Lords Grand Committee
Thursday 18th June 2026
Skip to latest contribution
This debate has concluded
(began 2 months, 1 week ago)
Watch LiveSkip to latest contribution
This debate has concluded
12:15
Speaker 2
-
Speaker 2
My Lord. This second day of Grand Committee on this bill and I open this group on airspace modernization, consultation and charging. And I move amendment 60 standing in the name of my noble friend Baroness Grender, who is unfortunately unable to be here today. My Lords, this this amendment is straightforward. It seeks simply to insert a new subsection requiring that before the Secretary of State makes any directions under clause four, three, things must happen. First, a consultation with persons and communities likely to be affected.
An Environmental impact assessment and a noise impact assessment on these benches. We feel that these additions is a basic requirement of legitimate decision making, where the power may have serious local consequences. Um, the clause four directions. Um on airspace redesign is not merely just a technical tidying up exercise. It could be used to alter and can be used to alter flight concentrations, runway throughput, and the intensity and timing of overflight experienced on the ground. A ministerial direction made under this clause is capable, in substance, of facilitating additional capacity without ever being labelled as such.
So, my Lords, as was said in second reading, the Bill before us is a blueprint. It's not the final product. It provides a framework and leaves us as the substance to future regulation. In that sense, as we've described it, it's paving legislation and the House is entitled to ask what safeguards are built into that paving before we're asked to drive on it?The minister has given us reassurances that the bill will not be used as a vehicle for airport expansion. And we note and we welcome those, and we accept them in good faith from which they've been given to us.
But my Lords, personal, personal reassurances, however well-meaning, are not a legal safeguard. Ministers change. Prime ministers change, governments change and interpretations can also change as well. The whole point of us seeking to put this duty on the face of the Bill is to ensure that Parliament and the public can distinguish between the necessary operational change and one which in effect delivers additional capacity through the back door of airspace decision making without mandatory consultation and impact assessment, the distinction cannot be realistically made, and even if it can be made, it only happens after the effect.
Airport change proposals are already assessed through environmental methodologies, noise matrix and statutory directions, and this should be aligned with that pre-existing reality for our communities. These matters are really important. Um, many of our communities, as we know, are already impacted by the noise and environmental impacts of existing airports. And any future communities could be impacted by proposals under this legislation. Um, and these are real impacts on our communities from noise late at night to, to environmental pollution. And those communities shouldn't have to rely on goodwill, however well-meaning it is given.
Um, if the Secretary of State is to have this power, the bill should say clearly what the procedural safeguards must be before it is used. And that is exactly the point of amendment 60. We are simply seeking to put a safeguard and some handrails in place around these powers, and this is really a crucial and key issue for us in our scrutiny of this bill. Um, I turn very briefly, my Lord. Sorry for speaking before others have managed to speak just to the other amendments in this group, which in general all seek to do fairly similar things to amendment 60, amendment 61, in the name of Lord Grayling, requires a minimum 28 day targeted consultation with local communities, local authorities and airport operators before any direction on airspace redesign is issued.
And we have considerable sympathy for this amendment, again, for the exact same reasons I've outlined for amendment 60 and my Lords, a 28 days is not onerous. I think this is this is this is fundamentally achievable and objective. And we hope that the Minister can see to put this either our amendment 60 or this amendment 61 or some combination of those into the face of the bill, amendment 62 from Lord Tunnicliffe would add British Airline Pilots associations to the consultation list. Again, we're broadly supportive of this amendment.
We recognise the absolute central role that our pilots play, particularly in matters of safety and their judgement, and their professionalism is absolutely essential in any plans to modernise our airspace and capacity. But I guess where we do have a concern with this is the fact that the amendment, by its very nature, names one organisation, while, for example, not naming air traffic controllers. So we would prefer if actually it was reworded in a way that talked about consultation with representatives of the industry, as opposed to only naming one particular organisation.
Uh, turning to amendment 63 from Lord Holmes of Richmond. Um, this would require the CAA to establish a blockchain based audit trail for every airspace change programme. And we recognise the underlying objective. And the purpose of this is to create a tamper proof, long term record of what has been decided, by whom and when. And that is, my Lords and entirely legitimate concern. And in the past, too many of these decisions have been opaque and have been extremely difficult for anybody to know what's been happening and has been done, by whom.
Um, but the requirements in this, particularly in subsection three for cryptographic security, 15 year retention, tamper proof records, I mean, these are all laudable aims, but we wonder whether actually naming one specific technology within the amendment is perhaps a hostage to fortune in terms of the future, we would suggest to. An alternative wording that really asks for a secure audit, auditable and publicly accessible record without prescribing the exact technology to be used for us. We feel that that would be a better way forward. And it might be that the technology is noble.
Lord suggests, is the one that is chosen, but at least it leaves more scope for that examination in the round. Amendment 64 from Lord Moylan probes with characteristic precision the rationale for allowing changes to be imposed under clause six on persons who neither use nor benefit from air traffic services in question. And, my Lords, this is again a serious point, and the Bill should have open scrutiny on who bears the cost for these matters, and I hope that the Minister can provide some clarity on those points.
Turning to the final amendment in this group, my Lords, amendment 65, Lord Kirkhope, um, would require the Secretary of State and the CAA to have regard to the growth and sustainability of general aviation when setting charges and ensuring that charges on general aviation users are proportionate to the use they make of the air traffic services. And again, my Lords, these. These general aviation is too often forgotten. And this seems to be a proportionate requirement and a modest and reasonable ask. And again, we look forward to the Minister's response on that matter.
An Environmental impact assessment and a noise impact assessment on these benches. We feel that these additions is a basic requirement of legitimate decision making, where the power may have serious local consequences. Um, the clause four directions. Um on airspace redesign is not merely just a technical tidying up exercise. It could be used to alter and can be used to alter flight concentrations, runway throughput, and the intensity and timing of overflight experienced on the ground. A ministerial direction made under this clause is capable, in substance, of facilitating additional capacity without ever being labelled as such.
So, my Lords, as was said in second reading, the Bill before us is a blueprint. It's not the final product. It provides a framework and leaves us as the substance to future regulation. In that sense, as we've described it, it's paving legislation and the House is entitled to ask what safeguards are built into that paving before we're asked to drive on it?The minister has given us reassurances that the bill will not be used as a vehicle for airport expansion. And we note and we welcome those, and we accept them in good faith from which they've been given to us.
But my Lords, personal, personal reassurances, however well-meaning, are not a legal safeguard. Ministers change. Prime ministers change, governments change and interpretations can also change as well. The whole point of us seeking to put this duty on the face of the Bill is to ensure that Parliament and the public can distinguish between the necessary operational change and one which in effect delivers additional capacity through the back door of airspace decision making without mandatory consultation and impact assessment, the distinction cannot be realistically made, and even if it can be made, it only happens after the effect.
Airport change proposals are already assessed through environmental methodologies, noise matrix and statutory directions, and this should be aligned with that pre-existing reality for our communities. These matters are really important. Um, many of our communities, as we know, are already impacted by the noise and environmental impacts of existing airports. And any future communities could be impacted by proposals under this legislation. Um, and these are real impacts on our communities from noise late at night to, to environmental pollution. And those communities shouldn't have to rely on goodwill, however well-meaning it is given.
Um, if the Secretary of State is to have this power, the bill should say clearly what the procedural safeguards must be before it is used. And that is exactly the point of amendment 60. We are simply seeking to put a safeguard and some handrails in place around these powers, and this is really a crucial and key issue for us in our scrutiny of this bill. Um, I turn very briefly, my Lord. Sorry for speaking before others have managed to speak just to the other amendments in this group, which in general all seek to do fairly similar things to amendment 60, amendment 61, in the name of Lord Grayling, requires a minimum 28 day targeted consultation with local communities, local authorities and airport operators before any direction on airspace redesign is issued.
And we have considerable sympathy for this amendment, again, for the exact same reasons I've outlined for amendment 60 and my Lords, a 28 days is not onerous. I think this is this is this is fundamentally achievable and objective. And we hope that the Minister can see to put this either our amendment 60 or this amendment 61 or some combination of those into the face of the bill, amendment 62 from Lord Tunnicliffe would add British Airline Pilots associations to the consultation list. Again, we're broadly supportive of this amendment.
We recognise the absolute central role that our pilots play, particularly in matters of safety and their judgement, and their professionalism is absolutely essential in any plans to modernise our airspace and capacity. But I guess where we do have a concern with this is the fact that the amendment, by its very nature, names one organisation, while, for example, not naming air traffic controllers. So we would prefer if actually it was reworded in a way that talked about consultation with representatives of the industry, as opposed to only naming one particular organisation.
Uh, turning to amendment 63 from Lord Holmes of Richmond. Um, this would require the CAA to establish a blockchain based audit trail for every airspace change programme. And we recognise the underlying objective. And the purpose of this is to create a tamper proof, long term record of what has been decided, by whom and when. And that is, my Lords and entirely legitimate concern. And in the past, too many of these decisions have been opaque and have been extremely difficult for anybody to know what's been happening and has been done, by whom.
Um, but the requirements in this, particularly in subsection three for cryptographic security, 15 year retention, tamper proof records, I mean, these are all laudable aims, but we wonder whether actually naming one specific technology within the amendment is perhaps a hostage to fortune in terms of the future, we would suggest to. An alternative wording that really asks for a secure audit, auditable and publicly accessible record without prescribing the exact technology to be used for us. We feel that that would be a better way forward. And it might be that the technology is noble.
Lord suggests, is the one that is chosen, but at least it leaves more scope for that examination in the round. Amendment 64 from Lord Moylan probes with characteristic precision the rationale for allowing changes to be imposed under clause six on persons who neither use nor benefit from air traffic services in question. And, my Lords, this is again a serious point, and the Bill should have open scrutiny on who bears the cost for these matters, and I hope that the Minister can provide some clarity on those points.
Turning to the final amendment in this group, my Lords, amendment 65, Lord Kirkhope, um, would require the Secretary of State and the CAA to have regard to the growth and sustainability of general aviation when setting charges and ensuring that charges on general aviation users are proportionate to the use they make of the air traffic services. And again, my Lords, these. These general aviation is too often forgotten. And this seems to be a proportionate requirement and a modest and reasonable ask. And again, we look forward to the Minister's response on that matter.
12:23
12:23
Speaker 3
-
Speaker 3
My Lords, I'm grateful to Earl Russell for his comments about my amendment number 61. Uh, I'm only going to speak briefly to that because I think it's pretty self-explanatory. Um, but what I would say to the minister is the legislation rightly, I think, gives the power to the government or some degree of power to the government to intervene and effectively act as arbiter when it comes to airspace redesign. Airspace redesign has taken much too long. It started when I was secretary of state.
Well, here we are now, seven years later, nearly eight years later. And we're still not really close to bringing that to fruition. And yet it is fundamentally important for the future of the aviation sector in this country. It unlocks extra capacity, but it also uses new generation technology to enable us to provide more respite to communities that are affected by aircraft noise. Even though we live in a world where the level of aircraft noise has dropped enormously over the past generation.
Um, so, so I think the government rightly believes it needs to have some degree of powers in this. Case, but I don't think it should have those powers just to say, right. That's the decision. Um, I think there is an obligation there, not at great length, because we know government consultations can last forever and take months to respond to. And the rest, just a simple process to say, look, that's what we're going to do. Is there anything we haven't thought of?Um, is there something we're not quite getting right here?And to give organisations and I'd say to Lord Tunnicliffe, I would point out that the wording of the amendment is as is, but I would expect pilots, organisations and air traffic organisations and the rest to be able to input a view into that point.
I wouldn't see this as being consultation as simply isolated. It's a standard government consultation, albeit a short, snappy one, um, but simply for those organizations and communities that have a vested interest in this to come forward and say, there is something you haven't thought of, this is going to have an adverse effect that you haven't thought of. You really shouldn't be taking this decision. And I think it would be improper for that process not to exist where the government has what is effectively a pretty absolute power direction on the legislation as it is at the moment.
And so I very much hope the minister will take take that on board and perhaps may look to include something of this kind at report.
Well, here we are now, seven years later, nearly eight years later. And we're still not really close to bringing that to fruition. And yet it is fundamentally important for the future of the aviation sector in this country. It unlocks extra capacity, but it also uses new generation technology to enable us to provide more respite to communities that are affected by aircraft noise. Even though we live in a world where the level of aircraft noise has dropped enormously over the past generation.
Um, so, so I think the government rightly believes it needs to have some degree of powers in this. Case, but I don't think it should have those powers just to say, right. That's the decision. Um, I think there is an obligation there, not at great length, because we know government consultations can last forever and take months to respond to. And the rest, just a simple process to say, look, that's what we're going to do. Is there anything we haven't thought of?Um, is there something we're not quite getting right here?And to give organisations and I'd say to Lord Tunnicliffe, I would point out that the wording of the amendment is as is, but I would expect pilots, organisations and air traffic organisations and the rest to be able to input a view into that point.
I wouldn't see this as being consultation as simply isolated. It's a standard government consultation, albeit a short, snappy one, um, but simply for those organizations and communities that have a vested interest in this to come forward and say, there is something you haven't thought of, this is going to have an adverse effect that you haven't thought of. You really shouldn't be taking this decision. And I think it would be improper for that process not to exist where the government has what is effectively a pretty absolute power direction on the legislation as it is at the moment.
And so I very much hope the minister will take take that on board and perhaps may look to include something of this kind at report.
12:25
Speaker 4
-
Speaker 4
My Lord. My Lords. Essentially, I'm speaking to amendment 60, 61 and 62, but with the specific concern in my amendment 62, um, I sort of thought I knew about the technology of this, uh, debate until I decided to brush it up yesterday and spent most working hours since then actually getting to some extent up to date. The essence of the technology that will allow this, uh, much more holistic review of airspace, airspace use is that it is not dependent on Aids on the ground.
It is dependent on a. Positioning systems.
It is dependent on a. Positioning systems.
12:26
12:27
Speaker 4
-
Speaker 4
That gives great benefits. It gives great benefits in terms of what it does for aviation. But I would put to the committee. It also gives great benefits to those who are concerned with environmental impact because if your route doesn't fit that bit of society and there is a route that can fit that society, then with the overarching technology that can be changed, and up until this point changing, where aeroplanes go close to the ground has been totally dominated by the ground based Aids that they use to to land the.
Essence of my amendment, which is being an ex barber shop steward, I thought better represent my old team. To get. Pilots involved in this consultation they are going to face dramatic difference and they. One of the first points I would make about that is that, as Lord Moylan pointed out the other day, that they can fly themselves. Well, normally you have to drag them into the air and then tell it to fly itself. And when you get at the end, you actually have to make a few decisions.
That's, that's, um, that's the. A very good theory. And hopefully when you press flight nav or something like that, that will happen. Problem facing the modern pilot is that the most important task, one of the most important tasks that person does is to cope. When there are system failures and there. Will be system failures. There are no big computer systems in the world that don't have system failures. As we all know, to our cost.
The problem with that is it's the level of knowledge that the operative needs to cope with a system. Failure is very large, but it isn't often practiced. It will, of course, be. The. It will follow. I'm sure the pilot standards of continuous checking and I recall that I've never flown an aeroplane with its engine on fire, but when I was an airline pilot, I flew a simulator with this engine on fire many times and dramatic and great fun it was.
But the whole essence is systems delivering the. Intrinsically inevitably will have failure modes early on, and the crew are there to look after that. Amongst all the other safety issues they have to care about, and the impact on pilots of a very different system, and all the literature on it says this is going to require. I'll call it a almost attempt to say a completely new license, but it's certainly going to require a substantial licence endorsement to. Equip pilots to look after these systems.
How how they are taken, account of, and how their views are taken. Account of and and the wisdom they have is, in a sense, the only people who can envisage the situation together with a very dramatic change in standards. The aeroplanes will find. I mean, broadly speaking, if you're flying a jet airliner, you don't actually see any other airline airplanes because the systems keep you that far apart. With these new systems, the systems are designed to let airplanes fly safely, but nevertheless much closer to one another.
And that is a key area of safety concern. So we've got to get the interface between the human beings on board that aeroplane and the aeroplane and the the ground forces. That right. And only pilots can make that input. There will be some. Difference in the worlds of air traffic controllers and so on. But broadly speaking, their loads will be lightened, lightened because the routings of the aeroplanes will have been predetermined in setting up the system.
Now. Represents, I'm told, 85% of all pilots. So it's it's a useful shorthand, I'm sure. Uh, advisers to the to the noble Lord. The ministers will tell him that it's an inadvisable to have a sophisticated group. Well, I'm sure we can find some words, but it is pilots, essentially that need to be in that consultation. And I take the point that the value of a short consultation. But I also think that inevitably, because this will be so new, will affect people on the ground in different ways, that there also has to be some capability for ongoing consultation so that that responsible bodies who are who have the power to change things, have to listen to users, people on the ground and operators.
Essence of my amendment, which is being an ex barber shop steward, I thought better represent my old team. To get. Pilots involved in this consultation they are going to face dramatic difference and they. One of the first points I would make about that is that, as Lord Moylan pointed out the other day, that they can fly themselves. Well, normally you have to drag them into the air and then tell it to fly itself. And when you get at the end, you actually have to make a few decisions.
That's, that's, um, that's the. A very good theory. And hopefully when you press flight nav or something like that, that will happen. Problem facing the modern pilot is that the most important task, one of the most important tasks that person does is to cope. When there are system failures and there. Will be system failures. There are no big computer systems in the world that don't have system failures. As we all know, to our cost.
The problem with that is it's the level of knowledge that the operative needs to cope with a system. Failure is very large, but it isn't often practiced. It will, of course, be. The. It will follow. I'm sure the pilot standards of continuous checking and I recall that I've never flown an aeroplane with its engine on fire, but when I was an airline pilot, I flew a simulator with this engine on fire many times and dramatic and great fun it was.
But the whole essence is systems delivering the. Intrinsically inevitably will have failure modes early on, and the crew are there to look after that. Amongst all the other safety issues they have to care about, and the impact on pilots of a very different system, and all the literature on it says this is going to require. I'll call it a almost attempt to say a completely new license, but it's certainly going to require a substantial licence endorsement to. Equip pilots to look after these systems.
How how they are taken, account of, and how their views are taken. Account of and and the wisdom they have is, in a sense, the only people who can envisage the situation together with a very dramatic change in standards. The aeroplanes will find. I mean, broadly speaking, if you're flying a jet airliner, you don't actually see any other airline airplanes because the systems keep you that far apart. With these new systems, the systems are designed to let airplanes fly safely, but nevertheless much closer to one another.
And that is a key area of safety concern. So we've got to get the interface between the human beings on board that aeroplane and the aeroplane and the the ground forces. That right. And only pilots can make that input. There will be some. Difference in the worlds of air traffic controllers and so on. But broadly speaking, their loads will be lightened, lightened because the routings of the aeroplanes will have been predetermined in setting up the system.
Now. Represents, I'm told, 85% of all pilots. So it's it's a useful shorthand, I'm sure. Uh, advisers to the to the noble Lord. The ministers will tell him that it's an inadvisable to have a sophisticated group. Well, I'm sure we can find some words, but it is pilots, essentially that need to be in that consultation. And I take the point that the value of a short consultation. But I also think that inevitably, because this will be so new, will affect people on the ground in different ways, that there also has to be some capability for ongoing consultation so that that responsible bodies who are who have the power to change things, have to listen to users, people on the ground and operators.
12:32
Speaker 6
-
Speaker 6
I would like to speak to my amendment 63. And can I thank the noble Earl for the excellent way that he introduced the group and covered the amendments with such eloquence?My Lords, it's a very straightforward amendment, the purpose of which is clear to have an immutable cryptographic record of such important decisions. I'm in entire agreement with the noble Earl, the blockchain reference is merely illustrative, but also shows the unfortunate speed that I was flying at when I was drafting what I would have liked to have aimed at was to set out criteria that any technology such would need to meet to achieve the objectives in this amendment.
Uh, that was the approach that we took. For example, in the Electronic Trade Documents Act. When we specified no particular technology, but set out a series of criteria that any technology would have to meet to be able to perform the task. And that is, if we can import that in our minds into our considerations of this amendment, that would get to pretty much where I'm at, because the point is, blockchain would more than suffice for the task. There's obviously a difference between blockchain and distributed ledger technology that we don't need to go into at this stage.
But there are technologies which haven't even come to fruition, never mind to a level of usability at this stage, which almost certainly will have a part to play in such illustrations as this. So critically important, though I failed in this amendment to have technology neutrality because through that technology neutrality, you give yourself the best opportunity of having technology future proofing. So if the minister can respond with those thoughts in mind, which are in the text only, I wrote them in white ink on a white page, I'd be obliged.
Uh, that was the approach that we took. For example, in the Electronic Trade Documents Act. When we specified no particular technology, but set out a series of criteria that any technology would have to meet to be able to perform the task. And that is, if we can import that in our minds into our considerations of this amendment, that would get to pretty much where I'm at, because the point is, blockchain would more than suffice for the task. There's obviously a difference between blockchain and distributed ledger technology that we don't need to go into at this stage.
But there are technologies which haven't even come to fruition, never mind to a level of usability at this stage, which almost certainly will have a part to play in such illustrations as this. So critically important, though I failed in this amendment to have technology neutrality because through that technology neutrality, you give yourself the best opportunity of having technology future proofing. So if the minister can respond with those thoughts in mind, which are in the text only, I wrote them in white ink on a white page, I'd be obliged.
12:34
Speaker 7
-
Speaker 7
In proposing an amendment 65. I must declare again my interests set out at second reading. Um. I've held a private pilot's licence for about 40 years now. I'm an officer of the all party parliamentary group on General Aviation, and I'm also the author of its inquiry into Our Lower Airspace, which is conducted a year or two ago. And I'm also the honorary vice president of the British Airline Pilots Association and a former airport director. So in a way, I'm looking at this subject from rather more than one perspective.
Um, a second reading, I pressed the minister on clause six and in particular on the change it makes to who must pay for air traffic and air navigation services, a change proposed from the term of owners and operators of aircraft to simply persons. I asked what lay behind this decision, whether it was prompted by newer developments such as drone delivery and at that point I referred to the minister, nodding his head. I'm afraid perhaps I was taking too much on in assuming that the nod related to my remarks, however, I.
I said then that the burden. I make no aspersions otherwise, and I said then that the burden on general aviation ought to remain broadly where it sits today. So this amendment would require the Secretary of State and the authority in exercising their functions over these charges to have regard to two matters the growth and sustainability of general aviation and the desirability of ensuring that those carrying out general aviation activities are not asked to pay charges disproportionate to the use they actually make of the services. General aviation and many of my colleagues here who have spoken earlier in this in these debates have indicated their own in general aviation.
So there's quite a lot of us around. Um, but I think it's important that I explain to the committee, general aviation means civil aviation, other than commercial air transport. So it includes, of course, the gliders, the light aeroplanes, the microlights and the private and training flights of which I have spoken earlier. It's not the airline and it's not, as I shall come to say, the drones or drones. One on the government's own figures in their general aviation strategy. The sector contributes.
They accept something in the order of £3 billion in gross value added, and supports some 38,000 jobs. It's around a 14th of the size of the commercial airline industry. The figure I would ask the committee to hold in mind is that a great majority of those who sit at the front of the very airliners which this bill is chiefly concerned with, by some estimates, three quarters or more began in general aviation, very often paying for their own training at the small flying schools. The regulator knows as declared and approved training organisations, those same schools and that same flying give us our future air traffic controllers, our aircraft engineers, as well as those who pilot light aircraft with Boeing and Airbus alike, forecasting a need for several hundred thousand new pilots around the world in the years ahead.
This is exactly the wrong moment to make it dearer, more expensive to learn to fly. So as my involvement with Airlines Airline Pilots Association, I can tell the committee that the profession, as has also been referred to earlier by the noble Lord Tunnicliffe, the profession watches the health of general aviation very closely, for it's from there that the profession is renewed. If I may mention the drones, for I suspect it lies close to the heart of a change. The government had been candid that the Bill is needed, in part because of new users of the air, the drones and the air taxis that will follow.
I do not quarrel with that. Those users will make real demands on a future digital airspace, and it's fair they should pay their share. But the drone is not general aviation. It is governed by a separate code altogether. The air navigation order and the unmanned aircraft regulations in its own open, specific and certified categories. Um, my concern is that when one widens the net from the owner and operator of an aircraft to any person, one catches the very drone operator one is aiming at, but 1st May also catch the local gliding club.
The danger is of a single standard designed for the commercial airliner being pressed upon everyone, bringing cost and complication to those who fly. Small and simple aircraft. Not always terribly simple, I might add, but the words more simple aircraft than a glider under tow, or a training aeroplane in the circuit draws upon a fraction of the air traffic services that an airliner consumes, or, for that matter, that a fleet of delivery drones one day will. The charge each meets should reflect that, and no more.
There is a related point, which is that it can hardly be right to levy a charge upon a person who does not use and cannot use the very service being charged for. That is the principle behind this amendment, and those who make little use of the system should bear little of its cost. I want to be clear about what I'm not asking. I'm not asking the general aviation be exempted from all charges. It pays its way today, and it should continue to do so.
Nor am I seeking to frustrate the much needed programme of modernisation that that rightly, this Bill provides for. I supported its general objectives. The second reading and I continue to support them. Now. I ask only that as these powers are set out in greater detail, the interests of general aviation are kept in view, and that the principle of proportionality is clearly set out rather than left to assurances by the Secretary of State. If the Minister can tell me that the government has no intention of drawing general aviation into a charging regime built for the airlines or for the commercial drone activity, and that he will consider how that intention might be given proper statutory form.
That would be enormously welcome.
Um, a second reading, I pressed the minister on clause six and in particular on the change it makes to who must pay for air traffic and air navigation services, a change proposed from the term of owners and operators of aircraft to simply persons. I asked what lay behind this decision, whether it was prompted by newer developments such as drone delivery and at that point I referred to the minister, nodding his head. I'm afraid perhaps I was taking too much on in assuming that the nod related to my remarks, however, I.
I said then that the burden. I make no aspersions otherwise, and I said then that the burden on general aviation ought to remain broadly where it sits today. So this amendment would require the Secretary of State and the authority in exercising their functions over these charges to have regard to two matters the growth and sustainability of general aviation and the desirability of ensuring that those carrying out general aviation activities are not asked to pay charges disproportionate to the use they actually make of the services. General aviation and many of my colleagues here who have spoken earlier in this in these debates have indicated their own in general aviation.
So there's quite a lot of us around. Um, but I think it's important that I explain to the committee, general aviation means civil aviation, other than commercial air transport. So it includes, of course, the gliders, the light aeroplanes, the microlights and the private and training flights of which I have spoken earlier. It's not the airline and it's not, as I shall come to say, the drones or drones. One on the government's own figures in their general aviation strategy. The sector contributes.
They accept something in the order of £3 billion in gross value added, and supports some 38,000 jobs. It's around a 14th of the size of the commercial airline industry. The figure I would ask the committee to hold in mind is that a great majority of those who sit at the front of the very airliners which this bill is chiefly concerned with, by some estimates, three quarters or more began in general aviation, very often paying for their own training at the small flying schools. The regulator knows as declared and approved training organisations, those same schools and that same flying give us our future air traffic controllers, our aircraft engineers, as well as those who pilot light aircraft with Boeing and Airbus alike, forecasting a need for several hundred thousand new pilots around the world in the years ahead.
This is exactly the wrong moment to make it dearer, more expensive to learn to fly. So as my involvement with Airlines Airline Pilots Association, I can tell the committee that the profession, as has also been referred to earlier by the noble Lord Tunnicliffe, the profession watches the health of general aviation very closely, for it's from there that the profession is renewed. If I may mention the drones, for I suspect it lies close to the heart of a change. The government had been candid that the Bill is needed, in part because of new users of the air, the drones and the air taxis that will follow.
I do not quarrel with that. Those users will make real demands on a future digital airspace, and it's fair they should pay their share. But the drone is not general aviation. It is governed by a separate code altogether. The air navigation order and the unmanned aircraft regulations in its own open, specific and certified categories. Um, my concern is that when one widens the net from the owner and operator of an aircraft to any person, one catches the very drone operator one is aiming at, but 1st May also catch the local gliding club.
The danger is of a single standard designed for the commercial airliner being pressed upon everyone, bringing cost and complication to those who fly. Small and simple aircraft. Not always terribly simple, I might add, but the words more simple aircraft than a glider under tow, or a training aeroplane in the circuit draws upon a fraction of the air traffic services that an airliner consumes, or, for that matter, that a fleet of delivery drones one day will. The charge each meets should reflect that, and no more.
There is a related point, which is that it can hardly be right to levy a charge upon a person who does not use and cannot use the very service being charged for. That is the principle behind this amendment, and those who make little use of the system should bear little of its cost. I want to be clear about what I'm not asking. I'm not asking the general aviation be exempted from all charges. It pays its way today, and it should continue to do so.
Nor am I seeking to frustrate the much needed programme of modernisation that that rightly, this Bill provides for. I supported its general objectives. The second reading and I continue to support them. Now. I ask only that as these powers are set out in greater detail, the interests of general aviation are kept in view, and that the principle of proportionality is clearly set out rather than left to assurances by the Secretary of State. If the Minister can tell me that the government has no intention of drawing general aviation into a charging regime built for the airlines or for the commercial drone activity, and that he will consider how that intention might be given proper statutory form.
That would be enormously welcome.
12:41
Speaker 8
-
Speaker 8
My Lords, it's a pleasure to follow Lord Kirkhope, and I would like to support Lord Grayling's proposed proposal of a targeted consultation with local communities. It will surely be the case that, as part of the Civil Aviation Bill, there will certainly be changes to the use of airspace overhead and the potential not only for increased numbers of flights, but also potential redesign of flight paths and expanding airports. It must surely follow, then, that as part of the planning and preparation for these changes, residents who may experience new aircraft, overflights, increased noise and other meaningful impacts such as increased traffic on local roads leading to local airports.
They should be given a meaningful role in considering these changes. It is already the case that governments and CAA policy recognises that airspace changes can have significant impacts on people on the ground, and therefore it includes consultation and stakeholder engagement requirements. But that does sometimes feel a little bit like a box ticking exercise. I feel strongly that it must be more than that. Communities that may find themselves under new or intensified flight paths deserve a meaningful voice in these decisions that seriously affect their quality of life.
I recognise, of course, that the updating of our aviation policies is an essential process from time to time, but surely the best outcomes are achieved through reasonable discussion. A stronger consultation framework may well deliver reforms more smoothly and also avoid delay in being implemented, which can arise where opposition intensifies. So whereas existing consultation processes are often seen as insufficient, they take place too late in the process after key decisions have already effectively been made. Proper engagement with those affected at an earlier stage, and a clear demonstration of how their views are being considered is more likely to appear proportionate and pragmatic.
Now, I am not suggesting that communities could or should have complete veto over necessary airspace changes, but it would help ensure that residents who may experience substantial increases in overhead flights are fully consulted earlier on and can see how their concerns are being taken into account. The key may well be to introduce formal reviews of new routes after a year or so, independently conducted, and a commitment to revisit the design if impacts prove worse than forecast. But the most defensible demand is surely a requirement that decision makers must demonstrate how community representations have been considered and explained publicly why particular concerns were accepted or indeed rejected.
Yes, residents already have consultation rights in relation to airport expansion and airspace changes, but they are limited and there is no guarantee at the moment that community concerns will materially affect the outcome. The issue is not whether consultation occurs, but whether it is meaningful. Communities facing substantial increases in aircraft noise should have a guaranteed opportunity to influence decisions and receive a clear explanation of how their views have been taken into account.
They should be given a meaningful role in considering these changes. It is already the case that governments and CAA policy recognises that airspace changes can have significant impacts on people on the ground, and therefore it includes consultation and stakeholder engagement requirements. But that does sometimes feel a little bit like a box ticking exercise. I feel strongly that it must be more than that. Communities that may find themselves under new or intensified flight paths deserve a meaningful voice in these decisions that seriously affect their quality of life.
I recognise, of course, that the updating of our aviation policies is an essential process from time to time, but surely the best outcomes are achieved through reasonable discussion. A stronger consultation framework may well deliver reforms more smoothly and also avoid delay in being implemented, which can arise where opposition intensifies. So whereas existing consultation processes are often seen as insufficient, they take place too late in the process after key decisions have already effectively been made. Proper engagement with those affected at an earlier stage, and a clear demonstration of how their views are being considered is more likely to appear proportionate and pragmatic.
Now, I am not suggesting that communities could or should have complete veto over necessary airspace changes, but it would help ensure that residents who may experience substantial increases in overhead flights are fully consulted earlier on and can see how their concerns are being taken into account. The key may well be to introduce formal reviews of new routes after a year or so, independently conducted, and a commitment to revisit the design if impacts prove worse than forecast. But the most defensible demand is surely a requirement that decision makers must demonstrate how community representations have been considered and explained publicly why particular concerns were accepted or indeed rejected.
Yes, residents already have consultation rights in relation to airport expansion and airspace changes, but they are limited and there is no guarantee at the moment that community concerns will materially affect the outcome. The issue is not whether consultation occurs, but whether it is meaningful. Communities facing substantial increases in aircraft noise should have a guaranteed opportunity to influence decisions and receive a clear explanation of how their views have been taken into account.
12:44
Speaker 9
-
Speaker 9
Yeah yeah yeah yeah. My Lords, um, I would like just to start by repeating my interest that I declared on Tuesday as a current pilot and aircraft owner and operator. My Lords, on Tuesday, we had a good debate around general aviation. And my noble friend, Lord Kirkhope and others, um, took pains to explain the benefits. To the economy through the contribution that GA makes, but also to the broader aviation ecosystem, as it were, particularly around pilot training. And I think anything that's done to reduce opportunities for pilot training in the UK will have a very easy to define effect, which will be the export of pilot training to Europe, where in some countries that have a different regime and much better weather to the United States and elsewhere.
So we have to regulate, we have to legislate carefully the law of unintended consequences is very active in this field. And of course, access to airspace is absolutely critical to the operation of general aviation. And I'd like to refer to and support my noble friend, Lord Kirkhope, amendment 65, in both of the thrust that it takes forward, firstly, to protect the importance of GA when it comes to decisions being made around airspace design, it would be very easy indeed for the interests of general aviation to be minimized or not to be taken fully into account.
And once decisions were taken, then very difficult for them to be reversed. Yes, my Lords, much of the country is open class G air space. Um, but there are some real pinch points and those are likely to become that situations likely to become exacerbated rather than made any easier. And one example would be around the area of Farnborough, which is of course close to um. Close to the London airspace around Heathrow and so forth. So, my Lords, a plea for the interests of GA to be considered properly in the design of airspace and the redesign.
And of course, I also, along with my noble friend Lord Kirk, recognise the technological advantages and change that is coming so rapidly. It's very difficult for us now to be able to consider what life is going to be like in five years time. We support all the advantages that can come from that and the safety advantages. When I was training as a pilot, one of the biggest concerns was getting lost, and it took up quite a lot of quite a lot of my time, uh, thinking where one was particularly in less than perfect weather nowadays, um, with.
GPS systems, you can, you know precisely where you are at at all times has of course, taken away one of the excuses. So but the safety benefits are extraordinary as they will come. As Lord Tunnicliffe said, I flew an aircraft with a big orange button on the front. You push the button, the aircraft could land itself. Um, uh, should the pilot become incapacitated way beyond my knowledge and expertise. And I wouldn't be allowed anywhere near such a machine.
But nonetheless, the point is that technology does indeed exist today. And the Lords, the points that my noble friend Aaron made around charges very reasonably wasn't special pleading in any sense. It was saying that the charging regime has to be proportionate, really is as simple as that. And there have been issues in the past, and I took pains in my earlier remarks on Tuesday to pay tribute to the CAA. But sometimes the cost, for example, in giving approval to small general aviation airfields that are regulated as full airfields can be disproportionate.
It's a system that would suit a much bigger airfield, and the result is that the airfield in question is no longer regulated airfield, because it's much easier, um, to move to a deregulated situation. However, that has implications for training and what can be done on such a field. So just Lords, what we are saying is be cautious, be careful, take into account the, uh, the advice and the interests of what is that really the, uh, the grass roots of aviation that that has been a major part in our success as a nation.
Um, in, in terms of the broader aviation industry, well, I'll just turn very briefly to, uh, the noble Lord, Lord Tunnicliffe's amendment 62 and the importance of hearing the professional pilots voice. Of course, my Lords, I'd be very surprised if any consultation didn't take into account the views of those who really know what they're talking about in terms of, large scale commercial aviation, exactly how that should be done and how the mechanism. I will leave it to to others to decide and opine on. But the noble Lord gave a powerful voice to Balpa, as indeed, uh, uh, we heard on Tuesday.
And the only final point that I'd make is in recollecting the discussions around Balpa, I recollect our late and much missed uh, colleague, the noble Lord, Lord Clinton-davis, who was a very powerful advocate for Balpa and I spent many happy hours at the despatch box with him as opposition spokesman on this field. And indeed, he'd been a minister earlier in his day. So lords, a very balanced debate. We very much look forward to the Minister's response.
So we have to regulate, we have to legislate carefully the law of unintended consequences is very active in this field. And of course, access to airspace is absolutely critical to the operation of general aviation. And I'd like to refer to and support my noble friend, Lord Kirkhope, amendment 65, in both of the thrust that it takes forward, firstly, to protect the importance of GA when it comes to decisions being made around airspace design, it would be very easy indeed for the interests of general aviation to be minimized or not to be taken fully into account.
And once decisions were taken, then very difficult for them to be reversed. Yes, my Lords, much of the country is open class G air space. Um, but there are some real pinch points and those are likely to become that situations likely to become exacerbated rather than made any easier. And one example would be around the area of Farnborough, which is of course close to um. Close to the London airspace around Heathrow and so forth. So, my Lords, a plea for the interests of GA to be considered properly in the design of airspace and the redesign.
And of course, I also, along with my noble friend Lord Kirk, recognise the technological advantages and change that is coming so rapidly. It's very difficult for us now to be able to consider what life is going to be like in five years time. We support all the advantages that can come from that and the safety advantages. When I was training as a pilot, one of the biggest concerns was getting lost, and it took up quite a lot of quite a lot of my time, uh, thinking where one was particularly in less than perfect weather nowadays, um, with.
GPS systems, you can, you know precisely where you are at at all times has of course, taken away one of the excuses. So but the safety benefits are extraordinary as they will come. As Lord Tunnicliffe said, I flew an aircraft with a big orange button on the front. You push the button, the aircraft could land itself. Um, uh, should the pilot become incapacitated way beyond my knowledge and expertise. And I wouldn't be allowed anywhere near such a machine.
But nonetheless, the point is that technology does indeed exist today. And the Lords, the points that my noble friend Aaron made around charges very reasonably wasn't special pleading in any sense. It was saying that the charging regime has to be proportionate, really is as simple as that. And there have been issues in the past, and I took pains in my earlier remarks on Tuesday to pay tribute to the CAA. But sometimes the cost, for example, in giving approval to small general aviation airfields that are regulated as full airfields can be disproportionate.
It's a system that would suit a much bigger airfield, and the result is that the airfield in question is no longer regulated airfield, because it's much easier, um, to move to a deregulated situation. However, that has implications for training and what can be done on such a field. So just Lords, what we are saying is be cautious, be careful, take into account the, uh, the advice and the interests of what is that really the, uh, the grass roots of aviation that that has been a major part in our success as a nation.
Um, in, in terms of the broader aviation industry, well, I'll just turn very briefly to, uh, the noble Lord, Lord Tunnicliffe's amendment 62 and the importance of hearing the professional pilots voice. Of course, my Lords, I'd be very surprised if any consultation didn't take into account the views of those who really know what they're talking about in terms of, large scale commercial aviation, exactly how that should be done and how the mechanism. I will leave it to to others to decide and opine on. But the noble Lord gave a powerful voice to Balpa, as indeed, uh, uh, we heard on Tuesday.
And the only final point that I'd make is in recollecting the discussions around Balpa, I recollect our late and much missed uh, colleague, the noble Lord, Lord Clinton-davis, who was a very powerful advocate for Balpa and I spent many happy hours at the despatch box with him as opposition spokesman on this field. And indeed, he'd been a minister earlier in his day. So lords, a very balanced debate. We very much look forward to the Minister's response.
12:50
Speaker 10
-
Speaker 10
Um, first of all, can I repeat my declaration of interest that I made on Tuesday as the non-executive chair of Rvl Aviation?Um, first of all, let me say a word or two about the amendment that Grayling has, uh, and, and strongly support what both he and Baroness Braye said. And I just wanted to ask the minister, when he responds just to flesh out a bit the question that I asked him and he answered on Tuesday, sorry, at second reading there are already um, consultation processes. As Baroness Braye mentioned.
Um, there's not a specific one for the exercise of the direction power. Um, I'm very keen if there are extra processes that they fit well together, we don't want one set of consultations at one stage. And then if the minister decides to do some direction, you have to have another set. So what I would welcome from the minister when he responds and I suspect, urges, um, Lord Grayling to withdraw his amendment, is just a clear exposition of the way the current position works, how that would dovetail with any use of the power of direction that ministers are taking in clause four, and how they would expect to use it, and how that fits with the existing consultation mechanism.
I'm very keen that we don't invent another consultation mechanism, but it may be that if that power of direction is being taken and it you know, if the government, although it says in the explanatory notes, it doesn't really expect to use it very much and says it's very much a backstop power. The power is there. So if it is used and it's almost certainly going to be used in a difficult or controversial circumstance, because if if there weren't a difficult or controversial circumstance, it clearly wouldn't be needed.
Um, and that's, that's the position that's set out in the explanatory notes. It would be helpful to understand just how that end to end process works. And it may be that what needs to happen is the minister should come forward with an amendment at report that sets out how the power would be used and consulted upon, or at least how that dovetails with the existing consultation mechanisms that are in place, because I'm not clear about how that would, currently work. The second thing that I wanted to say, the final thing I wanted to say was just to back up the, um, remarks that have been made by Lord Kirkhope and Viscount Goschen about the charging mechanism.
And I just want to repeat or set out some of the views from the International Air Transport Association. I ata who, as I do, strongly support the government's um intention to do airspace modernisation. They welcome that. They have concerns about the charging regime. They think the drafting is too broad and ambiguous and undermines risks undermining the international charging principles that exist. So they are concerned about, as I think is in the substance of, um one of the concerns Lord Kirkhope has got.
And I know Lord Moylan does, about the replacement of operators and owners of aircraft with the undefined term. Term. Persons, they think that significantly expands the pool of liable entities and breaks the link with service provision. They think they understand the need for flexibility for future entrants, but they think you should have a narrower definition that would encompass those, but isn't as broad as the one that exists. They're also concerned about the revised section 77, which allows charges to be levied on the basis that services are merely available for use or benefit, irrespective of the actual use, and that represents a fundamental shift away from usage based charging, which is the agreed international regime.
So, so they have a number of concerns, not about the principle of what the government's doing. They recognise there are going to be new users and new technology, and the need to change how charging is done. But there are some accepted principles about the user paying for these things. And as Lord Kirkhope and Viscount Goschen said in a proportionate way, that isn't sufficiently um backed up by the broad wording in the the bill as it's currently set out. So I think it would be helpful if the minister could say what thinking was behind the drafting, whether the government agrees with um I atas views about whether the bill is really in accordance with the existing principles and whether actually the bill would be improved by a tighter definition, which absolutely encompassed new technologies like drones and other potential things in the future, but wasn't so broad and also explicitly reintroduced the link between the usage of airspace and the charging, rather than simply the theoretical benefit.
I think the bill would be improved if if those changes were made, and I look forward to the minister setting out the government's thinking about how the the wording that's currently in the bill was arrived at.
Um, there's not a specific one for the exercise of the direction power. Um, I'm very keen if there are extra processes that they fit well together, we don't want one set of consultations at one stage. And then if the minister decides to do some direction, you have to have another set. So what I would welcome from the minister when he responds and I suspect, urges, um, Lord Grayling to withdraw his amendment, is just a clear exposition of the way the current position works, how that would dovetail with any use of the power of direction that ministers are taking in clause four, and how they would expect to use it, and how that fits with the existing consultation mechanism.
I'm very keen that we don't invent another consultation mechanism, but it may be that if that power of direction is being taken and it you know, if the government, although it says in the explanatory notes, it doesn't really expect to use it very much and says it's very much a backstop power. The power is there. So if it is used and it's almost certainly going to be used in a difficult or controversial circumstance, because if if there weren't a difficult or controversial circumstance, it clearly wouldn't be needed.
Um, and that's, that's the position that's set out in the explanatory notes. It would be helpful to understand just how that end to end process works. And it may be that what needs to happen is the minister should come forward with an amendment at report that sets out how the power would be used and consulted upon, or at least how that dovetails with the existing consultation mechanisms that are in place, because I'm not clear about how that would, currently work. The second thing that I wanted to say, the final thing I wanted to say was just to back up the, um, remarks that have been made by Lord Kirkhope and Viscount Goschen about the charging mechanism.
And I just want to repeat or set out some of the views from the International Air Transport Association. I ata who, as I do, strongly support the government's um intention to do airspace modernisation. They welcome that. They have concerns about the charging regime. They think the drafting is too broad and ambiguous and undermines risks undermining the international charging principles that exist. So they are concerned about, as I think is in the substance of, um one of the concerns Lord Kirkhope has got.
And I know Lord Moylan does, about the replacement of operators and owners of aircraft with the undefined term. Term. Persons, they think that significantly expands the pool of liable entities and breaks the link with service provision. They think they understand the need for flexibility for future entrants, but they think you should have a narrower definition that would encompass those, but isn't as broad as the one that exists. They're also concerned about the revised section 77, which allows charges to be levied on the basis that services are merely available for use or benefit, irrespective of the actual use, and that represents a fundamental shift away from usage based charging, which is the agreed international regime.
So, so they have a number of concerns, not about the principle of what the government's doing. They recognise there are going to be new users and new technology, and the need to change how charging is done. But there are some accepted principles about the user paying for these things. And as Lord Kirkhope and Viscount Goschen said in a proportionate way, that isn't sufficiently um backed up by the broad wording in the the bill as it's currently set out. So I think it would be helpful if the minister could say what thinking was behind the drafting, whether the government agrees with um I atas views about whether the bill is really in accordance with the existing principles and whether actually the bill would be improved by a tighter definition, which absolutely encompassed new technologies like drones and other potential things in the future, but wasn't so broad and also explicitly reintroduced the link between the usage of airspace and the charging, rather than simply the theoretical benefit.
I think the bill would be improved if if those changes were made, and I look forward to the minister setting out the government's thinking about how the the wording that's currently in the bill was arrived at.
12:56
Speaker 11
-
Speaker 11
Um, my Lords, there's some very positive amendments in this group. And if we take amendment 1661, um, I think they're both trying to get to the same place. If there's a new arrangements for the management of airspace, that is code for motorways in the sky, but it also means that if there are new routes or if there's an intensification material intensification of a route, then I think it's only right and proper that the local people are consulted about it, because it can have a very significant material impact on their lives.
Um, where I think perhaps Lord Grayling has got the essence of it is a specified time. Now, we could argue whether 28 days is the right time or not, but the fundamental principle that he's pointing out is consultations can be endless and open ended, and it just never reaches the decision. And I think unless there's something put in to tie it down, provided the consultees have adequate notice and that there's an understanding, it's a bit, I suppose, like neighbourhood notification and planning applications and things, but there are specific groups of people need to be approached, approached about this.
A the people under whose above whom these aircraft will be flying, but also other intensification activities where there's traffic or whatever. So I do think that Lord Grayling's amendment at least gets to the essence of it. Whether we settle on the specific number of days is another matter. But the principle, I think, has to be established, um, with regard to Lord Tunnicliffe's amendment, uh, I agree with the principle of it, but I do also accept that I don't think it would be appropriate to specify a particular trades union, because they may change.
There are people, pilots who are represented by other unions. And of course, there are pilots who are represented by none. And of course that could change over time. So if you have it in in your legislation, that would be awkward. So I think it's we can find a technical have said we can find a form of words, but the principle is the same. And I think it is the case. However, technology may change. Having air traffic controllers in the frame for that, I think makes common sense.
These are the people who are on a day to day basis have to do it. And we also, as has been made very clear, computer systems break down. We had a long debate here on, on, on, on Tuesday over nuts and the breakdown there so the the alternative is right. Pilots earn their money when the systems don't work. And that is a regular occurrence. And I think that by and large, there's some very positive amendments in this group.
But I just would say to Lord Tunnicliffe, I wouldn't specify a particular trade union, but other than that, I think I would support these amendments. There are some very positive ones.
Um, where I think perhaps Lord Grayling has got the essence of it is a specified time. Now, we could argue whether 28 days is the right time or not, but the fundamental principle that he's pointing out is consultations can be endless and open ended, and it just never reaches the decision. And I think unless there's something put in to tie it down, provided the consultees have adequate notice and that there's an understanding, it's a bit, I suppose, like neighbourhood notification and planning applications and things, but there are specific groups of people need to be approached, approached about this.
A the people under whose above whom these aircraft will be flying, but also other intensification activities where there's traffic or whatever. So I do think that Lord Grayling's amendment at least gets to the essence of it. Whether we settle on the specific number of days is another matter. But the principle, I think, has to be established, um, with regard to Lord Tunnicliffe's amendment, uh, I agree with the principle of it, but I do also accept that I don't think it would be appropriate to specify a particular trades union, because they may change.
There are people, pilots who are represented by other unions. And of course, there are pilots who are represented by none. And of course that could change over time. So if you have it in in your legislation, that would be awkward. So I think it's we can find a technical have said we can find a form of words, but the principle is the same. And I think it is the case. However, technology may change. Having air traffic controllers in the frame for that, I think makes common sense.
These are the people who are on a day to day basis have to do it. And we also, as has been made very clear, computer systems break down. We had a long debate here on, on, on, on Tuesday over nuts and the breakdown there so the the alternative is right. Pilots earn their money when the systems don't work. And that is a regular occurrence. And I think that by and large, there's some very positive amendments in this group.
But I just would say to Lord Tunnicliffe, I wouldn't specify a particular trade union, but other than that, I think I would support these amendments. There are some very positive ones.
12:59
Speaker 12
-
Speaker 12
My Lords, this is a really important group of amendments, and it's been a really useful debate, and it goes to the heart of what this bill could enable and the safeguards that are clearly needed to protect communities that will be impacted by any changes to airspace. Use amendment 60. In the name of my noble friend Baroness Grender, as my noble friend Earl Russell has outlined, would put those guardrails in place, and it would require the Secretary of State to consult affected communities alongside environmental and noise impact assessments, before being able to make a direction.
And 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, for example, by the existing Heathrow and Gatwick airports, are only too aware. A Secretary of State must understand the impact on people, noise and the environment of any potential decision, and it's an important part of the decision making process. Um, 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 Earl Russell outlined, putting a duty on the face of the Bill would ensure that Parliament and the public can distinguish between a sort of necessary operational change and a change which in effect facilitates additional capacity without the transparency that would accompany a normal expansion decision and without mandatory consultation and that impact assessment, there is a real risk that expansion could be delivered through the back door.
So 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. And if the Secretary of State is to have this power, the bill must specify clearly and on its face, procedural safeguards.
And 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, for example, by the existing Heathrow and Gatwick airports, are only too aware. A Secretary of State must understand the impact on people, noise and the environment of any potential decision, and it's an important part of the decision making process. Um, 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 Earl Russell outlined, putting a duty on the face of the Bill would ensure that Parliament and the public can distinguish between a sort of necessary operational change and a change which in effect facilitates additional capacity without the transparency that would accompany a normal expansion decision and without mandatory consultation and that impact assessment, there is a real risk that expansion could be delivered through the back door.
So 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. And if the Secretary of State is to have this power, the bill must specify clearly and on its face, procedural safeguards.
13:01
Speaker 4
-
Speaker 4
Way, and we are sympathetic to their aims, as detailed by my noble friend Earl Russell. I'm rather nervous, I have to say, about Viscount Goschen getting lost in the sky as he set out earlier. I'm very grateful we have modern navigation systems these. But 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 noble Lord.
The minister's response.
The minister's response.
13:02
13:02
13:02
13:02
13:02
Speaker 7
-
Speaker 7
Experience of aviation and of ministerial responsibility for aviation, which is present in the committee. Um, I don't claim either of those, but I will do my best to respond to this group. Um, let me say first of all, that we support the principle of airport airspace modernisation. Um, if we have a complaint about it, is it is that it's taking so long. I mean, if it needs um legislation, why is it that the legislation is only arriving now seven years after it started?Um I think the minister might explain that and might explain what sort of timetable he is expecting to pursue with airspace modernisation.
Um the. Gives the minister new powers of direction which are extremely broad. And that is the basis for most of the complaints and concerns. I think concerns rather than complaints. Most of the concerns that have been expressed in the Committee so far, very broad powers of direction, almost unconstrained. We don't believe. I think it's fair to say, anywhere in any part of the committee that those powers should be unconstrained. We believe there should be processes that that allow for consultation and accountability.
Um, and indeed, it is possible 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 isn't an amendment that's been proposed today, but it's one way of addressing the concerns that the committee has. If I briefly deal with the amendments, both number 60, in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Grender, and number 61 in the name of my noble friend Lord Grayling, seek to impose a consultation requirement of a general character um on the on the Minister.
I don't think that can be gainsaid. And I think the minister is going to have to agree it in one form or another if he isn't able to give us assurances today that he'll be bringing forward an appropriate amendment on report, then I'd hope very much that both the noble Baroness and my noble friend could work together to draft a an amendment which we could all rally behind. Um, amendment 62. In the name of the noble Lord, Lord Tunnicliffe. And again, as its second reading, I found his speech most enlightening and interesting.
I'm going to make a small diversion to comment on it in a moment, but on the general principle, should pilots, either through their trade union or in some other forum, as he said, should pilots be consulted and consulted very specifically and early about airspace changes?The answer surely must be yes, since they're the people, as he has explained. I don't need to repeat what he said, but their stake in the business, in the activity is so high and so responsible that, of course they should be involved in consultation at an early stage.
Um. I will just comment briefly on the broader question raised by the noble Lord of how this system works. It is, of course, the case that all automated systems, and we're seeing them very much on the railways, certainly on the London Underground, of which I know the noble Lord has very great experience, not simply as a in a as a pilot, but also in his experience in rail is is very considerable as well. Um also these motor cars that now one starts to see around the streets with gubbins on the top, um driving themselves though in the presence of a driver, um and so on.
The, the essential point of all the systems is to get them all to drive closer together. Um, and they will drive more safely closer together under these automated systems. You see it. Take the example of the Victoria line with the train coming practically every 90s something which wouldn't be possible, um, if there were a human driver responsible for stopping and starting because of the need to make judgments about how to do that. Um, the difference is, and this is crucial and I think I'm here, I'm supporting the noble Lord.
The difference is that with ground based systems like railways and. Um, I assume cars, the failsafe, if something goes wrong, is to bring the system to a total stop. And you can do that on a railway. You can just stop it. No train moves until you work out what's gone wrong and how you put it right. That is your safety mechanism. But you can't, of course, do that in the air. And so the approach to safety in the air, aviation safety has to be very different.
And the input of pilots must be crucial, I think, to all of this. So again, if an amendment were to come forward from the noble Lord in. The absence of one from the minister, um which expressed that, though not necessarily in these words, but he showed himself open to um adaptation, then I think we would be very happy to support it. Um both my noble friend Lord Kirkhope and my noble friend Lord Goschen, spoke about the importance of general aviation, and I'm very happy to second that, for all the reasons they gave both its economic contribution and its role in providing in being a feeder to the skills necessary for the larger commercial aviation sector.
Um, I will focus particularly on what the noble my noble friend Lord Kirkhope said about charging. And turn now to my own amendment 64, which is is on just this point. Um, it's a very striking subparagraph in clause six, when one reads it, it says persons may be specified or of a description specified. If the service is 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.
Now, it seems to me there is something of a contradiction written into that. It is because it has. They have to meet both limbs of the test, and the first limb is to say that they are available for their use or benefit. And the second limb says, oh well, um, they could not be used for their benefit. Um, 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, and still be the case that they could not be used or, or by or benefit them so that and they're still chargeable. I hope I've expressed that correctly, but if you read it carefully, that is what it's saying. It's saying that they have to be available for their use or benefit, but it's immaterial whether they could use them or benefit from them. That's that seems to me an obvious contradiction. Introducing the word persons obviously requires some explanation. Um, I'm sure the minister is going to give it.
I suspect the explanation might be along the lines that there are drones and other things in the skies now, and not simply aircraft. If that is the explanation, then it has to deal with the very clear point made by my noble friend, Lord Kirkhope of Harrogate. Um, but I a little bit more relaxed about that. What I'm not relaxed about is, is, is being asked to give the minister power to, to make to levy charges upon people who could not use and could not benefit from the services in question.
And I do think this clause, as it stands, shows every sign of being hastily and poorly drafted. And again, it would be. One would hope that the noble Lord would come forward on report with. With improved drafting. But if not, I suspect that, um, uh, that there will be an amendment, um, to deal with it, my Lords, I think it's fair to say on this, um in these the happy circumstances arisen that the whole of the committee is united, um on nearly all of the points that we've debated in this group, and I very much hope that the noble Lord will be able to join in that circle and not disrupt the unanimity that the committee has so fortunately achieved.
Um the. Gives the minister new powers of direction which are extremely broad. And that is the basis for most of the complaints and concerns. I think concerns rather than complaints. Most of the concerns that have been expressed in the Committee so far, very broad powers of direction, almost unconstrained. We don't believe. I think it's fair to say, anywhere in any part of the committee that those powers should be unconstrained. We believe there should be processes that that allow for consultation and accountability.
Um, and indeed, it is possible 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 isn't an amendment that's been proposed today, but it's one way of addressing the concerns that the committee has. If I briefly deal with the amendments, both number 60, in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Grender, and number 61 in the name of my noble friend Lord Grayling, seek to impose a consultation requirement of a general character um on the on the Minister.
I don't think that can be gainsaid. And I think the minister is going to have to agree it in one form or another if he isn't able to give us assurances today that he'll be bringing forward an appropriate amendment on report, then I'd hope very much that both the noble Baroness and my noble friend could work together to draft a an amendment which we could all rally behind. Um, amendment 62. In the name of the noble Lord, Lord Tunnicliffe. And again, as its second reading, I found his speech most enlightening and interesting.
I'm going to make a small diversion to comment on it in a moment, but on the general principle, should pilots, either through their trade union or in some other forum, as he said, should pilots be consulted and consulted very specifically and early about airspace changes?The answer surely must be yes, since they're the people, as he has explained. I don't need to repeat what he said, but their stake in the business, in the activity is so high and so responsible that, of course they should be involved in consultation at an early stage.
Um. I will just comment briefly on the broader question raised by the noble Lord of how this system works. It is, of course, the case that all automated systems, and we're seeing them very much on the railways, certainly on the London Underground, of which I know the noble Lord has very great experience, not simply as a in a as a pilot, but also in his experience in rail is is very considerable as well. Um also these motor cars that now one starts to see around the streets with gubbins on the top, um driving themselves though in the presence of a driver, um and so on.
The, the essential point of all the systems is to get them all to drive closer together. Um, and they will drive more safely closer together under these automated systems. You see it. Take the example of the Victoria line with the train coming practically every 90s something which wouldn't be possible, um, if there were a human driver responsible for stopping and starting because of the need to make judgments about how to do that. Um, the difference is, and this is crucial and I think I'm here, I'm supporting the noble Lord.
The difference is that with ground based systems like railways and. Um, I assume cars, the failsafe, if something goes wrong, is to bring the system to a total stop. And you can do that on a railway. You can just stop it. No train moves until you work out what's gone wrong and how you put it right. That is your safety mechanism. But you can't, of course, do that in the air. And so the approach to safety in the air, aviation safety has to be very different.
And the input of pilots must be crucial, I think, to all of this. So again, if an amendment were to come forward from the noble Lord in. The absence of one from the minister, um which expressed that, though not necessarily in these words, but he showed himself open to um adaptation, then I think we would be very happy to support it. Um both my noble friend Lord Kirkhope and my noble friend Lord Goschen, spoke about the importance of general aviation, and I'm very happy to second that, for all the reasons they gave both its economic contribution and its role in providing in being a feeder to the skills necessary for the larger commercial aviation sector.
Um, I will focus particularly on what the noble my noble friend Lord Kirkhope said about charging. And turn now to my own amendment 64, which is is on just this point. Um, it's a very striking subparagraph in clause six, when one reads it, it says persons may be specified or of a description specified. If the service is 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.
Now, it seems to me there is something of a contradiction written into that. It is because it has. They have to meet both limbs of the test, and the first limb is to say that they are available for their use or benefit. And the second limb says, oh well, um, they could not be used for their benefit. Um, 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, and still be the case that they could not be used or, or by or benefit them so that and they're still chargeable. I hope I've expressed that correctly, but if you read it carefully, that is what it's saying. It's saying that they have to be available for their use or benefit, but it's immaterial whether they could use them or benefit from them. That's that seems to me an obvious contradiction. Introducing the word persons obviously requires some explanation. Um, I'm sure the minister is going to give it.
I suspect the explanation might be along the lines that there are drones and other things in the skies now, and not simply aircraft. If that is the explanation, then it has to deal with the very clear point made by my noble friend, Lord Kirkhope of Harrogate. Um, but I a little bit more relaxed about that. What I'm not relaxed about is, is, is being asked to give the minister power to, to make to levy charges upon people who could not use and could not benefit from the services in question.
And I do think this clause, as it stands, shows every sign of being hastily and poorly drafted. And again, it would be. One would hope that the noble Lord would come forward on report with. With improved drafting. But if not, I suspect that, um, uh, that there will be an amendment, um, to deal with it, my Lords, I think it's fair to say on this, um in these the happy circumstances arisen that the whole of the committee is united, um on nearly all of the points that we've debated in this group, and I very much hope that the noble Lord will be able to join in that circle and not disrupt the unanimity that the committee has so fortunately achieved.
13:12
13:12
Speaker 13
-
Speaker 13
No, I was laughing. Laughing is different. Um, my Lords, I'm grateful to noble Lords for their thoughtful contribution to this group of amendments, and although I rarely seem to agree with the noble Lord Moylan, I do so now in admiring the depth of aviation knowledge in this Committee today, I will respond to the points raised and set out how the Bill enables progress on essential airspace reforms, whilst maintaining appropriate safeguards. I'll start with the noble Earl Russell and. His his introduction of amendment 60 and the comments of the noble Baroness pigeon.
Uh. It will also be convenient to address the amendments 61 and 62 from the Noble Lords. Uh, Grayling and Tunnicliffe, respectively. And I also hear the noble Baroness Bray of colon. I'd like to reassure all of them that environmental assessments and consultation are, and will remain a fundamental, fundamental part of the airspace change process. Let me be clear at the outset nothing in these powers removes or weakens existing requirements for thorough consultation or for robust assessments of environmental and noise impacts.
The bill would extend the Secretary of State's existing powers under the air traffic management and Unmanned Aircraft Act 2021, and it allows her, if needed, to require the implementation of an approved airspace change. That means, for the avoidance of doubt, an airspace change proposal that has already been properly developed, consulted on and approved the powers introduced by the bill do not circumvent existing requirements built into the airspace, airspace change process, and any proposal must first go through the Civil Aviation Authority's CAP1616 process. This requires a sponsor of airspace change to undertake detailed assessments of potential impacts of flight paths, including noise exposure and greenhouse gas emissions.
Sponsors must also hold meaningful consultations with affected communities and other stakeholders, including airspace users or groups representing them, and absolutely, where appropriate, pilots and those who represent them on these on the proposals. These assessments are 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 also work closely with airports in line with bespoke partnership agreements. In answer to the noble Lord Moylan's point about the about the time scale for the UK Airspace Design Service, the setup is now complete and it is big.
It is beginning to bring on board the existing airspace change proposals for London. One of its first priorities is to develop a realistic delivery plan for modernising London's airspace, and those changes are expected to be delivered in the 2030s. Given their scale and complexity, they may be delivered in stages and some elements of airspace modernisation for the rest of the United Kingdom are expected to be delivered earlier. The powers of direction introduced by the Bill therefore come into play only after all these steps have been completed.
I welcome the noble Lord Grayling support for the aim to ensure that the benefits of a properly approved and strategically important airspace change cannot be held up by a single reluctant party. These amendments, whilst well intentioned, would duplicate existing requirements, introducing unnecessary delay and costs. It will undermine the delivery of approved airspace changes which themselves deliver major benefits relating to delays, emission and noise. And I note the noble Lord MPs comments on this issue. For these reasons I.
Uh. It will also be convenient to address the amendments 61 and 62 from the Noble Lords. Uh, Grayling and Tunnicliffe, respectively. And I also hear the noble Baroness Bray of colon. I'd like to reassure all of them that environmental assessments and consultation are, and will remain a fundamental, fundamental part of the airspace change process. Let me be clear at the outset nothing in these powers removes or weakens existing requirements for thorough consultation or for robust assessments of environmental and noise impacts.
The bill would extend the Secretary of State's existing powers under the air traffic management and Unmanned Aircraft Act 2021, and it allows her, if needed, to require the implementation of an approved airspace change. That means, for the avoidance of doubt, an airspace change proposal that has already been properly developed, consulted on and approved the powers introduced by the bill do not circumvent existing requirements built into the airspace, airspace change process, and any proposal must first go through the Civil Aviation Authority's CAP1616 process. This requires a sponsor of airspace change to undertake detailed assessments of potential impacts of flight paths, including noise exposure and greenhouse gas emissions.
Sponsors must also hold meaningful consultations with affected communities and other stakeholders, including airspace users or groups representing them, and absolutely, where appropriate, pilots and those who represent them on these on the proposals. These assessments are 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 also work closely with airports in line with bespoke partnership agreements. In answer to the noble Lord Moylan's point about the about the time scale for the UK Airspace Design Service, the setup is now complete and it is big.
It is beginning to bring on board the existing airspace change proposals for London. One of its first priorities is to develop a realistic delivery plan for modernising London's airspace, and those changes are expected to be delivered in the 2030s. Given their scale and complexity, they may be delivered in stages and some elements of airspace modernisation for the rest of the United Kingdom are expected to be delivered earlier. The powers of direction introduced by the Bill therefore come into play only after all these steps have been completed.
I welcome the noble Lord Grayling support for the aim to ensure that the benefits of a properly approved and strategically important airspace change cannot be held up by a single reluctant party. These amendments, whilst well intentioned, would duplicate existing requirements, introducing unnecessary delay and costs. It will undermine the delivery of approved airspace changes which themselves deliver major benefits relating to delays, emission and noise. And I note the noble Lord MPs comments on this issue. For these reasons I.
13:16
Speaker 6
-
Speaker 6
Specific. If we can sense a situation where. For example, a plan coming from Heathrow to amend the routes into that airport clashed with the routes into Farnborough. Uh, and it has been through extensive process and effectively there is a logjam where one says one thing and the other says the other. My understanding is that the government's direction powers be able to say, right, we vote for Farnborough, not Heathrow or vice versa. In that situation where the government goes, right, we're voting for Farnborough.
Is there still a right, a duty to consult on that decision before it's implemented?
Is there still a right, a duty to consult on that decision before it's implemented?
13:16
Speaker 13
-
Speaker 13
I will I'll take some advice and and respond further to that. Um, but I would note in response to the noble Lord Grayling's comments that both of those proposals will have been consulted and agreed. So it isn't the case that consultation would not have applied to either of them. But I'll I'll write to him and copy it to other noble Lords about about the the precise answer to the very reasonable question that he asks. My Lords, the next amendment, number 63, comes to noble Lord Holmes of Richmond, and he is right that information about airspace changes should be secure and transparent.
I take my note. I take the noble Lords point about the choice of technology he made in his speech. The Civil Aviation Authority's Cap 11616 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 S based change and the CAA are required to publish relevant documentation documentation throughout the process, which is held on the CIA's Airspace Change Portal, a secure platform which acts as a single source of truth.
When an approved design is implemented. It's published in the UK aeronautical Information Publication, as required by international law. This is not an area where there's a lack of trust or accountability requiring a more complex or novel audit mechanism. The CIA 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 would respectfully ask the noble Lord to withdraw. My Lords, the next amendment, number 64, comes from the noble Lord Moylan. It 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 didn't directly receive the service. It is right that the charging framework reflects this. The bill does not say charges may be imposed on persons who cannot use or benefit from from them. I reassure noble Lords that charges are not set without safeguards, and this Bill maintains them. Civil Aviation Authority accounts for factors such as efficiency and proportionality, and follows an established process in 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 including 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 this bill seek to maintain. For that reason, I ask the noble Lord to withdraw his amendment.
I take my note. I take the noble Lords point about the choice of technology he made in his speech. The Civil Aviation Authority's Cap 11616 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 S based change and the CAA are required to publish relevant documentation documentation throughout the process, which is held on the CIA's Airspace Change Portal, a secure platform which acts as a single source of truth.
When an approved design is implemented. It's published in the UK aeronautical Information Publication, as required by international law. This is not an area where there's a lack of trust or accountability requiring a more complex or novel audit mechanism. The CIA 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 would respectfully ask the noble Lord to withdraw. My Lords, the next amendment, number 64, comes from the noble Lord Moylan. It 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 didn't directly receive the service. It is right that the charging framework reflects this. The bill does not say charges may be imposed on persons who cannot use or benefit from from them. I reassure noble Lords that charges are not set without safeguards, and this Bill maintains them. Civil Aviation Authority accounts for factors such as efficiency and proportionality, and follows an established process in 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 including 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 this bill seek to maintain. For that reason, I ask the noble Lord to withdraw his amendment.
13:20
Speaker 7
-
Speaker 7
Says the bill doesn't. You cannot, he said, cannot use the service. But that is precisely what it says. It says it's immaterial whether or not the services are actually used or could be used by. Or actually benefit or could benefit them. This is precisely what it says. And as I say, I don't even think it's logically coherent because they've got to be available to them in order to qualify. And the first limb of the clause.
So. First of all, I think it may well be that the noble Lord has the intention, he expressed at the despatch box, but I would ask him if he considers that this this clause is drafted so as to articulate that intention. But as it stands, it seems to me to be internally self-contradictory. But I also think that if it's if it's not internally self-contradictory and he can prove that it isn't, I'd still object, I think, to people being charged for services that they could not use or benefit from.
Doesn't.
So. First of all, I think it may well be that the noble Lord has the intention, he expressed at the despatch box, but I would ask him if he considers that this this clause is drafted so as to articulate that intention. But as it stands, it seems to me to be internally self-contradictory. But I also think that if it's if it's not internally self-contradictory and he can prove that it isn't, I'd still object, I think, to people being charged for services that they could not use or benefit from.
Doesn't.
13:21
Speaker 13
-
Speaker 13
I, I think I think in those circumstances I'll take the noble Lords very detailed point away and attempt to. Attempt to either explain why it does what I said or or alter it so that it does what I said. Um. I didn't hear that. Um, so finally for this grouping, I'll address amendment 65 from the noble Lord Kirkhope of Harrogate. I also listened carefully to the noble Viscount Goschen on 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 six 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 noble Lord Harper's replication of the Iota view on this, and I will take that away, as the noble Lord will be aware, these costs are currently recovered as. 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 CIA 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 CIA 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 to create a new charge for general aviation users, I'd ask the noble Lord to withdraw his amendment.
Clause six 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 noble Lord Harper's replication of the Iota view on this, and I will take that away, as the noble Lord will be aware, these costs are currently recovered as. 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 CIA 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 CIA 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 to create a new charge for general aviation users, I'd ask the noble Lord to withdraw his amendment.
13:24
Speaker 5
-
Speaker 5
My Lords, um, I think that's actually been a really interesting and informative group. I know that we've we've spent a bit of time on it, but I think it's been time well spent in terms of understanding the bill. Um, there's really four key points that have come up. Uh, the whole issue of modernisation, the need for it, the fact that it can provide environmental benefits as well as safety benefits, but also just the sheer complexity of doing that. The obviously, the issue of the bill powers that are given to the minister under clause four and the need for guardrails has also come up as well.
And as Lord Moylan said, there is consensus in committee on some concern around those issues. Also, the need for consultation. And I thought Baroness Bray put it really well that those need to be meaningful. And finally, the issue of general inclusion of general aviation and the impacts of the Bill on general aviation, I'm forever thankful to the Minister for for the care and attention he gives to these matters. We welcome the response he's given on amendment 60, 61 and 62. I think it's fair to say that we will reflect on the exact words he's spoken in Hansard, and we'll have a look at that.
These matters are complex. I welcome the words he's given. I'm not quite certain as I speak here whether they will be enough or whether we will need to, to look at drafting a joint amendment on those matters. In any case, I'm sure that we can have further conversations prior to report on those issues. Um, I also note that the minister's comments in relation to amendment 63, I welcome the response from the noble Lord, Lord Holmes, about the the purpose rather than the technology as the vehicle.
And again, I think we need to just reflect on some of the Minister's response around the risks. And I note the reassurance that he's given about the CAA as a single source of truth and the the systems that are already in play, I think with that, I beg to withdraw my amendment, and I thank noble Lords for the debate that we've had.
And as Lord Moylan said, there is consensus in committee on some concern around those issues. Also, the need for consultation. And I thought Baroness Bray put it really well that those need to be meaningful. And finally, the issue of general inclusion of general aviation and the impacts of the Bill on general aviation, I'm forever thankful to the Minister for for the care and attention he gives to these matters. We welcome the response he's given on amendment 60, 61 and 62. I think it's fair to say that we will reflect on the exact words he's spoken in Hansard, and we'll have a look at that.
These matters are complex. I welcome the words he's given. I'm not quite certain as I speak here whether they will be enough or whether we will need to, to look at drafting a joint amendment on those matters. In any case, I'm sure that we can have further conversations prior to report on those issues. Um, I also note that the minister's comments in relation to amendment 63, I welcome the response from the noble Lord, Lord Holmes, about the the purpose rather than the technology as the vehicle.
And again, I think we need to just reflect on some of the Minister's response around the risks. And I note the reassurance that he's given about the CAA as a single source of truth and the the systems that are already in play, I think with that, I beg to withdraw my amendment, and I thank noble Lords for the debate that we've had.
13:26
13:26
13:27
Speaker 14
-
Speaker 14
As many as as many as their opinion will say, content to the contrary. Not content. The contents have it. The contents have it. Um. Amendment 61. Lord Grayling. Not moved. Um. Amendment. Amendment 63. Lord Holmes of Richmond. Not moved. Um. No. Amendment 63. We've done that. Uh, the question is that clause five stand part of the bill.
As many as that opinion say content of the contrary, not content. The contents have it. Contents have it. Uh, the question is that schedule six be the second schedule to the bill. No, we're not on schedule six. We're on schedule two. The question is that schedule two stand part of the bill. As many as that opinion say, content. Of the contrary. Not content. The contents have it.
The contents have it. Are we now come to amendment 64. Lord Moynihan not moved. 65 Lord Kirkhope.
As many as that opinion say content of the contrary, not content. The contents have it. Contents have it. Uh, the question is that schedule six be the second schedule to the bill. No, we're not on schedule six. We're on schedule two. The question is that schedule two stand part of the bill. As many as that opinion say, content. Of the contrary. Not content. The contents have it.
The contents have it. Are we now come to amendment 64. Lord Moynihan not moved. 65 Lord Kirkhope.
13:30
13:30
Speaker 14
-
Speaker 14
Not moved. The question is that clause six stand part of the bill, as amended. That opinion say content of. The contrary not content the contents have it um. Amendment 65. Lord Davies of Gower has already 65AI beg your pardon. Amendment 65. A Lord Davies of GA has already been debated. I take it as not moved, not moved. In that case we move to the next group. Amendment 65 B Lord Berkeley.
13:31
13:31
13:31
Speaker 15
-
Speaker 15
Speak to these amendments today. Um, before speaking to the individual amendments, it would just be just like to reflect on how great it has been this morning to hear so many, so many comments about general aviation, which tends to get left out on occasions. And, um, most of the amendments will, all the amendments that I have in this group, of course, apply primarily to general aviation. Um, turning to amendment. 50 sorry, 65 B. This amendment is. Designed.
To give encouragement and support to. The air ambulance team who um. Do an enormous amount of good work about the country and not only in places like Cornwall and the Isles of Scilly, but all over the country, not just over the sea, but the um. There was a group of ambulance operators who have. Expressed considerable concern that um the rules. Governing where they can land with their patients and. How they arrange it and who gets priority.
The feeling is that um. It's a bit of a mess and. Given that so many of the passengers are probably heading for a trauma location. It is a matter of considerable concern to these operators and of course, to the National Health Service. M, C, L, G and everyone else. Um, so the amendment would place a duty on government and the CIA to ensure consistent national application of the relevant aviation and regulatory safeguards to support. Safe and consistent provision of air ambulance operations near these major trauma centres or specialist hospitals.
This is not a unanimous view of the of the industry and. Um they're particularly keen that the needs to be coordinated with the CIA to reduce the local variations and improve system wide consistency. Um, so. I hope my noble friend, when he responds to this amendment, will accept that there is a need to coordinate all these different organisations that get involved in it because it needs to be whatever arrangements are. Made need to be done fast. It's all.
That's the whole basis of getting to hospital quickly. And, um, it's apparently not working at the moment. And in this context. Um, of course it's mostly helicopters in my experience who provide this service. Um, they need training to and um. It's uh, not quite. The same, I believe there's um, what you might call fixed wing training, but it's still training. And I was therefore a little bit concerned by my noble friend's response on Tuesday and column GC114.
Um where he appeared to be saying that um when it comes to instrument landings in poor weather. And I quote there are detailed requirements for training in international and UK safety regulations. Requiring training would not be appropriate for all airfields. Smaller airfields may not be able to accommodate this, and it may be unsuitable for larger fields. So you can interpret that as meaning as there ain't going to be any training in the future. I'm sure that's not what he meant, but I hope he could sort of, um, try and clarify that because training is needed in all kinds of situations, not just for pilots, of course, they're very important, but also for the controllers and everyone else that's involved in, in the safe operation.
And, um, I think the training needs to have a very important part to play in this. Um, my Lords, turning now to amendment 65 C. Um, this. Is a slightly different subject because it relates to the um. Basically navigation in poor visibility. I suffer that all the time when I go to the Isles of Scilly. Um, and when you get delayed for three days because it's foggy. You begin to think, well isn't there a better solution?And I, over the years I've been chasing this.
And um. We were nearly there. When Brexit happened and the government was nearly set up to install Egnos. And not only allow the. Connection with the satellites, but also encourage the operators of small planes on the whole to install the comparatively cheap equipment in their craft. Um, I asked, I remember calling the European Commission at the time and asking them, well, what would it take if we um, if we, if we continued with egnos as a separate cost outside the European Union, but of course, um Jersey has ignored it works very well.
Um and the answer I got then, which was probably eight years ago was um it cost about 32 million a year to cover the whole country. And of course, when the whole country is covered, it covers all our ports. Not that you'd use them at Heathrow or Gatwick probably, but it's all, it's still there. But of course it's essential when you haven't got the ability for the ground connections. And certainly, um, places like the Scottish Islands or silly. It's no good that there's nowhere to put the ground connections because it's in the sea.
I don't think they'd work very well. So my amendment. Is designed to put pressure on the government. Will they reopen negotiations on this?I don't think there's any other alternative that's immediately available. Um, they are ministers over the years have told me there is another alternative available. And when you ask, well, when's it going to actually work and how much is it going to cost?They said, oh well it's still being developed. Um, it's probably the same answer today.
So Egnos may not be the answer to The Maiden's Prayer for the next 20 years, but it's very good for the next ten years. So I hope the my. Friend will say that we. He will reopen the negotiations to rejoin. We're not. We. We did leave it, but to join, uh Egnos and. Put it across the country in a way which the small aircraft. Small airports, helicopters, which is a development called Pins.
Um, and everyone else has the ability to use at a reasonable cost. And um, if he has doubting about how this could be done, or maybe we, he'd be pleased to have a meeting with me and anybody else who's interested to see if we can push this forward, because it's ten years since it was cancelled and it's about time we had some proper navigation for. Operating safely in fog in areas where it's not possible to have the systems that the big aeroplanes have. Um, and I did note a written.
Answer in the House of Commons on the 15th of June, which says that um the Department will undertake a quote, it will undertake a comprehensive review of the transport case and practicalities for rejoining the European egnos basically, uh this work. Will be carried out in 2026 with the aim of a decision can be made by the end of this year as to whether to rejoin. It. Does my noble friend think that that's a reasonable programme, and will he actually make a decision?Will he make a decision by the end of this year?Um.
Finally my Lords, um in this group I've got a very quick one on amendment 102 a. And I've been told I'm not part of this airfield advisory team, but there was an airfield advisory team. Uh, established some. Some time ago, uh, with. Um, experts from. All parts of the industry, which suddenly appears to have been cancelled or closed and not happening anymore. So, um. I hope that my noble friend will say that, uh, as part of this pretty comprehensive consultation that we're all going to have to have in the next, um, few months that this airfield advisory team with all the experts in the industry will be re-established.
I beg to move.
To give encouragement and support to. The air ambulance team who um. Do an enormous amount of good work about the country and not only in places like Cornwall and the Isles of Scilly, but all over the country, not just over the sea, but the um. There was a group of ambulance operators who have. Expressed considerable concern that um the rules. Governing where they can land with their patients and. How they arrange it and who gets priority.
The feeling is that um. It's a bit of a mess and. Given that so many of the passengers are probably heading for a trauma location. It is a matter of considerable concern to these operators and of course, to the National Health Service. M, C, L, G and everyone else. Um, so the amendment would place a duty on government and the CIA to ensure consistent national application of the relevant aviation and regulatory safeguards to support. Safe and consistent provision of air ambulance operations near these major trauma centres or specialist hospitals.
This is not a unanimous view of the of the industry and. Um they're particularly keen that the needs to be coordinated with the CIA to reduce the local variations and improve system wide consistency. Um, so. I hope my noble friend, when he responds to this amendment, will accept that there is a need to coordinate all these different organisations that get involved in it because it needs to be whatever arrangements are. Made need to be done fast. It's all.
That's the whole basis of getting to hospital quickly. And, um, it's apparently not working at the moment. And in this context. Um, of course it's mostly helicopters in my experience who provide this service. Um, they need training to and um. It's uh, not quite. The same, I believe there's um, what you might call fixed wing training, but it's still training. And I was therefore a little bit concerned by my noble friend's response on Tuesday and column GC114.
Um where he appeared to be saying that um when it comes to instrument landings in poor weather. And I quote there are detailed requirements for training in international and UK safety regulations. Requiring training would not be appropriate for all airfields. Smaller airfields may not be able to accommodate this, and it may be unsuitable for larger fields. So you can interpret that as meaning as there ain't going to be any training in the future. I'm sure that's not what he meant, but I hope he could sort of, um, try and clarify that because training is needed in all kinds of situations, not just for pilots, of course, they're very important, but also for the controllers and everyone else that's involved in, in the safe operation.
And, um, I think the training needs to have a very important part to play in this. Um, my Lords, turning now to amendment 65 C. Um, this. Is a slightly different subject because it relates to the um. Basically navigation in poor visibility. I suffer that all the time when I go to the Isles of Scilly. Um, and when you get delayed for three days because it's foggy. You begin to think, well isn't there a better solution?And I, over the years I've been chasing this.
And um. We were nearly there. When Brexit happened and the government was nearly set up to install Egnos. And not only allow the. Connection with the satellites, but also encourage the operators of small planes on the whole to install the comparatively cheap equipment in their craft. Um, I asked, I remember calling the European Commission at the time and asking them, well, what would it take if we um, if we, if we continued with egnos as a separate cost outside the European Union, but of course, um Jersey has ignored it works very well.
Um and the answer I got then, which was probably eight years ago was um it cost about 32 million a year to cover the whole country. And of course, when the whole country is covered, it covers all our ports. Not that you'd use them at Heathrow or Gatwick probably, but it's all, it's still there. But of course it's essential when you haven't got the ability for the ground connections. And certainly, um, places like the Scottish Islands or silly. It's no good that there's nowhere to put the ground connections because it's in the sea.
I don't think they'd work very well. So my amendment. Is designed to put pressure on the government. Will they reopen negotiations on this?I don't think there's any other alternative that's immediately available. Um, they are ministers over the years have told me there is another alternative available. And when you ask, well, when's it going to actually work and how much is it going to cost?They said, oh well it's still being developed. Um, it's probably the same answer today.
So Egnos may not be the answer to The Maiden's Prayer for the next 20 years, but it's very good for the next ten years. So I hope the my. Friend will say that we. He will reopen the negotiations to rejoin. We're not. We. We did leave it, but to join, uh Egnos and. Put it across the country in a way which the small aircraft. Small airports, helicopters, which is a development called Pins.
Um, and everyone else has the ability to use at a reasonable cost. And um, if he has doubting about how this could be done, or maybe we, he'd be pleased to have a meeting with me and anybody else who's interested to see if we can push this forward, because it's ten years since it was cancelled and it's about time we had some proper navigation for. Operating safely in fog in areas where it's not possible to have the systems that the big aeroplanes have. Um, and I did note a written.
Answer in the House of Commons on the 15th of June, which says that um the Department will undertake a quote, it will undertake a comprehensive review of the transport case and practicalities for rejoining the European egnos basically, uh this work. Will be carried out in 2026 with the aim of a decision can be made by the end of this year as to whether to rejoin. It. Does my noble friend think that that's a reasonable programme, and will he actually make a decision?Will he make a decision by the end of this year?Um.
Finally my Lords, um in this group I've got a very quick one on amendment 102 a. And I've been told I'm not part of this airfield advisory team, but there was an airfield advisory team. Uh, established some. Some time ago, uh, with. Um, experts from. All parts of the industry, which suddenly appears to have been cancelled or closed and not happening anymore. So, um. I hope that my noble friend will say that, uh, as part of this pretty comprehensive consultation that we're all going to have to have in the next, um, few months that this airfield advisory team with all the experts in the industry will be re-established.
I beg to move.
13:41
13:41
13:41
Speaker 2
-
Speaker 2
Support amendment 102, a um and this is also supported by Lord Davies of Gower, who is unfortunately not able to be with us today. He was here for day one of committee, and he wanted me to place on record his support for this amendment as well. And as Lord Berkeley has set out, my understanding is that these this airfield advisory team is something that did exist. It's recently been disbanded. Um, so it would be helpful when the minister responds to this group if he could confirm whether that is indeed the case, if it the reasons for disbanding it and whether in light of the amendment, he would reconsider that decision.
My understanding is that it was a very useful forum for the CAA and the Department for transport to engage with airfield operators to discuss relevant issues, and for the CAA and the department to communicate with those airfield operators. But. But as important, or maybe more importantly, for airport airfield operators to feed back their concerns and ask questions of of both the regulator and the department. And it seems to me, unless there was a a very good reason for getting rid of it, having those forums for users of, of the services provided seems to me a very good thing.
And certainly my understanding is the airfield operators would very much welcome that advisory team being re-established. So I'd be very pleased to hear what the minister's got to say.
My understanding is that it was a very useful forum for the CAA and the Department for transport to engage with airfield operators to discuss relevant issues, and for the CAA and the department to communicate with those airfield operators. But. But as important, or maybe more importantly, for airport airfield operators to feed back their concerns and ask questions of of both the regulator and the department. And it seems to me, unless there was a a very good reason for getting rid of it, having those forums for users of, of the services provided seems to me a very good thing.
And certainly my understanding is the airfield operators would very much welcome that advisory team being re-established. So I'd be very pleased to hear what the minister's got to say.
13:42
Speaker 12
-
Speaker 12
Um, just very briefly, I'd like to support Lord Berkeley and his, uh, in this group of amendments. We are very fortunate to have air ambulance services operating in the United Kingdom. It's important to stress that these are typically not government provided services, but are provided by charitable organisations, supported by charitable organisations and others. And, um, when one needs the service, one needs it very much indeed. I think is probably the best way of putting it. And the speed of their response, particularly in the rural Devon where I live and in fact, the air ambulance is based at a at a field that I'm very familiar with.
Uh, there. It's a tremendous service. And they are able to get around the county very swiftly and provide. Very much needed services to people who've been involved in serious road accidents or agricultural accidents or have been carried out to sea, um, or whatever. But also I was concerned to hear, um, as the naval Lord, Lord state stated that there were, that the industry had concerns about the rules and regulations and procedures under which they operate, and they felt that that could be enhanced.
My own anecdotal experience of hearing the air ambulance services always given priority, both formally and informally by other users, and by ATC. So I'm concerned and surprised that there are such problems, and I look forward to the to the minister responding whether, uh, there is a requirement to write it on the face of the bill. I'm not going to fall into the trap. Much criticised earlier in our proceedings of doing the minister's job for him. We will let him do some some heavy lifting on that.
And similarly, my Lord, sir, with regard to 102 A, I'm not familiar with the precise detail, but it's clearly important that the CAA takes all the voices of those with a great deal of expertise in small airport operation, takes their interests fully into account. Again, whether it needs to be written into the bill or not is something that we can that we can consider later. And if the noble Lord succeeds in achieving his objective of easier access to the Scilly Isles, no doubt he'll be carried shoulder high by his fellow island residents.
Uh, there. It's a tremendous service. And they are able to get around the county very swiftly and provide. Very much needed services to people who've been involved in serious road accidents or agricultural accidents or have been carried out to sea, um, or whatever. But also I was concerned to hear, um, as the naval Lord, Lord state stated that there were, that the industry had concerns about the rules and regulations and procedures under which they operate, and they felt that that could be enhanced.
My own anecdotal experience of hearing the air ambulance services always given priority, both formally and informally by other users, and by ATC. So I'm concerned and surprised that there are such problems, and I look forward to the to the minister responding whether, uh, there is a requirement to write it on the face of the bill. I'm not going to fall into the trap. Much criticised earlier in our proceedings of doing the minister's job for him. We will let him do some some heavy lifting on that.
And similarly, my Lord, sir, with regard to 102 A, I'm not familiar with the precise detail, but it's clearly important that the CAA takes all the voices of those with a great deal of expertise in small airport operation, takes their interests fully into account. Again, whether it needs to be written into the bill or not is something that we can that we can consider later. And if the noble Lord succeeds in achieving his objective of easier access to the Scilly Isles, no doubt he'll be carried shoulder high by his fellow island residents.
13:44
Speaker 4
-
Speaker 4
A group of amendments from Lord Berkeley are worthy of support and raise some very important points. I'm grateful to him bringing these important matters before this committee and his persistence on these issues. I want to begin with amendment 65 B, and I'm a member of the Appg for air ambulances, and they provide an absolute lifeline every single day across the country, crews attend road traffic collisions, cardiac arrests, serious falls and medical emergencies in some of our most remote and inaccessible communities. And of course, across the country as a whole.
And they reach patients and bring that specialist pre-hospital care to the roadside with great speed. They are quite literally the difference between life and death. And yet these services operate in a regulatory environment that has not kept pace with the demands placed upon them. The airspace modernisation agenda which this Bill advances is welcome in many respects, but modernisation brings disruption and disruption must not come at a cost of operational resilience for our air ambulances. So if new flight paths, new procedures or new airspace designations create barriers to the rapid deployment of these critical services, as we've heard, which are all charities, patients will pay the price.
So I hope the minister will give this matter the serious attention it deserves. Now. Amendment 65 C on satellite navigation is closely related. Air ambulance crews, along with the wider general aviation community, depend on precise, reliable navigation egnos, which we have debated here many times in the past. The European satellite based Augmentation System provided that reliability. We lost it after Brexit, and the replacement timeline is unclear, a requirement on the Secretary of State to report on access to Egnos, or an equivalent service is a modest ask, and I would 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 look forward to his response.
And they reach patients and bring that specialist pre-hospital care to the roadside with great speed. They are quite literally the difference between life and death. And yet these services operate in a regulatory environment that has not kept pace with the demands placed upon them. The airspace modernisation agenda which this Bill advances is welcome in many respects, but modernisation brings disruption and disruption must not come at a cost of operational resilience for our air ambulances. So if new flight paths, new procedures or new airspace designations create barriers to the rapid deployment of these critical services, as we've heard, which are all charities, patients will pay the price.
So I hope the minister will give this matter the serious attention it deserves. Now. Amendment 65 C on satellite navigation is closely related. Air ambulance crews, along with the wider general aviation community, depend on precise, reliable navigation egnos, which we have debated here many times in the past. The European satellite based Augmentation System provided that reliability. We lost it after Brexit, and the replacement timeline is unclear, a requirement on the Secretary of State to report on access to Egnos, or an equivalent service is a modest ask, and I would 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 look forward to his response.
13:46
Speaker 7
-
Speaker 7
Um. My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, has brought before the committee some very interesting and valuable amendments. Uh, and I look forward to hearing what the minister has to say about them, uh, concerning, um, egnos. Um, I never understand quite why everyone wants to crawl back to Europe. The problem with doing that is that every time you ask the Europeans for something, they want to exact a very large price simply because they're still very cross with us for voting to restore our representative democracy in this country and take advantage of Brexit.
Um, it strikes me that it's worth asking the noble Lord, the minister, whether he's 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 something like two thirds of the satellites going round the the earth. Um, and a man of such ingenuity and enterprise could, I'm sure, easily develop a navigation system that depended on those satellites. Wouldn't that be a sensible alternative and might keep the Europeans on their toes if they thought of taking advantage of.
It?Should we want to use their system?But otherwise, I look forward to hearing what he has to say. There's a bigger world out there, not just Europe, and we should all take advantage of it.
Um, it strikes me that it's worth asking the noble Lord, the minister, whether he's 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 something like two thirds of the satellites going round the the earth. Um, and a man of such ingenuity and enterprise could, I'm sure, easily develop a navigation system that depended on those satellites. Wouldn't that be a sensible alternative and might keep the Europeans on their toes if they thought of taking advantage of.
It?Should we want to use their system?But otherwise, I look forward to hearing what he has to say. There's a bigger world out there, not just Europe, and we should all take advantage of it.
13:48
Speaker 13
-
Speaker 13
My Lords, the next grouping covers resilience, infrastructure and connectivity. Um, I'll begin by addressing my noble friend Lord Barclay's Amendment 65 B, and I listened carefully to the noble Viscount Goschen and also to the noble Baroness Pidgeon on this subject. The government supports the life saving work of air ambulances, and the Department regularly engages with air ambulance charities alongside the Civil Aviation Authority to understand their unique needs. Air ambulance is already operate under a special regime from the Civil Aviation Authority that allows them privileged access to airspace and ensures they can land wherever they need to in order to carry out their life saving work.
If the if my noble friend or the operators have any concerns on how this is working, then the Minister for aviation and the other place would be more than happy to hear about those concerns and deal with them. I hope that reassures my noble friend that his amendment isn't needed. My Lords, I turn to amendment 65 B from my noble friend. The government recognises 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 question.
In the other place, the government is actively reviewing the viability of these services, including access to the EU's European Geostationary Navigation Overlay Service, or Egnos programme, and he already observed the output is expected from that later this year. I won't pre-empt that review by accepting this amendment. I have not personally spoken to Elon Musk on this, or indeed any other subject. Um, but I'm sure that I'm sure that I'm sure that government is considering the full range of possibilities of doing what, uh, what, what we, we know that egnos delivered in the past.
So I hope that, um, I hope that he, my noble friend, would understand that I'm not going to pre-empt the outcome of that review. Finally, I thank the noble Lord, my noble friend, for his amendment relating to Airfield Advisory Team. The CIA does carry out extensive engagement with the aerodrome operator, aerodrome operators and values. The insights and feedback they provide, which play an important point 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, and introducing such a panel could, of course, risk creating an imbalance by conferring a status on one group over others.
But noting the noble Lord Harpur's concerns, I will take the issue away and inquire further about this team and the reasons for its disbandment. I hope the noble Lord will withdraw his amendment. I should also add clarity on my comments in column GC114, which my noble friend referred to. I did say in that uh. In the in my speech on Tuesday that requiring training would not be appropriate for all airports. I then gave some reasons, which he quoted about why training might not be possible at some airports for different reasons.
It was certainly not intended to suggest that no airfields would be suitable for training, as that would of course be unacceptable. I hope this makes it clear.
If the if my noble friend or the operators have any concerns on how this is working, then the Minister for aviation and the other place would be more than happy to hear about those concerns and deal with them. I hope that reassures my noble friend that his amendment isn't needed. My Lords, I turn to amendment 65 B from my noble friend. The government recognises 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 question.
In the other place, the government is actively reviewing the viability of these services, including access to the EU's European Geostationary Navigation Overlay Service, or Egnos programme, and he already observed the output is expected from that later this year. I won't pre-empt that review by accepting this amendment. I have not personally spoken to Elon Musk on this, or indeed any other subject. Um, but I'm sure that I'm sure that I'm sure that government is considering the full range of possibilities of doing what, uh, what, what we, we know that egnos delivered in the past.
So I hope that, um, I hope that he, my noble friend, would understand that I'm not going to pre-empt the outcome of that review. Finally, I thank the noble Lord, my noble friend, for his amendment relating to Airfield Advisory Team. The CIA does carry out extensive engagement with the aerodrome operator, aerodrome operators and values. The insights and feedback they provide, which play an important point 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, and introducing such a panel could, of course, risk creating an imbalance by conferring a status on one group over others.
But noting the noble Lord Harpur's concerns, I will take the issue away and inquire further about this team and the reasons for its disbandment. I hope the noble Lord will withdraw his amendment. I should also add clarity on my comments in column GC114, which my noble friend referred to. I did say in that uh. In the in my speech on Tuesday that requiring training would not be appropriate for all airports. I then gave some reasons, which he quoted about why training might not be possible at some airports for different reasons.
It was certainly not intended to suggest that no airfields would be suitable for training, as that would of course be unacceptable. I hope this makes it clear.
13:51
13:51
Speaker 15
-
Speaker 15
Taking part in this short debate. And I'm of course, very grateful to my noble friend for his answers, which I shall read carefully. I. Think still think it would be useful to. If we could have a quick meeting with him before the next stage, particularly to be told a bit more about what. What's happening on Egnos, whether Mr. Musk's. In alternative is a sensible one, but, um. In the meantime I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
13:52
13:53
Speaker 6
-
Speaker 6
Um, my Lords. Uh, so we now move on to the issue of the slot regime. And my two amendments in this group, amendment 66 and amendment 68, are both designed to press the government to try and understand what it's trying to achieve and where the limits are to what it's trying to achieve. I had always expected that when we left the European Union, we would, uh, particularly once the European Union had taken the view. And we're taking the view that we were not staying as part of that.
Actually, we would be able to have a less regulated slot regime. And that fundamentally, we're talking about a private sector market. We're talking about privately owned airports, or airports owned by third party bodies, like the local authorities in Manchester, for example. Um, and we're talking about independent airlines. So the question therefore is what actually does government need to do?What is the role of government in this place?Should government be determining how many airlines fly to an airport?How many slots are available to it?Uh, in what circumstances slots can transfer between one organization or another organization?Um, and it seemed to me that there are fundamentally three things that the government should be doing.
And I see the role of the government as effectively referee rather than regulator in this. And I am concerned that the the content of the clauses that relate to the slots regime in this bill give the government extraordinarily sweeping powers. In fact, if I have a slight regret, my Lords, it is that I didn't also, um, uh, provide for the removal of subsection four on clause on page eight. Um, just after line 15 or line 16, which says the regulations may make different provision for different purposes.
And what does that mean?Uh, I mean, the government is taking off on its own shoulders, blanket powers to manage the whole of the slots regime between a commercially run airport and a commercially owned airport and a commercially owned airline and commercially owned airlines. Now, that feels to me like many steps too far. Uh, and so what I've sought to do with these two amendments is, first of all, uh, amendment 60. Six focus on the things that I think government needs to do.
Uh, and the first of those two are all about acting as arbiter and referee where there is genuinely a problem. Uh, and these, we're talking about our key airports here, where there is genuinely a problem, there is genuinely a dispute that cannot be resolved. Um, I do understand that government may, for strategic reasons, for the benefit of the United Kingdom, need to have some form of put in place, some form of arbitration mechanism. Uh, and so. Graphs A and B are both designed to achieve that.
And of course, very typically because of the, the, the Iran war, as we've seen. And we had the debate last week, uh, over the change to the slot regime resulting from that conflict and the need to take away from airlines, the requirement to use a slot at a particular time. There may be circumstances in which in a period of international crisis, the government needs to have a role in the slot regime. Now, I would also say that, on reflection, as I look at this amendment.
I do agree with him that there is an element we might not agree about the scale of that element. There is an element of need to make sure there is connectivity within the United Kingdom. Now, I think in part the market delivers that anyway, because if you are a major international airline flying from Heathrow to another part of the world, you actually need the feeder flights to fill your plane. So if you don't have flights from Belfast and Glasgow and Edinburgh and Manchester, you're losing a whole chunk of your market.
You're probably using a whole chunk of that market to Schiphol. So therefore it is, in my view, not necessarily for government to take an absolute view about this, but in much the same way that government does provide and does subsidise, uh, key strategic routes within the United Kingdom, which may not be economically viable but are socially necessary. I understand that there may be a case in some particular circumstances for making sure that a particular route is available in a particular slot is available to it, and so therefore, I'm not sure I agree with the full detail of his amendment, but I have some sympathy with what he's trying to achieve.
But what we don't need to do, and this is my fear about elements of this bill, is to try to micromanage the market that is an independent aviation sector. And this section of this bill feels to me like it is treading into that territory. And so I'm looking for the minister to provide some pretty clear justifications for the steps being taken here. And I think particularly and of course, 68 is designed to address what is effectively a criminal provision within the slots regime. Now, I really don't quite understand that.
Why on earth does there need to be a criminal context to the management of the slots regime?Um, I understand that there can on occasions be a need for regulatory enforcement or reinforcement enforcement in the civil courts, but the criminal courts. And so this amendment would take out that provision. Um, and frankly, I will take some persuading before we come to report stage by the minister that we need to have a criminal provision in the management of airport slots in key airports. Um, that feels to me like a bridge that goes much too far.
So, so I would say to the minister what I need to hear from him today is an explanation about why all this is necessary, why the slots regime needs to be as all encompassing as it is, and why this bill comes up with extraordinary provisions of of interference. And I refer again to subsection four. This bill does much more than it is necessary to provide a sensible framework simply for protecting the strategic interests of the United Kingdom. It amounts to interference and not strategy, and I think should take a step back from where it is.
Actually, we would be able to have a less regulated slot regime. And that fundamentally, we're talking about a private sector market. We're talking about privately owned airports, or airports owned by third party bodies, like the local authorities in Manchester, for example. Um, and we're talking about independent airlines. So the question therefore is what actually does government need to do?What is the role of government in this place?Should government be determining how many airlines fly to an airport?How many slots are available to it?Uh, in what circumstances slots can transfer between one organization or another organization?Um, and it seemed to me that there are fundamentally three things that the government should be doing.
And I see the role of the government as effectively referee rather than regulator in this. And I am concerned that the the content of the clauses that relate to the slots regime in this bill give the government extraordinarily sweeping powers. In fact, if I have a slight regret, my Lords, it is that I didn't also, um, uh, provide for the removal of subsection four on clause on page eight. Um, just after line 15 or line 16, which says the regulations may make different provision for different purposes.
And what does that mean?Uh, I mean, the government is taking off on its own shoulders, blanket powers to manage the whole of the slots regime between a commercially run airport and a commercially owned airport and a commercially owned airline and commercially owned airlines. Now, that feels to me like many steps too far. Uh, and so what I've sought to do with these two amendments is, first of all, uh, amendment 60. Six focus on the things that I think government needs to do.
Uh, and the first of those two are all about acting as arbiter and referee where there is genuinely a problem. Uh, and these, we're talking about our key airports here, where there is genuinely a problem, there is genuinely a dispute that cannot be resolved. Um, I do understand that government may, for strategic reasons, for the benefit of the United Kingdom, need to have some form of put in place, some form of arbitration mechanism. Uh, and so. Graphs A and B are both designed to achieve that.
And of course, very typically because of the, the, the Iran war, as we've seen. And we had the debate last week, uh, over the change to the slot regime resulting from that conflict and the need to take away from airlines, the requirement to use a slot at a particular time. There may be circumstances in which in a period of international crisis, the government needs to have a role in the slot regime. Now, I would also say that, on reflection, as I look at this amendment.
I do agree with him that there is an element we might not agree about the scale of that element. There is an element of need to make sure there is connectivity within the United Kingdom. Now, I think in part the market delivers that anyway, because if you are a major international airline flying from Heathrow to another part of the world, you actually need the feeder flights to fill your plane. So if you don't have flights from Belfast and Glasgow and Edinburgh and Manchester, you're losing a whole chunk of your market.
You're probably using a whole chunk of that market to Schiphol. So therefore it is, in my view, not necessarily for government to take an absolute view about this, but in much the same way that government does provide and does subsidise, uh, key strategic routes within the United Kingdom, which may not be economically viable but are socially necessary. I understand that there may be a case in some particular circumstances for making sure that a particular route is available in a particular slot is available to it, and so therefore, I'm not sure I agree with the full detail of his amendment, but I have some sympathy with what he's trying to achieve.
But what we don't need to do, and this is my fear about elements of this bill, is to try to micromanage the market that is an independent aviation sector. And this section of this bill feels to me like it is treading into that territory. And so I'm looking for the minister to provide some pretty clear justifications for the steps being taken here. And I think particularly and of course, 68 is designed to address what is effectively a criminal provision within the slots regime. Now, I really don't quite understand that.
Why on earth does there need to be a criminal context to the management of the slots regime?Um, I understand that there can on occasions be a need for regulatory enforcement or reinforcement enforcement in the civil courts, but the criminal courts. And so this amendment would take out that provision. Um, and frankly, I will take some persuading before we come to report stage by the minister that we need to have a criminal provision in the management of airport slots in key airports. Um, that feels to me like a bridge that goes much too far.
So, so I would say to the minister what I need to hear from him today is an explanation about why all this is necessary, why the slots regime needs to be as all encompassing as it is, and why this bill comes up with extraordinary provisions of of interference. And I refer again to subsection four. This bill does much more than it is necessary to provide a sensible framework simply for protecting the strategic interests of the United Kingdom. It amounts to interference and not strategy, and I think should take a step back from where it is.
13:58
13:58
13:58
Speaker 3
-
Speaker 3
Uh, my Lords, instinctively I agree with a lot of what?Um, Lord Grayling has said, but there are situations in extremis where situation could arise where the access to hub airports, which is a critical not only social but economic, um necessity, it's nothing to do with subsidy because, well, there are some, uh. Modest SOEs in operation. And we had them when we were in the European Union. And I think. Cornwall was involved at one stage and had a subsidised air route.
Uh, but that's not what I'm getting at here at all. It's nothing to do with subsidy because all the main regional airports going into hub airports, primarily Heathrow, are perfectly economically viable. So it's not a question of subsidy. But if we can imagine, slots are very complicated and I'm under no illusions about that. And they are big money, particularly at certain times of the day. And a lot some airlines own very large chunks of them. Now, those airlines, because they're commercial businesses.
And they have shareholders. Shares can be bought and sold. So the ownership of a particular company that has access to a lot of slots at primarily at Heathrow, if they decided that, they say they were bought by an international company, whether it's in the Middle East or the Far East, and they might say, well, we're interested to a point in flying to Inverness or Glasgow, or Edinburgh, or Belfast or Manchester, but on balance, yeah, we'll still keep some of those going. But we want to use some of the rest of them to service international routes, which we believe would be more profitable to us now.
In particular circumstances where regional airports, it's just not an easy it's difficult perhaps, and time consuming to get from some of those to, uh, to the hub airports, whether that would take hours by train or in the case of my own city, you would the only alternative was basically a ferry followed by a train, a train journey. Now, if you are trying to attract a business or you're trying to attract tourism, business, people aren't going to be bothered with that. They're not prepared to take the time.
It just makes you completely uncompetitive. And while Belfast might be extreme example, but in the Scottish airports and so on, the distance is is an issue. Now, Lord Grayling is quite correct to say that it makes sense to have feeder flights, and that does make sense. But I'm just trying to envisage a set of circumstances which I hope will never arise where an operator may find that while continuing to operate a route, instead of doing six or 7 or 8 rotations a day to a particular airport.
Well, I'm going to cut that to four, say the other issue, of course, is time. It's their value is related to the time that they are applicable in some cases. And if you are trying to have a day's business in London, for instance, you need perhaps a what we would call a red eye flight. But if you have a lunchtime flight, it's a waste of a day. So I'm all I'm trying to do and I've been um.
Uh, but that's not what I'm getting at here at all. It's nothing to do with subsidy because all the main regional airports going into hub airports, primarily Heathrow, are perfectly economically viable. So it's not a question of subsidy. But if we can imagine, slots are very complicated and I'm under no illusions about that. And they are big money, particularly at certain times of the day. And a lot some airlines own very large chunks of them. Now, those airlines, because they're commercial businesses.
And they have shareholders. Shares can be bought and sold. So the ownership of a particular company that has access to a lot of slots at primarily at Heathrow, if they decided that, they say they were bought by an international company, whether it's in the Middle East or the Far East, and they might say, well, we're interested to a point in flying to Inverness or Glasgow, or Edinburgh, or Belfast or Manchester, but on balance, yeah, we'll still keep some of those going. But we want to use some of the rest of them to service international routes, which we believe would be more profitable to us now.
In particular circumstances where regional airports, it's just not an easy it's difficult perhaps, and time consuming to get from some of those to, uh, to the hub airports, whether that would take hours by train or in the case of my own city, you would the only alternative was basically a ferry followed by a train, a train journey. Now, if you are trying to attract a business or you're trying to attract tourism, business, people aren't going to be bothered with that. They're not prepared to take the time.
It just makes you completely uncompetitive. And while Belfast might be extreme example, but in the Scottish airports and so on, the distance is is an issue. Now, Lord Grayling is quite correct to say that it makes sense to have feeder flights, and that does make sense. But I'm just trying to envisage a set of circumstances which I hope will never arise where an operator may find that while continuing to operate a route, instead of doing six or 7 or 8 rotations a day to a particular airport.
Well, I'm going to cut that to four, say the other issue, of course, is time. It's their value is related to the time that they are applicable in some cases. And if you are trying to have a day's business in London, for instance, you need perhaps a what we would call a red eye flight. But if you have a lunchtime flight, it's a waste of a day. So I'm all I'm trying to do and I've been um.
14:02
Speaker 11
-
Speaker 11
And. Raised this in the House many years ago and two private members. Bills, both of which passed, I have to say. But suffered under the watchful gaze of a certain member in the other place, who had a penchant for dealing with private members bills in a very cruel fashion. So the. Point I'm trying to get to. Mr.. Just to confirm, and it may be in some of these parts that Lord Grayling just seemed to be.
Henry. I mean, huge powers. But what I want to ensure is, at the end of the day, if such a circumstance arose where an operator that had access to key slots at at a hub airport chose to replace those routes with alternative routes, say international routes that regional airports would not be disadvantaged, to the point that there was going to be significant economic or social damage. And in those circumstances, where could the Secretary of State intervene?And, of course, then there is, of course, the whole question of the terms upon which a Secretary of State would intervene.
These slots are very valuable. And they're on the balance sheet of airlines. So this is no. This is not an easy thing to discuss. And as Baroness Foster often points out, we're in an international context. Now, when the private member's bill was brought, Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon was the minister. And of course, at that particular time he was arguing that this is effectively a was effectively a European competence. And he was able to.
Dodge the column on that. But the fact of the matter is, the principle is very simple. I'm arguing that slots are worth money, but they also have a national implication for the connectivity, economic and social well-being of the entire United Kingdom. And if hub airports are in the United Kingdom, then I think it's not unreasonable that the government, through the Secretary of State, would have the ability to ensure that the regions were not cut out of access or disadvantaged in any way through the absence of slots or the use of slots for alternative uses.
So I understand the complications, but the fundamental principle is fairly straightforward. The minister may be in a position to tell me, well, I think we've got the powers of the Secretary of State's got the powers that he needs. If that is not the case, then I would certainly wish to come back to it on report, because it's a fundamental issue. I think it's easily solved. I don't anticipate any need for any interventions at the moment or in the foreseeable future, because the rotations are pretty good and they're obviously there because the airlines feel that they're making a profit.
We're not talking about subsidies here. It's access, not subsidy. That is the issue.
Henry. I mean, huge powers. But what I want to ensure is, at the end of the day, if such a circumstance arose where an operator that had access to key slots at at a hub airport chose to replace those routes with alternative routes, say international routes that regional airports would not be disadvantaged, to the point that there was going to be significant economic or social damage. And in those circumstances, where could the Secretary of State intervene?And, of course, then there is, of course, the whole question of the terms upon which a Secretary of State would intervene.
These slots are very valuable. And they're on the balance sheet of airlines. So this is no. This is not an easy thing to discuss. And as Baroness Foster often points out, we're in an international context. Now, when the private member's bill was brought, Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon was the minister. And of course, at that particular time he was arguing that this is effectively a was effectively a European competence. And he was able to.
Dodge the column on that. But the fact of the matter is, the principle is very simple. I'm arguing that slots are worth money, but they also have a national implication for the connectivity, economic and social well-being of the entire United Kingdom. And if hub airports are in the United Kingdom, then I think it's not unreasonable that the government, through the Secretary of State, would have the ability to ensure that the regions were not cut out of access or disadvantaged in any way through the absence of slots or the use of slots for alternative uses.
So I understand the complications, but the fundamental principle is fairly straightforward. The minister may be in a position to tell me, well, I think we've got the powers of the Secretary of State's got the powers that he needs. If that is not the case, then I would certainly wish to come back to it on report, because it's a fundamental issue. I think it's easily solved. I don't anticipate any need for any interventions at the moment or in the foreseeable future, because the rotations are pretty good and they're obviously there because the airlines feel that they're making a profit.
We're not talking about subsidies here. It's access, not subsidy. That is the issue.
14:05
14:05
14:06
Speaker 10
-
Speaker 10
Did was I. I read it and I actually thought that it did raise some important issues, which I wanted just to test what the government's thinking was. Certainly when I was Secretary of State, this process actually worked very smoothly and as as Lord Grayling said, this is largely a commercial exercise. Slots have economic value. Um, and they're allocated in a way independent of government. Um and that usually works very well. There are circumstances, as the minister set out at second reading, where there are challenges to the way the system works because of outside circumstances where government steps in and makes some changes, its work in the interests of consumers in the industry.
But it's also the case that the slot co-ordinator, Airport Coordination Limited, does actually, it's a private company. It exercises a considerable amount of power and influence, which at airports, which are constrained, whether there's constrained supply of slots, actually gives it significant economic power. And at the moment, it doesn't have any regulatory oversight. It effectively exercising what could be argued to be a quasi regulatory function. But there's no formal oversight. And so the amendment that I tabled, um, would it's quite narrow, but it would bring the co-ordinator under the oversight of the CAA, which would give them the ability to scrutinise decisions and their governance.
It would importantly, preserve the independence of the UK slot co-ordinator, which is both important and also required by our international agreements. And it would introduce a proportionate, independent mechanism to challenge decisions. At the moment, if anybody wants to challenge a decision, they have to go through a judicial review process which is very costly, time consuming and almost never happens. Uh, and if you had CIA oversight, it would mean either the airlines, all the departments could refer, um, decisions to the CAA and have them looked at independently.
So it's important that the government doesn't have the power to do that. Um, but having some sort of process in place. So really what I'm seeking from the minister is the government's view about whether the system works well at the moment, whether the government believes there is a, um, whether the, the slot co-ordinator effectively has powers which should be better regulated or whether the government is perfectly content with the system as it's currently set up, and whether it needs any changes or not. And I thought the amendment was a useful way of testing the government's view.
Very happy to table it and to make the case for it. And I look forward to the Minister setting out the government's position when he responds to this group of amendments.
But it's also the case that the slot co-ordinator, Airport Coordination Limited, does actually, it's a private company. It exercises a considerable amount of power and influence, which at airports, which are constrained, whether there's constrained supply of slots, actually gives it significant economic power. And at the moment, it doesn't have any regulatory oversight. It effectively exercising what could be argued to be a quasi regulatory function. But there's no formal oversight. And so the amendment that I tabled, um, would it's quite narrow, but it would bring the co-ordinator under the oversight of the CAA, which would give them the ability to scrutinise decisions and their governance.
It would importantly, preserve the independence of the UK slot co-ordinator, which is both important and also required by our international agreements. And it would introduce a proportionate, independent mechanism to challenge decisions. At the moment, if anybody wants to challenge a decision, they have to go through a judicial review process which is very costly, time consuming and almost never happens. Uh, and if you had CIA oversight, it would mean either the airlines, all the departments could refer, um, decisions to the CAA and have them looked at independently.
So it's important that the government doesn't have the power to do that. Um, but having some sort of process in place. So really what I'm seeking from the minister is the government's view about whether the system works well at the moment, whether the government believes there is a, um, whether the, the slot co-ordinator effectively has powers which should be better regulated or whether the government is perfectly content with the system as it's currently set up, and whether it needs any changes or not. And I thought the amendment was a useful way of testing the government's view.
Very happy to table it and to make the case for it. And I look forward to the Minister setting out the government's position when he responds to this group of amendments.
14:08
Speaker 17
-
Speaker 17
My Lords, it's a pleasure to follow my noble friend, Lord Harper. I intend to speak to amendment 74 and 75 in my name. It would be only slightly reductive to say it's all about the slots. In many ways, this part of the bill is the very heart of the industry. And to that end, it would seem to make sense. Under amendment 74, to have greater clarity and transparency for all those who should be involved and should be concerned and have a role in this, to have that clarity through such a system as set out in amendment 74.
Again, accepting the specificities around blockchain and DLT and inserting Mid-speech criteria based approach. So other technologies which could achieve this aim are equally beneficial to the purpose of the amendment and amendment 75 moves that on somewhat. Just to put a test in as to how much one would the government would wish to. Not overly interfere with slot allocation, but where all of the things remain equal, would they want other provisions to be brought in?In amendment 75?I cite the example of environmental concerns, but the principle would work equally well for regional connectivity higher up on the agenda or indeed other issues that the government may wish to push through.
This, as has been rightly set out by my noble friend Lord Grayling. This is largely a commercial matter, and there is a market. But like all good markets, that doesn't mean there isn't a role for government to have in it. It's clear that the government need to get the right level of that role and to not overstep, but because of that critical importance, in many ways, the essence of that element of the industry is all about the slots. I'm interested to hear where the minister believes that line should be drawn, and whether there is potential to bring other factors to bear, which would fit very well with some of the government's other key objectives, such as environmental, such as growth, such as nations and regions such as connectivity.
I look forward to the minister's response.
Again, accepting the specificities around blockchain and DLT and inserting Mid-speech criteria based approach. So other technologies which could achieve this aim are equally beneficial to the purpose of the amendment and amendment 75 moves that on somewhat. Just to put a test in as to how much one would the government would wish to. Not overly interfere with slot allocation, but where all of the things remain equal, would they want other provisions to be brought in?In amendment 75?I cite the example of environmental concerns, but the principle would work equally well for regional connectivity higher up on the agenda or indeed other issues that the government may wish to push through.
This, as has been rightly set out by my noble friend Lord Grayling. This is largely a commercial matter, and there is a market. But like all good markets, that doesn't mean there isn't a role for government to have in it. It's clear that the government need to get the right level of that role and to not overstep, but because of that critical importance, in many ways, the essence of that element of the industry is all about the slots. I'm interested to hear where the minister believes that line should be drawn, and whether there is potential to bring other factors to bear, which would fit very well with some of the government's other key objectives, such as environmental, such as growth, such as nations and regions such as connectivity.
I look forward to the minister's response.
14:11
Speaker 8
-
Speaker 8
I'd just like to make a couple of observations on the amendments that have been put down by colleagues. Um, I think first of all, I think what is clear is that the whole slot issue is a very complex and sophisticated trading system. And as my noble friend Lord MP mentioned, the value of which will be certainly on the value of a company's, a company. Um, I'd just like to go back to the comment that was made about the European Union regulation. My interest is I was involved in the initial European Union regulation more than 20 years ago, and the revision about ten years later.
And I can tell you with great certainty that the euro, even the European Commission, um, didn't have any involvement at all in the designation of slot use. Um, that was completely a no no. And that was absolutely quite right. Which brings me then to the possible role of the Secretary of State. The slot allocation is a neutral independent activity and it's handled by the slot co-ordinator without due influence of government. Airlines and airports and long may that remain.
If it ain't broke we don't need to fix it. The Secretary of State should not be at liberty to decide on slot allocation outcomes. This is my view. Whether temporary or during periods of crisis or during normal times. There can be and has not been, and there is no evidence that our slot coordinators, certainly in the United Kingdom, have ever been unduly influenced and made the wrong decisions. So I think we should continue to have that confidence in the role that they play, and that is recognised both European wide and internationally wide, because Heathrow, as a hub is an extremely important airport.
Um, I. Just like to touch on a comment by Lord Holmes and his amendment, which talked about basically the environment and a link possibly to the environment. On allocation. Um, I don't believe that that is actually the right way forward at all. Um, it is the wrong tool. And to ensure the sector's sustainability targets that can be met and in any event, the actual coordinators, uh, can already choose an air carrier due to their environmental credentials. However, this is not and should not be their primary decision.
And I'll just finally reflect back to what we already comply with in the United Kingdom and still do, even though we are not members of the European Union, which which actually applied to regulation five, nine, eight, 2014, which was the introduction of noise related operating restrictions at Union airports, um, which broadened that out to environment as well, and what was called the balanced approach. And it repealed a directive from some years before. As I say, it was, um, the environment was mentioned is mentioned and is part of that.
And the details of that come through from what's called Ecacc. Doc 29. Some of you will know what I mean here. And we already comply with all of those details, which obviously come from those regulations and those documents. So it's not as though there aren't references and we aren't compliant to environmental issues and pressures. Um, at this moment in time. But what we also have to recognise that fortunately, because of the um excellent, the excellent scientists and engineers that we have, we now know that these airports, they are operating the minimum engine type will be a.
Chapter four engine. And again, we all have to be our airports have to be compliant with the rules that are laid down by ICAO, which finally, as I say, we are obviously obliged to comply with international rules, regulation and those bodies, which we certainly do in the United Kingdom.
And I can tell you with great certainty that the euro, even the European Commission, um, didn't have any involvement at all in the designation of slot use. Um, that was completely a no no. And that was absolutely quite right. Which brings me then to the possible role of the Secretary of State. The slot allocation is a neutral independent activity and it's handled by the slot co-ordinator without due influence of government. Airlines and airports and long may that remain.
If it ain't broke we don't need to fix it. The Secretary of State should not be at liberty to decide on slot allocation outcomes. This is my view. Whether temporary or during periods of crisis or during normal times. There can be and has not been, and there is no evidence that our slot coordinators, certainly in the United Kingdom, have ever been unduly influenced and made the wrong decisions. So I think we should continue to have that confidence in the role that they play, and that is recognised both European wide and internationally wide, because Heathrow, as a hub is an extremely important airport.
Um, I. Just like to touch on a comment by Lord Holmes and his amendment, which talked about basically the environment and a link possibly to the environment. On allocation. Um, I don't believe that that is actually the right way forward at all. Um, it is the wrong tool. And to ensure the sector's sustainability targets that can be met and in any event, the actual coordinators, uh, can already choose an air carrier due to their environmental credentials. However, this is not and should not be their primary decision.
And I'll just finally reflect back to what we already comply with in the United Kingdom and still do, even though we are not members of the European Union, which which actually applied to regulation five, nine, eight, 2014, which was the introduction of noise related operating restrictions at Union airports, um, which broadened that out to environment as well, and what was called the balanced approach. And it repealed a directive from some years before. As I say, it was, um, the environment was mentioned is mentioned and is part of that.
And the details of that come through from what's called Ecacc. Doc 29. Some of you will know what I mean here. And we already comply with all of those details, which obviously come from those regulations and those documents. So it's not as though there aren't references and we aren't compliant to environmental issues and pressures. Um, at this moment in time. But what we also have to recognise that fortunately, because of the um excellent, the excellent scientists and engineers that we have, we now know that these airports, they are operating the minimum engine type will be a.
Chapter four engine. And again, we all have to be our airports have to be compliant with the rules that are laid down by ICAO, which finally, as I say, we are obviously obliged to comply with international rules, regulation and those bodies, which we certainly do in the United Kingdom.
14:16
Speaker 12
-
Speaker 12
Is a substantial. And I'm grateful to the noble Lords who tabled amendments covering how slot allocation powers should be structured, constrained and scrutinised. And it's a clear theme in many of our amendments before us today. And I thought the referee versus regulator point from Lord Grayling was very powerful in summing a lot of this up. Um, before turning to the amendments themselves, I want to remind noble lords of a thread that did run through the second reading, the question of airport expansion, and in particular on whether the slots regime and the significant new powers the Secretary of State is taking in relation to it could be used to facilitate or effectively predetermine expansion decisions.
As you've heard, slots are capacity control over slot allocation is, in important respects, control over how airports can grow and who benefits from that growth. Um, the government may say that the expansion question is separate, but the mechanisms are not neatly separate. And those questions will, I suspect, return at report stage. But on regional connectivity, the concern raised in this group is one many noble lords feel strongly about. Hub airport access for regional routes is not just for commercial convenience, it's a question of whether communities and economies across the United Kingdom are connected nationally and then internationally.
And finally, on parliamentary procedure, um, the House has consistently held that significant regulatory powers should be subject to proper parliamentary oversight. And I would hope the minister would want to resist that principle here. I look forward to the minister's response.
As you've heard, slots are capacity control over slot allocation is, in important respects, control over how airports can grow and who benefits from that growth. Um, the government may say that the expansion question is separate, but the mechanisms are not neatly separate. And those questions will, I suspect, return at report stage. But on regional connectivity, the concern raised in this group is one many noble lords feel strongly about. Hub airport access for regional routes is not just for commercial convenience, it's a question of whether communities and economies across the United Kingdom are connected nationally and then internationally.
And finally, on parliamentary procedure, um, the House has consistently held that significant regulatory powers should be subject to proper parliamentary oversight. And I would hope the minister would want to resist that principle here. I look forward to the minister's response.
14:17
14:17
Speaker 14
-
Speaker 14
Introduce my own amendments and then comment on others. Um, I have amendment 70 and 71 and 72, 71, 72 are 72 is consequential on 71. So effectively I've got two amendments. And the first is to do with consultation. There's no requirement that I can see in the bill for the government to undertake any consultation prior to exercising the powers it has, uh, it seeks for itself under this legislation. Um, a few weeks ago, quite recently, we debated the airport Slot Allocation Regulations 2026.
Um, and the industry told us that the consultation was extremely short. Now, part of that was to do with getting the regulations done before the powers gap closed, um or opened. Um but the consultation was extremely short and the result of the consultation, according to the government's own statement, was that while the airline supported what government was doing, the airports were adamantly opposed and they were opposed principally because as my noble friend Lady Foster has just said, the the slots allocator already has the powers to respond in emergencies.
There is no need for this action to take place. But 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 at all promised. My amendment would require it. My Second Amendment concerns the use of the fact that statutory instruments are going to be used here. Most of them will be by the significant ones will be by the. Affirmative process, but there is an exemption for those that have temporary effect.
They'll be done by the negative process. So this is a direct downgrading because of course the airport slots regulations we had, uh, our committee only a few weeks ago were temporary in their character. They last only for the coming summer and winter season. And it's precisely those that type of amendment of statutory instrument, that type of government action that would now be moved to being taken under the negative process. So it is definitely a downgrade of parliamentary scrutiny. And my amendment would eliminate it.
And as I say, 72 is consequential on that. My Lords, if I come back to the other um contributions. In this debate, I think it's fair to say that between them, the noble my noble friend Lord Grayling, and my noble friend, Lady Foster of Oxton, have put driven an entire coach and horses through this section of the bill because they asked the crucial question, what is the necessity of this?Not only what is the necessity, but what is the benefit to the public in the government intervening in something which is essentially a a private market activity and be working perfectly well at the moment, and we have no reason to think that is likely to change.
And so although I'm sure the minister, when he gets to his feet, will want to defend these proposals, I think the tenor of debate in the committee is that they they should be done away with wholesale and and and simply my amendments, which simply require consultation and and better processes are inadequate to the task. And I think when we come back on report, we are going to have to challenge very, very clearly why the government is involved in this at all, and with what purpose and to what effect, unless, of course, the minister can satisfy us today.
Um, and the industry told us that the consultation was extremely short. Now, part of that was to do with getting the regulations done before the powers gap closed, um or opened. Um but the consultation was extremely short and the result of the consultation, according to the government's own statement, was that while the airline supported what government was doing, the airports were adamantly opposed and they were opposed principally because as my noble friend Lady Foster has just said, the the slots allocator already has the powers to respond in emergencies.
There is no need for this action to take place. But 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 at all promised. My amendment would require it. My Second Amendment concerns the use of the fact that statutory instruments are going to be used here. Most of them will be by the significant ones will be by the. Affirmative process, but there is an exemption for those that have temporary effect.
They'll be done by the negative process. So this is a direct downgrading because of course the airport slots regulations we had, uh, our committee only a few weeks ago were temporary in their character. They last only for the coming summer and winter season. And it's precisely those that type of amendment of statutory instrument, that type of government action that would now be moved to being taken under the negative process. So it is definitely a downgrade of parliamentary scrutiny. And my amendment would eliminate it.
And as I say, 72 is consequential on that. My Lords, if I come back to the other um contributions. In this debate, I think it's fair to say that between them, the noble my noble friend Lord Grayling, and my noble friend, Lady Foster of Oxton, have put driven an entire coach and horses through this section of the bill because they asked the crucial question, what is the necessity of this?Not only what is the necessity, but what is the benefit to the public in the government intervening in something which is essentially a a private market activity and be working perfectly well at the moment, and we have no reason to think that is likely to change.
And so although I'm sure the minister, when he gets to his feet, will want to defend these proposals, I think the tenor of debate in the committee is that they they should be done away with wholesale and and and simply my amendments, which simply require consultation and and better processes are inadequate to the task. And I think when we come back on report, we are going to have to challenge very, very clearly why the government is involved in this at all, and with what purpose and to what effect, unless, of course, the minister can satisfy us today.
14:21
Speaker 5
-
Speaker 5
My Lords, this group, as we've heard, concerns the airport slots regime. I am grateful to Noble Lords for their amendments. I will address each amendment in turn, but will 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 an international framework such as the worldwide Airport Slot Guidelines, the global standard for managing airport capacity at congested level three and capacity constrained level two 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 want to say to the noble Baroness Pigeon 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 a different issue. Let me begin by amendment 66, tabled by the noble Lord Grayling.
Um, I understand the concern that 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, largely replicate provisions previously available through EU legislation. And all government is doing is replicating the powers it thinks it appropriately needs to continue. I would refer the noble Lord to paragraphs 20 to 24 in the explanatory notes to the bill. Neither the government nor airlines have a role in the day to day allocation of slots that's undertaken.
As noble Lords have noted, by an independent slot coordinator, who must allocate slots openly, fairly and transparently and without discrimination. The amendment would therefore not have the intent, the effect intended, and would create uncertainty. The temporary reallocation or suspension of unused slots during an international crisis is already addressed in by clause seven, amendment 66 is therefore unnecessarily unnecessary in our view 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 recognises 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, fair competition obligations in the UK's bilateral air services Agreement. 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 to withdraw the amendment from the noble Lord.
Lord Grayling seeks to remove the ability to create regulations on enforcement of the slots regime regime through criminal, criminal and civil sanctions. Existing assimilated law already contains criminal and civil enforcement provisions, which the government believes are necessary. Removing this power would freeze the current enforcement regime, meaning that even proportionate updates could only be made through permanent through further primary legislation. I hope that's not a. I don't believe that's the noble Lords intention. Clause seven is already.
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 want to say to the noble Baroness Pigeon 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 a different issue. Let me begin by amendment 66, tabled by the noble Lord Grayling.
Um, I understand the concern that 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, largely replicate provisions previously available through EU legislation. And all government is doing is replicating the powers it thinks it appropriately needs to continue. I would refer the noble Lord to paragraphs 20 to 24 in the explanatory notes to the bill. Neither the government nor airlines have a role in the day to day allocation of slots that's undertaken.
As noble Lords have noted, by an independent slot coordinator, who must allocate slots openly, fairly and transparently and without discrimination. The amendment would therefore not have the intent, the effect intended, and would create uncertainty. The temporary reallocation or suspension of unused slots during an international crisis is already addressed in by clause seven, amendment 66 is therefore unnecessarily unnecessary in our view 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 recognises 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, fair competition obligations in the UK's bilateral air services Agreement. 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 to withdraw the amendment from the noble Lord.
Lord Grayling seeks to remove the ability to create regulations on enforcement of the slots regime regime through criminal, criminal and civil sanctions. Existing assimilated law already contains criminal and civil enforcement provisions, which the government believes are necessary. Removing this power would freeze the current enforcement regime, meaning that even proportionate updates could only be made through permanent through further primary legislation. I hope that's not a. I don't believe that's the noble Lords intention. Clause seven is already.
14:25
14:25
Speaker 5
-
Speaker 5
I'll. I will respond to the. To the noble Lord. After. After. But. But clause seven is also already reducing 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 to withdraw. I turn to amendment 70, tabled by the noble Lord Moylan, which would place a statutory duty on the Secretary of State to consult airlines, airline operators and others before making any slots regulations.
Under clause seven. The government recognises the importance of proper engagement and will. Where new policy is developed under this power, 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 and in those circumstances, government must be able to act swiftly and proportionately. I therefore ask the noble Lord to withdraw amendment 70.
I will take amendment 71 and 72, also tabled by the noble 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 to withdraw amendment 71 and 72. I turn to amendment 73, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Harper, which would place the slot called.
Under clause seven. The government recognises the importance of proper engagement and will. Where new policy is developed under this power, 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 and in those circumstances, government must be able to act swiftly and proportionately. I therefore ask the noble Lord to withdraw amendment 70.
I will take amendment 71 and 72, also tabled by the noble 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 to withdraw amendment 71 and 72. I turn to amendment 73, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Harper, which would place the slot called.
14:27
14:28
Speaker 14
-
Speaker 14
I the point he makes about emergencies and so forth is not reflected in the text of the Bill. It says, and this is 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 the regularity of use of slots. Now that would cover the airport slots, regulations that we debated a couple of weeks ago. Um, those would move from being affirmative process s eyes to being negative process SIS the additional stipulations that the noble Lord mentioned are not reflected in the clause that defines what an excluded regulation is.
14:28
Speaker 5
-
Speaker 5
So I thank the noble Lord for that observation. And I will, of course, take it away and consider what, what what he's said. Um, I turn to now to amendment 73, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Harper, which would place the slot coordinator 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 coordinator must remain functionally and financially independent of all interested parties, including government.
He asked whether we're content with the current system or not, and we are that. Is reflected in the worldwide airport Slot guidelines, which align these matters across all level two and level three airports across the globe and is essential to ensuring that scarce airport capacity is allocated fairly, neutrally and without bias towards any airline, airport or government. It protects new entrants and maintains confidence in the global system, creating a statutory Civil Aviation Authority oversight role risks putting the UK at odds with the with established international practice and creating legal and operational uncertainty and I therefore ask the noble Lord to withdraw.
I address amendment 74, tabled by the noble Lord Holmes of Richmond, which seeks a secure record keeping system for slot transactions. As I said in relation to amendment 73, slot allocation is undertaken by an independent coordinator and for UK airports. That's Airport Coordination limited airlines. Already notify ACL of transfers and trades. ACL acts as the central system of record reviewing transactions against airport capacity and operational constraints, documenting exchanges including monetary and non-monetary swaps, and publishing them online. Whilst I welcome the Noble Lords interest in innovation technologies such as distributed ledgers are designed to remove the need for a central trusted party.
But here that central party already exists and is legally bound to operate neutrally and non-discriminatory and without discrimination. Amendment 74 is therefore unnecessary, and I ask the Lord to withdraw it. Finally, I turn to amendment from the amendment from Lord Holmes of Richmond on attaching environmental conditions to holding in use of airport slots. The government fully recognises the importance of reducing aviation emissions and supporting sector's transition to net zero. But however, I agree with the noble Baroness Foster of Oxton that the slots regime is not the right mechanism for imposing emissions related conditions on individual carriers.
The government is addressing aviation emissions through appropriate policy levers, including the UK Emissions Trading Scheme, Causa Corsia, CORSA and the and the Sustainable Aviation Fuel Mandate. The international slots regime is built on clear and predictable rules, including historic rights, where slots are used sufficiently, requiring carriers to retain slots by reference to separate emissions metrics would cut across that framework and create uncertainty for airlines and airports. I will return to wider environmental issues in the relevant group, but for now, I'd ask the noble Lord to withdraw the amendment.
He asked whether we're content with the current system or not, and we are that. Is reflected in the worldwide airport Slot guidelines, which align these matters across all level two and level three airports across the globe and is essential to ensuring that scarce airport capacity is allocated fairly, neutrally and without bias towards any airline, airport or government. It protects new entrants and maintains confidence in the global system, creating a statutory Civil Aviation Authority oversight role risks putting the UK at odds with the with established international practice and creating legal and operational uncertainty and I therefore ask the noble Lord to withdraw.
I address amendment 74, tabled by the noble Lord Holmes of Richmond, which seeks a secure record keeping system for slot transactions. As I said in relation to amendment 73, slot allocation is undertaken by an independent coordinator and for UK airports. That's Airport Coordination limited airlines. Already notify ACL of transfers and trades. ACL acts as the central system of record reviewing transactions against airport capacity and operational constraints, documenting exchanges including monetary and non-monetary swaps, and publishing them online. Whilst I welcome the Noble Lords interest in innovation technologies such as distributed ledgers are designed to remove the need for a central trusted party.
But here that central party already exists and is legally bound to operate neutrally and non-discriminatory and without discrimination. Amendment 74 is therefore unnecessary, and I ask the Lord to withdraw it. Finally, I turn to amendment from the amendment from Lord Holmes of Richmond on attaching environmental conditions to holding in use of airport slots. The government fully recognises the importance of reducing aviation emissions and supporting sector's transition to net zero. But however, I agree with the noble Baroness Foster of Oxton that the slots regime is not the right mechanism for imposing emissions related conditions on individual carriers.
The government is addressing aviation emissions through appropriate policy levers, including the UK Emissions Trading Scheme, Causa Corsia, CORSA and the and the Sustainable Aviation Fuel Mandate. The international slots regime is built on clear and predictable rules, including historic rights, where slots are used sufficiently, requiring carriers to retain slots by reference to separate emissions metrics would cut across that framework and create uncertainty for airlines and airports. I will return to wider environmental issues in the relevant group, but for now, I'd ask the noble Lord to withdraw the amendment.
14:32
14:32
Speaker 11
-
Speaker 11
I, in his response to my amendment 67, he. Actually responded to a point that I haven't made. I haven't asked for domestic slots to take to replace international slots. This is a probing amendment, but it's a very simple proposition in. Extremists. Does the Secretary of State have the power to ensure regional connectivity, or does he not?And it's not a complicated issue, in essence, even though the operational issues are. So I think he anticipated something that I hadn't actually proposed, but I have to assure him on this particular issue, while it would be withdrawing the amendment today, I don't intend to go away.
And perhaps he and his team will engage with me before report.
And perhaps he and his team will engage with me before report.
14:32
14:33
14:33
Speaker 15
-
Speaker 15
Debate, uh, again, some important issues raised, uh, and uh, Lord MP, I think makes an important point. And actually, when I reflected at the start on my own amendment, I felt that what he was saying was perhaps an element was missing from it. I have a lot of sympathy with what he said. Um, but I want to be frank with the minister. Uh, he knows I have the highest regard for him. He knows he that I regard him as knowing more about much of the transport system than anyone I know.
Um, so I don't direct this comment at him. I do direct it at the government, but I'm really quite unimpressed by the government's inability to explain what our relatively simple things or should be relatively simple things if they've thought this through properly. Measures they're taking around both this bill and indeed the debate we held last week over the, the slot regime. Wants to take powers or wants to continue powers to enforce criminal sanctions, it ought at least to be able to say what kind of issues those criminal sanctions are designed to address.
Because I don't think this is simply a replication of existing EU law. And were it so, I'd be saying, what can we do less of rather than more of outside the European Union?But if the government's intent is purely to replicate what is there already, it does not need clause seven, subsection two, subsection four, saying regulations may make different provisions for different purposes. And what does that mean?It actually creates a blank check for the government to expand its remit in the slot regime beyond where it is at the moment.
And it is seeking to continue criminal sanctions. Um, and it just does not feel to me like a government that is trying to maintain a light touch in what the minister rightly says is a, is a commercial marketplace with established processes that are part of international agreements that go beyond the European Union. So some of this should not be necessary, and some of it should not be necessary to continue from what we had before and where it is continuing, there needs to be good explanation for it.
And I am sorry, I don't think the minister has been able to give that good explanation, and I think the government needs to do a better job in what should be pretty basic questions about what they're proposing. So I will, of course. Seek to withdraw this amendment today, but I give notice to the minister that these are questions that need to be answered before we get to report stage and answered properly, because I can see no justification for having what is clear. Henry, the Eighth powers in the slot regime.
There's not even a provision in there for the affirmative resolution. So, frankly, in six months time, 12 months time, and I'm sure it wouldn't be this minister, but another minister could simply come back and take a much more interventionist approach to the slot regime, which would be absolutely out of kilter with anything we've done, both inside and outside the European Union. So. So I do withdraw this amendment today, but I'm not going to leave this untouched. When we come back to report.
Is it your lordships pleasure.
Um, so I don't direct this comment at him. I do direct it at the government, but I'm really quite unimpressed by the government's inability to explain what our relatively simple things or should be relatively simple things if they've thought this through properly. Measures they're taking around both this bill and indeed the debate we held last week over the, the slot regime. Wants to take powers or wants to continue powers to enforce criminal sanctions, it ought at least to be able to say what kind of issues those criminal sanctions are designed to address.
Because I don't think this is simply a replication of existing EU law. And were it so, I'd be saying, what can we do less of rather than more of outside the European Union?But if the government's intent is purely to replicate what is there already, it does not need clause seven, subsection two, subsection four, saying regulations may make different provisions for different purposes. And what does that mean?It actually creates a blank check for the government to expand its remit in the slot regime beyond where it is at the moment.
And it is seeking to continue criminal sanctions. Um, and it just does not feel to me like a government that is trying to maintain a light touch in what the minister rightly says is a, is a commercial marketplace with established processes that are part of international agreements that go beyond the European Union. So some of this should not be necessary, and some of it should not be necessary to continue from what we had before and where it is continuing, there needs to be good explanation for it.
And I am sorry, I don't think the minister has been able to give that good explanation, and I think the government needs to do a better job in what should be pretty basic questions about what they're proposing. So I will, of course. Seek to withdraw this amendment today, but I give notice to the minister that these are questions that need to be answered before we get to report stage and answered properly, because I can see no justification for having what is clear. Henry, the Eighth powers in the slot regime.
There's not even a provision in there for the affirmative resolution. So, frankly, in six months time, 12 months time, and I'm sure it wouldn't be this minister, but another minister could simply come back and take a much more interventionist approach to the slot regime, which would be absolutely out of kilter with anything we've done, both inside and outside the European Union. So. So I do withdraw this amendment today, but I'm not going to leave this untouched. When we come back to report.
Is it your lordships pleasure.
14:36
14:37
Speaker 12
-
Speaker 12
My Lords, I wish to move. Amendment 69 and 105. In the name of my noble friend Baroness Grender, to which I have added my name. Um. Amendment 69 and 105. Address for me the key issue with this bill. Whether the powers could be used to facilitate airport expansion, and if so, on what terms amendment 69 would require the Secretary of State to consult affected communities, complete an environmental impact assessment and a noise impact assessment before making any regulations that facilitate expansion.
Amendment 105 goes further and prohibits the use of powers in this bill for that purpose. Altogether, the communities most directly affected by airport expansion, whether those living under flight paths, those experiencing noise, air quality and traffic impacts, and those with the general disturbance from planes flying over quite some distance from airports. They all have consistently found themselves presented with a fait accompli decisions rather than meaningful consultation. Amendment 69 would, at a minimum, require that consultation, environmental assessment and noise assessment precedes any regulatory action that facilitates expansion.
That is not a high bar. It is basic good governance. And whilst I heard the noble Lord, the Minister, what he said to us in an earlier group, we believe this is very much needed. So it is clearly spelt out airport expansion and Heathrow in particular is one of the most contested infrastructure decisions this country faces. It has planning implications, climate implications and profound implications for communities living under flight paths. Amendment 110 from Lord Harper rightly asks for a published assessment of airspace slot and scheduling impacts before any third runway decision, and we think this is also an important point that he raises the central question for the noble Lord.
The minister is simple can he give this committee a clear and unambiguous assurance that nothing in this bill at all can be used to facilitate airport expansion decisions that have not been subject to full environmental scrutiny, proper community consultation that goes far further than the exercise that we discussed earlier, and meaningful parliamentary oversight. I look forward to his answer with interest. I, I did say at the beginning I was moving the amendments.
Amendment 105 goes further and prohibits the use of powers in this bill for that purpose. Altogether, the communities most directly affected by airport expansion, whether those living under flight paths, those experiencing noise, air quality and traffic impacts, and those with the general disturbance from planes flying over quite some distance from airports. They all have consistently found themselves presented with a fait accompli decisions rather than meaningful consultation. Amendment 69 would, at a minimum, require that consultation, environmental assessment and noise assessment precedes any regulatory action that facilitates expansion.
That is not a high bar. It is basic good governance. And whilst I heard the noble Lord, the Minister, what he said to us in an earlier group, we believe this is very much needed. So it is clearly spelt out airport expansion and Heathrow in particular is one of the most contested infrastructure decisions this country faces. It has planning implications, climate implications and profound implications for communities living under flight paths. Amendment 110 from Lord Harper rightly asks for a published assessment of airspace slot and scheduling impacts before any third runway decision, and we think this is also an important point that he raises the central question for the noble Lord.
The minister is simple can he give this committee a clear and unambiguous assurance that nothing in this bill at all can be used to facilitate airport expansion decisions that have not been subject to full environmental scrutiny, proper community consultation that goes far further than the exercise that we discussed earlier, and meaningful parliamentary oversight. I look forward to his answer with interest. I, I did say at the beginning I was moving the amendments.
14:37
12:00
Speaker 10
-
Speaker 10
But also just make 1 or 2 comments on the amendments that the noble lady, Lady Pigeon, has moved. So her First Amendment 69, actually seems to be perfectly sensible, requiring a consultation and so forth. The one I had more of an issue with is 105, because it seems to me if if. The processes that have been undertaken to determine airport expansion have been complied with, it seems to me not sensible to say. As a result, you can't use any of the powers in this act to facilitate that properly taken and properly consulted on decision.
So whilst her First Amendment, I think, is one that I didn't have an enormous objection to, I think the second one does go actually a little bit too far, if I may say so. So I'm sort of half agreeing with her and half not, which I think is an improvement on where where we were at last time. So, um, so I hope she takes that in the spirit, which it's intended. Um, now, um, my remarks on my own amendment may appear a little bit disjointed because I'm going to slightly amend them in flight, as it were, because for the benefit of the committee members.
May or may not be aware that whilst we've been debating this, the government, the Secretary of State has published the a written ministerial statement on the aviation framework, which is specifically to do with Heathrow expansion, and I should say, because I had amendments down today about Heathrow, I should thank the Minister publicly for his courtesy in. In drawing to my attention that the timing of the written statement would be during our our debate today. Um, and so there are some things I'm going to say that may perhaps have been I have I have been through the written statement, but it's quite extensive.
And so I've done it at speed. So it may be that I ask things that are covered in the written statement and more particularly, some of the attached documentation, which I haven't had a chance to study. Um, but it may perhaps this amendment give the minister, um, given that Lady Pigeon has talked about airport expansion, it may give the minister a helpful opportunity when he comes to, um, wind up this group of amendments, perhaps setting out for the committee's benefit, 1 or 2 of the key points that are in the Secretary's of Secretary of State's written statement, which I think all of those of us that are interested in aviation will perhaps be interested in so, so so the minister knows the purpose of of the amendment that I tabled.
It's drafted in the way it is, um, to make sure it was within the scope of the bill, the, the purpose of tabling it was really just to press the government a bit on the choice that it has made
So whilst her First Amendment, I think, is one that I didn't have an enormous objection to, I think the second one does go actually a little bit too far, if I may say so. So I'm sort of half agreeing with her and half not, which I think is an improvement on where where we were at last time. So, um, so I hope she takes that in the spirit, which it's intended. Um, now, um, my remarks on my own amendment may appear a little bit disjointed because I'm going to slightly amend them in flight, as it were, because for the benefit of the committee members.
May or may not be aware that whilst we've been debating this, the government, the Secretary of State has published the a written ministerial statement on the aviation framework, which is specifically to do with Heathrow expansion, and I should say, because I had amendments down today about Heathrow, I should thank the Minister publicly for his courtesy in. In drawing to my attention that the timing of the written statement would be during our our debate today. Um, and so there are some things I'm going to say that may perhaps have been I have I have been through the written statement, but it's quite extensive.
And so I've done it at speed. So it may be that I ask things that are covered in the written statement and more particularly, some of the attached documentation, which I haven't had a chance to study. Um, but it may perhaps this amendment give the minister, um, given that Lady Pigeon has talked about airport expansion, it may give the minister a helpful opportunity when he comes to, um, wind up this group of amendments, perhaps setting out for the committee's benefit, 1 or 2 of the key points that are in the Secretary's of Secretary of State's written statement, which I think all of those of us that are interested in aviation will perhaps be interested in so, so so the minister knows the purpose of of the amendment that I tabled.
It's drafted in the way it is, um, to make sure it was within the scope of the bill, the, the purpose of tabling it was really just to press the government a bit on the choice that it has made