)]

No, I do not. The question I had to answer was that if you have a status quo and if you are going to make a change, you have to ask yourself, does the change drive an improvement in behaviour or outcomes? I simply was not persuaded that it would.

Picking up my noble friend’s point about perhaps having saved the Minister a bit of bother, I thought, when I was listening to him make his case, that there is, of course, the opportunity, when one is now both in opposition and on the Back Benches, to let the Minister do all the work. But since the event happened on my watch, as it were, and we put quite a lot of thought into whether we should make the change that my noble friend set out, and since the answers that he received from our noble friend Lady Vere of Norbiton when she was Aviation Minister were effectively on my behalf, I thought it would be a bit slopy-shouldered of me to sit here quietly, not say anything and not give the Committee the benefit of the thought process at least. Being slopy-shouldered has never really been my style, so I thought it was at least worth giving the Committee the benefit of the effort that went in on behalf of aviation consumers who were disadvantaged by this, the work that went on by the industry and the work that the Government did to try to put things right.

My final point is just to say that the industry—NATS, the airlines and the airports—demonstrated a remarkable ability to work together to serve the interests of consumers. The industry has a lot to be proud of in the way that it comes together when there are these difficult circumstances to serve the people who pay their wages.

[Lord in Waiting/Government Whip (Lord Katz) (Lab)]

Respectfully, before my noble friend responds for the Government, I point out to the Committee that it is a convention—I will put it no more strongly than that—that we let Back-Benchers come in before Front-Benchers. It rather dulls the flow of the argument if we go back from Front-Benchers to Back-Benchers. I urge all colleagues who want to make a contribution to do so before we get to Front-Benchers, because that generally aids the flow of debate.