Draft Aviation Safety (Amendment) Regulations 2026
(1 day, 11 hours ago)
General CommitteesRead Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Keir Mather)
I beg to move,
That the Committee has considered the draft Aviation Safety (Amendment) Regulations 2026.
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Ms Lewell. The draft regulations were laid before the House on 24 February. The instrument has two objectives. First, it amends article 71 of the assimilated basic regulation to give the Civil Aviation Authority the flexibility to grant exemptions. Secondly, it removes an unused criminal sanction to allow twin-engine aircraft to operate over longer distances, in line with international best practice.
Currently, the CAA may grant an exemption from the basic regulation implementing rules only under two scenarios: urgent unforeseeable circumstances and urgent operational needs. That requirement limits the CAA’s ability to support innovation and to allow exemptions that would enhance safety at regular and foreseeable events such as festivals.
I am aware of the concern raised by the Transport Committee that this amendment to article 71 of the basic regulation represents a reduction in regulatory protection, but I can assure its members that the CAA has developed a robust framework to ensure that exemptions granted under article 71 will not degrade safety. Each request will be risk-assessed by the CAA’s aviation safety experts and granted only where no other regulatory alternative exists and safety is assured. Just because a request has been granted once, that will not set a precedent for future exemptions. The criteria for exemption are deliberately strict, maintaining existing requirements on aircraft noise, fuel venting and engine emissions, as well as ensuring that decisions do not create unreasonable or unsafe working conditions.
That approach will enhance safety. For example, to facilitate the safe arrival and departure of large numbers of helicopters at events such as Royal Ascot and Formula 1 at Silverstone, the CAA currently recommends that a temporary air traffic control service is set up. However, full compliance with the existing legislation would be disproportionate to the service provision and the period of the event, as that legislation was developed with a permanent service in mind. Currently, because such an event is foreseeable, the CAA cannot grant exemptions, even though that would clearly enhance safety by enabling safer management of helicopter operations.
The amendment will also support innovation. Currently, technological developments such as beyond visual line of sight drone flights in non-segregated airspace are hard to test, as they are considered neither urgent nor unforeseeable under existing regulations.
The second amendment in the instrument removes a criminal sanction in the Air Navigation Order 2016.
Peter Fortune (Bromley and Biggin Hill) (Con)
I welcome the fact that the regulations allow for innovation, and especially things such as vertical take-off and unmanned flights. However, given that Biggin Hill airport is in my constituency, can the Minister say what provisions there are to ensure that local communities in smaller aerodrome areas are communicated with?
Keir Mather
The hon. Gentleman raises an important point about community consultation, and the CAA’s design of noise policy takes it incredibly seriously. These exemptions are designed to be used only when other regulatory avenues are not available, but we expect all operators to take noise considerations into account. I know how important that is to his constituents, and it will be part of this work going forward.
As I said, the second amendment in the instrument removes a criminal sanction in the Air Navigation Order 2016. That will enable the introduction of internationally standardised extended diversion time operations later this year in the Aviation Safety (Amendment) (No. 2) Regulations 2026. Those rules cannot be introduced while the criminal sanction remains attached, as the powers in the Retained EU Law (Revocation and Reform) Act 2023 that we would need to use expire in June this year. The CAA has never used this sanction and has other regulatory tools to ensure compliance, including revoking approvals or limiting air operator certificates. On the wider powers gap in relation to criminal sanctions, the Department is aware of the issue, and we are reviewing whether existing powers on the statute book may be able to fill that gap. We are also considering introducing primary legislation when parliamentary time allows.
I hope I have adequately reassured Members that these provisions are proportionate, incentivise innovation and defend our robust record on aviation safety. I therefore commend them to the Committee.
Greg Smith (Mid Buckinghamshire) (Con)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Lewell. As the Minister invoked a couple of events in his speech, I will go for a different safety first approach by drawing the Committee’s attention to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests in relation to Silverstone Circuits Ltd and Ascot racecourse, and to my chairmanship of the all-party parliamentary group on Formula 1 and motorsport. I do not believe that our debate is materially to do with those events, but as the Minister invoked them, I thought it best to draw the Committee’s attention to those points.
Aviation safety underpins the whole of our aviation sector, and the necessity of getting it right is of the utmost importance to those in the industry and the public. It is therefore welcome that we have seen continual improvements over the last few decades in the United Kingdom’s overall aviation safety. However, as noted in the CAA’s most recent annual report, the accidents we have seen must serve as a sobering reminder that safety must never be taken for granted. I reference that because the measures we are debating appear to broadly strike a sensible balance between upholding safety and allowing some loosening of existing restrictions.
Considering the regulations as one, the fundamental question is about the CAA’s capacity and ability to deal with the changes. Can we be confident that it will maintain the strong standards associated with these rule changes? The alterations proposed to article 71 of the basic regulation appear to promote proportionate deregulatory change, including by opening the possibility of extending exemptions for testing new technologies and for several one-off events. Critically, those changes received support from stakeholders when consulted on by the CAA, and that was followed up in a subsequent consultation to address any concerns.
If safety can be maintained, it is clearly welcome to have measures in place that encourage innovation and that could allow air navigation service providers to offer radio assistance for events, which appears to be an upgrade on existing rules. As the Government’s impact assessment notes, that should reduce barriers to entry for businesses in some circumstances, which should be welcomed. However, given the comment that those circumstances must be exceptional for an exemption to be granted, is the Minister able to answer the concerns set out by the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee that, as these exemptions would be used for day-to-day activities, they are not in fact exceptional? I am not contesting the principle of the regulations, but is the Minister content that the terminology “exceptional” will support the day-to-day activities the CAA believes are safe? Also, has the Department for Transport engaged with the CAA about its capacity to process these applications? Is it comfortable that there is the capacity to do this work?
The second element of the regulations, regarding the removal of the criminal sanctions, also deserves consideration. Although the sanctions have never been used, can I get an assurance from the Minister that the CAA believes they would never be used in the future and that the existing rules relating to threshold distances are sufficient to stop unsafe behaviour? We recognise the need for the regulations to be altered, given other changes the CAA is considering, but is there a clear assurance that there will be no reduction in safety because of this change?
It is right to support measures that uphold safety, while also allowing the sector greater freedom to participate in activities the CAA believes to be safe. What is paramount, though, is that the regulator continues to ensure that all such activities are safe, so that we can maintain confidence in the British aviation sector, of which I am sure all Members of this House are already rightly proud.
Olly Glover (Didcot and Wantage) (LD)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship once again, Ms Lewell. I welcome the Minister’s comments, and it is good that he is aware of some of the concerns about the proposed changes to article 71 and some of the findings from the consultation, but can he go a little further? What he says about the CAA not using these provisions too casually is important, but what will be done—to answer the age-old question of who watches the watchers—to ensure that the CAA is using the powers in the regulations sensibly rather than disproportionately? I agree with the shadow Minister’s comments. The Liberal Democrats are broadly inclined to support the regulations, but we would like to hear a little more from the Minister about what assurances can be given that these new powers will not be abused.
Keir Mather
First, I thank the shadow Minister for his response, and I apologise for being accidentally pointed in the references I made to the equestrian and automotive activities that take place in his fantastic constituency.
To respond to points the hon. Gentleman made, may I first thank him for his continued support for proportionate deregulatory measures that do not compromise aviation safety? Although we can trade differing points of view on political ideology in this House, aviation safety is something we are united on and committed to enhancing, irrespective of party.
I can confirm that we are confident in the capacity of the CAA to manage this process effectively. I am cognisant of the points raised by the shadow Minister and the Lib Dem spokesperson about the DFT having to exercise robust oversight over these processes and to liaise closely with the CAA to ensure that it is using these powers proportionately.
The shadow Minister asked me to say a little more about what we mean by “exceptional”. These exceptions will be granted only when there is no other reasonable way for the applicant to achieve the aims that have been put forward. To give some examples, I refer him to the CAA’s draft policy framework, which sets out that exemptions will be granted only when the desired objective cannot be achieved by other means, and the CAA will not grant exemptions solely for cost. The policy contemplates granting exemptions in situations where, for example, a high standard of safety can be maintained and where there is an urgent need for the exemption to be granted. I can therefore assure hon. Members that this is a limited, specifically delineated exemption, and we believe that the CAA has the right resources to institute it effectively.
I thank all hon. Members for their contributions to the debate. The safety of aviation and the travelling public is a priority for this Government and across the House. The DFT is committed to ensuring that aviation remains safe, and these regulations represent a further step in achieving that. I therefore commend the draft instrument to the Committee.
Question put and agreed to.