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

Lord Moylan Excerpts

3rd reading
Monday 20th July 2026 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Finlay of Llandaff (CB)]

My Lords, I also thank the Minister, in particular for the exemplary way he has engaged with those of us who are Back-Benchers and on the Cross Benches over specific issues, and how he has facilitated moving forwards. If I may inform him, I have managed to secure a meeting with the CAA tomorrow morning, thanks to his intervention. I know that those who are disabled are also greatly relieved to know the seriousness with which he took the appalling situations in which they have often found themselves when travelling. I hope that he will continue, not only in his role but also in the way he has behaved towards all of us, because that personal contact has made it very easy to have very open discussions.

[Lord Moylan (Con)]

My Lords, this was a pretty dreadful Bill when it was introduced to your Lordships’ House, in terms of its conception but also its drafting. It leaves it in somewhat better shape, which is very considerably due to the fact that the Minister paid attention in Committee to the many amendments and proposals that were made, and came forward on Report with an astonishingly large number of amendments to change the Bill—all of which, it is fair to say, noble Lords felt responded to their concerns, and which they were willing to support. I thank him for that.

Also, as was just referred to by the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay of Llandaff, a large part of Committee was taken up with discussions of the treatment of disabled people in the course of flying. Amendments brought forward by the Minister characteristically represent an improvement in the approach that government will take to those issues in the future, for which I thank him.

I also thank his officials for their engagement and the Public Bill Office for its support in drafting the amendments we put forward. I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Grender, for her important contribution to the debate. I am sure I will have forgotten some, but I also thank my noble friends Lady Bray of Coln, Lord Grayling, Lady Foster of Oxton, Lord Harper, Lord Young of Cookham, Lord Reay, Lord Redwood, Lord Davies of Gower, Lord Holmes of Richmond, Lord Goschen and Lord Kirkhope of Harrogate for the experience and scrutiny they brought to our proceedings.

This is fundamentally an administrative Bill. As I say, it changes decision-making processes in the wake of our departure from the European Union. But we remain concerned that the Government have chosen to use the legislation to transfer not only those European Union powers but also powers that the Government themselves possessed to the Civil Aviation Authority, to be carried out in many cases—fewer now, as a result of the Minister’s amendments—with no external scrutiny, certainly no scrutiny from Parliament, that would indeed have occurred under the previous system. This is a retrograde step in terms of parliamentary scrutiny.

We are also concerned that the Government have said, quite explicitly, that they want to use their new freedoms in order to align more closely with the European Union. It is a very strange conception of Brexit that the Government seem to have developed. British aviation is a world-leading industry, and it succeeds because of innovation and competitiveness. It needs to have regulations made for it that are suitable for the success of British aviation.

There was also one amendment passed by your Lordships’ House on Report that did not have the Government’s favour. Naturally, one suspects, the Government will use the passage of the Bill through the other place to try to remove it, but I hope very much that they will not. I wish to thank the noble Lord, Lord Empey, in this regard. Although it was my amendment that passed, that was as a consequence of the numerical placement on the Marshalled List. He had an amendment achieving a similar effect, which related to the drop-off charges made at airports that have now become scandalously excessive. Families and other travellers are charged simply for trying to pick up or drop off somebody, very often with no feasible alternative for doing so. There may be a lack of public transport or it may be unsuitable for somebody to seek to travel to an airport other than by car, for example, because they are wheelchair-bound or have some other mobility impairment that prevents them travelling on ordinary public transport, even where it exists. The amendment that was passed calls on the Government to conduct a thorough review of airport drop-off charges. It is as simple as that; it requires nothing more legally. We will look at that at ping-pong—or perhaps we will never get to ping-pong because the Government will take the advice of your Lordships’ House and accept the amendment that was passed.

With that, I am sad to bring an end to my involvement with this Bill. I hope that it becomes a route—I will not make a silly pun—or path to better regulation of aviation. If it does, it will be very much because of the efforts of Members of your Lordships’ House.

[Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill (Lab)]

My Lords, no more puns. I have two brief points. First, the noble Lord just referred to the new Clause 7; we will see what happens in the other place on that.

I am particularly pleased that the noble Lord, Lord Empey, spoke this afternoon. I am quite clear that what I said to him when he raised the point about the Secretary of State taking action to support regional connectivity was not in fact correct. I am very happy to correct the record on that and am pleased to confirm that the Bill’s powers on airport slots and schedules would enable the Secretary of State to take action to support regional connectivity if that were considered necessary. The Government’s current assessment is that such intervention is not required, but I am happy to put the record straight for the noble Lord. I thank all noble Lords.

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

Lord Moylan Excerpts

Report stage
Monday 13th July 2026 Lords Chamber

Moved by

[Lord Moylan]

1: Before Clause 1, insert the following new Clause—
“Purpose(1) The purpose of this Act is to—(a) promote the international competitiveness of the United Kingdom aviation sector;(b) support economic growth in that sector;(c) protect the rights and interests of consumers of air transport and airport services.(2) The Secretary of State must, in taking any actions under the provisions of this Act, have regard to this purpose.”Member's explanatory statement
This amendment inserts a purpose clause into the Bill requiring the Secretary of State and the CAA to have regard to the promotion of the international competitiveness of the United Kingdom aviation sector and economic growth in that sector.

[Lord Moylan (Con)]

My Lords, this is what I refer to as, in essence, an administrative Bill, in that it does not make large changes to the way in which civil aviation operates but changes significantly the way in which decisions will be made in future about how civil aviation operates. It does that necessarily because many of the decisions that have been made in the past and until now have been carried out under European Union legislation. Since we happily left the European Union, a substitute for that decision-making must be found.

My concern about this Bill throughout Committee has been that the new system has, in many ways, been a terrible botch. One of the features of it has been that very large powers are being taken away, so to speak, from the European Union and given to the Civil Aviation Authority almost without supervision or ministerial oversight: they are, in other words, being transferred to unelected bureaucrats. It is as if the Government have been completely deaf to what we voted for when we voted to leave the European Union.

I will be fairly brief on Amendments 1 and 3, but a few words of introduction are important in this case. The background to them—and I have to say this frankly— is the catastrophic Government we have suffered from in the last two years. They have been so catastrophic that they have had to depose their own party leader and Prime Minister and go outside Parliament to seek a substitute, in order to reset the Government and try to recover from what has been a complete disaster. In that context, it seems quite wrong that the Government should be seeking our trust to take these powers, with almost no parliamentary scrutiny, to pass many of them to the Civil Aviation Authority with very little ministerial oversight, saying to Parliament, “You can trust us to get it right”. I am afraid the basis of that trust has gone.

That is why we have two amendments in this group, one of which, Amendment 1, seeks to give a purpose to the Bill and sets out what the guiding principles underlying the Bill should be: that competition and the economy are important. I know that Governments generally do not like purpose clauses, and I have to admit that, as I think most noble Lords know, even the Public Bill Office does not like them. However, I have reinforced and buttressed Amendment 1 with Amendment 3, which gives specific guidance to the Government on what they need to take into account when making decisions under Clause 1 to do with passenger protection. They focus very much on the opportunities that aviation gives us for economic growth and on the necessity, to that end, of competition and competitiveness in the sector.

It is astonishing that when one talks to members of the Government and asks, “What about the economy and competitiveness?”, they often look at one as if one were talking about something from Mars. They are all for growth, but when you say that the mechanics of growth involve such things as competitiveness and light-touch regulation, they wonder what you mean. It is as if the only route to growth is the expenditure of public money—money we have now, in fact, run out of.

The Minister has said, and I do not think it is a matter of controversy, that the aviation sector—indeed, like other transport sectors—is an important infrastructural base for economic growth and that we need the capacity to give the country the aviation services it requires. Therefore, requiring the Government to have regard to those factors and to avoid overregulation is reasonable guidance to them in putting this together. It must be said at the outset that the Minister has clearly listened carefully to many of the points made in Committee and has tabled a raft of amendments in response. Many of his amendments could have gone further, but they have come some way in the direction I and many other noble Lords, including the noble Baroness, Lady Grey-Thompson, have been arguing for, so I am grateful to him for that. However, he has not listened on this point, and it is perhaps time that he should. He still has a chance to redeem himself. I must say that if he fails to do so, I am very likely to test the opinion of the House on Amendment 3.

[Lord Harper (Con)]

My Lords, I will speak briefly in support of my noble friend Lord Moylan’s two amendments. I have some general remarks about them, and two specific points which are questions to the Minister.

The first point, which I will not labour at length since we dealt with it in Committee, is the focus of my noble friend’s Amendment 1: the importance of growing the aviation sector itself and making sure it is competitive. It is important to have that as a focus, because there are those—some inside your Lordships’ House and also those outside—who want to stymie and stifle the aviation sector, which would be a retrograde step. I should have done this at the beginning of my remarks, but at this point I declare my interest, as in the register, as the non-exec chair of RVL Aviation. I did that one or two moments too late but in the nick of time.

My second point is on my noble friend’s Amendment 3, which is about economic growth more widely and therefore links the importance of growing the aviation sector and its role in growing the economy. I want to put this point on the record because I suspect that a lot of the debate will be focused, rightly, on the impact of many rules on passengers. But it is worth remembering the very significant role that aviation plays in trade, and in not just the volume but the value of imports and exports to and from the United Kingdom. This is very significant. It is important to our overall competitiveness, particularly in high-value sectors, that aviation remains strong to promote the wider economy.

I have two specific questions to the Minister. He will remember that in Committee, we had a debate, prompted by an amendment I tabled, on the impact on airports following the revaluation and very significant rises—a multiple factor increase—in business rates. The Minister referenced the fact that a review is ongoing. I want to put on record the importance of this issue in the context of my noble friend’s two amendments, for this reason.

There has been some talk—which I recognise is only speculation at this point—from the man who will be Prime Minister next week that he favours an increase in business rates on what are loosely defined as out-of-town warehouses, large premises, in order to generate revenue for the Government and cut business rates for the high street. I ask the Minister to specifically make it clear that for this purpose—I am not going to go into the wider debate on business rates—airports should not be included in the category of large, out-of-town warehouse sites, and should not be facing a significant increase in business rates in order to pay for reductions on the high street. I ask the Minister to give whatever commitment he is able to at this stage about that, because that would be a retrograde step. The review that is taking place will, I hope, conclude that the very significant rise in business rates that has hit airports is good for neither the sector nor passengers and freight users, because those costs are just loaded on to the users. I hope the Minister can rule that out.

The second area is for me to reflect on the point that my noble friend Lord Moylan has made in both his amendments: the importance of economic growth. The Government have said on a number of occasions that economic growth is their number one priority. The problem with that assertion is that, since the general election, there has been almost no GDP growth per head. The economy has grown a little, but it has not kept pace with the rise in the population, so there has not really been any economic growth.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Minister of State, Department for Transport (Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill) (Lab)]

My Lords, before addressing these amendments, I thank all noble Lords for their continued contributions to the Bill. It is clear that we share the common goal of improving the aviation sector. The Government have carefully reflected on the arguments that have been put forward during the Bill’s passage. The amendments in my name respond to that constructive engagement and I hope that they will be welcomed by your Lordships.

I thank the noble Lord, Lord Moylan, for bringing Amendment 1 forward. We discussed in Committee how the Bill will promote economic growth. Having considered the arguments made then and, indeed, the speech made by the noble Lord, Lord Moylan, just now, and that of the noble Lord, Lord Redwood, and others, the Government’s position remains unchanged. I fully recognise the intention behind the amendment, which is to ensure that, alongside consumer protection, we would continue to support a competitive and growing aviation sector. Those are objectives that the Government strongly support. As I set out in Committee, growth and competitiveness are already central to the Government’s aviation agenda. Beyond this Bill, we are also taking forward airspace modernisation, supporting innovation through the Future of Flight programme, embedding a pro-growth approach across regulation and backing airport expansion where it can deliver economic benefits and meet planning and environmental requirements.

The amendment also seeks to protect the rights and interests of air passengers. On that point, the Government have listened carefully to concerns raised during the Bill’s passage and have brought forward amendments requiring the Secretary of State, while exercising the powers in Clause 1, to have due regard to strengthening air passenger rights and to principles relating to dignity, accessibility and support for disabled passengers and those with reduced mobility. We have done so because these considerations are directly relevant to the exercise of those powers.

I agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, that this issue is important and relevant to economic growth. However, I do not consider Amendment 1 necessary. Economic growth, investment and competitiveness are already important considerations in aviation policy and regulation, and these priorities are reflected in the Secretary of State’s engagement with the Civil Aviation Authority. On the authority, I note the view of the noble Baroness, Lady Foster of Oxton, from her extensive experience, that the CAA is an excellent regulator. The noble Baroness will, I hope, note my later amendments on the proposed delegations and controls when we get to that section of the Bill.

More fundamentally, Amendment 1 would require the Secretary of State to give statutory regard to a specific set of objectives when exercising powers under the Bill. Although those objectives are important, they are not the only relevant consideration. As I noted in Committee, this list does not include safety, which is fundamental to aviation and underpins the measures in the Bill. Nor does it capture the full range of factors that may need to be taken into account in particular circumstances. The Government’s view remains that it is better to preserve the flexibility to balance all relevant considerations rather than elevating a limited set of factors in legislation. I think that is also what the noble Baroness, Lady Grender, referred to, and I also note, as she did, that the Civil Aviation Authority is already subject to a statutory growth duty, which requires it to have regard to economic growth in the exercise of its regulatory functions.

Turning to Amendment 3, the Government agree that economic growth is a priority. However, consideration of growth is already embedded across government decision-making. Policy proposals are assessed for their impact on growth and departments are required through options, appraisal and impact assessment processes to demonstrate those effects before decisions are taken. I listened to the noble Lord, Lord Harper, carefully and he referred to the call for evidence about the valuation methodology, which will involve constructive engagement with the aviation industry ahead of the 2029 revaluation. I note his view that airports should not be considered as out-of-town warehouses, and we will see what happens with government in the future about that. For all those reasons, I am unable to support the amendments, and I respectfully ask the noble Lord not to press them.

[Lord Moylan (Con)]

My Lords, I am disappointed to hear the noble Lord’s response; I would largely be repeating myself if I were to explain in any detail why. I think the point made by the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, has been responded to by my noble friend Lord Harper. I will be second to none in admiring the valiance of the noble Baroness, Lady Grender, in this debate—I am with her entirely in that regard. None the less, I have no embarrassment in saying, even if we are the only party in your Lordships’ House saying it, that we are the party of economic growth. It is about time those words meant something. This amendment seeks to make sure that they do. I will test the opinion of the House at an appropriate moment. For the moment, I beg leave to withdraw Amendment 1.

Amendment 1 withdrawn.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Grey-Thompson (CB)]

My Lords, I will speak in support of Amendment 6, to which my name is attached, and the amendments in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton. As noble Baroness, Lady Kennedy, said, I chaired the Aviation Accessibility Task and Finish Group

Those who have allergies do not easily fit into the current system of support going through airports. While it is better understood in the outside world, I think that within the aviation industry there is still a very long way to go. This is a case which is literally life and death. As the noble Baroness, Lady Kennedy, said, we have to ensure that people are able to travel safely and easily. I very much look forward to the Minister’s explanation of government Amendment 19. As the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, said, to some extent it crosses into the next group.

Since our last debate, I have been contacted by several people who have been separated at the airport from the people they need around them. There was one instance where a young woman was separated from her family. She can communicate only by an iPad and needs family support to operate it. She was left in an absolutely terrifying situation, where she felt she had all her communication ability taken from her. We cannot continue to let that happen. It simply needs a little bit of empathy, some support and thinking differently about how we do this, because it is about getting people on and off aircraft as easily as possible.

As the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, said, we have to look at lived experience. Organisations will contribute towards the consultation, but we need to listen to some of the absolutely horrendous experiences that disabled people have; they do not complain because it is too difficult to do so—which fits into the next group. We do not get to hear about some of those stories and those cases, until we actually sit in your Lordships’ Chamber. I support the amendments in this group and look forward to the Minister’s response.

[Lord Moylan (Con)]

My Lords, if the House will indulge me, I will speak now rather than at the end of the debate, because I have amendments in this group and other noble Lords may wish to comment on them after I have spoken to them.

Before I come to those amendments, I will briefly refer to two others. First, I express my support for the amendment tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Kennedy. I am pleased that she seems to have reached an accommodation with the Government.

Secondly, Amendment 71, in the Minister’s name, removes the cap on compensation for loss of wheelchairs. However, it is important to note that, as I understand it, this applies only to domestic flights. The reason it has no international effect is that matters such as compensation are subject to an international agreement administered by the ICAO, which is based in Montreal, and would, I suspect, require all parties, or at least a majority of parties to the treaty, to make that amendment. I want to hear that the Government will make this a priority and a commitment on their part. Even though it might take 20 or 30 years to persuade everyone to change their mind, I want this to be a goal for the Government and for it to be on their agenda at every meeting of the ICAO until, gradually, things are chipped away at and they get somewhere in the course of time. Unless the Government start, they will never get there, so it would be very good to hear the Minister say that he is going to start.

I have three amendments in this group. The noble Baroness, Lady Grender, in saying that she could not support my Amendment 4, somewhat gave the impression that I had invented the target of reducing the costs of regulation on business by 25%. That is the Government’s target. The only purpose of my amendment is to oblige the Government to achieve their own target in the aviation sector. If the Government say they do not want to accept the amendment—I understand that Governments do not like having their hands tied—will they at least say that that is still their target? Will they say that it is the policy of Ministers to make that reduction in the aviation sector, that civil servants in the Department for Transport are under clear instructions to achieve and deliver that reduction in costs, and that the Civil Aviation Authority will have it as a primary objective? If they did, I would regard the purpose of my amendment as having been met. I hope the Minister will say that.

My other two amendments are technical. Amendment 21 would amend Amendment 19, in the Minister’s name, by deleting one word from it. The effect of Amendment 19 is to require consultation. It is a good amendment and I welcome it; it responds to the debate we had in Committee. It requires consultation by the Secretary of State when exercising his powers under Clause 1. However, it goes on to say that this obligation to consult relates only to matters in subsection (3), paragraphs (a) to (e). It is only those matters that arise under the subsection that are the subject of consultation.

Cunningly, I noticed that if you take out “concerning” and replace it with “not excluding” then you would bring the whole of Clause 1 into scope, allowing the Government to consult on other matters that are dealt with by the clause, not simply those mentioned here. That would be an improvement to the Minister’s amendment. It would not in any way damage or wreck the Minister’s amendment but would welcome and try to improve it. My amendment would allow the Government to keep their focus on the five items mentioned in Amendment 19 but would provide the scope and a statutory basis for consulting on the other matters as well. I hope the Minister will be willing to accept it.

My Amendment 26 might be regarded as slightly more controversial. It relates to government Amendment 24 and proposes the deletion of “in particular”. The noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, has an amendment in relation to this government amendment, which she has already spoken to. I will explain what I am trying to achieve. The amendment puts clear blue water between me and what the noble Baroness, Lady Grender, said in her opening remarks. The thrust of her argument is that there should be no regression from standards for consumer protection in the future—bear in mind that this whole argument is about consumer protection. That is a very bad principle.

This new clause effectively introduces what the noble Baroness is looking for, in that it is a non-regression statement on consumer standards. It then says, “In particular … disabled persons”, but it actually covers everybody, because disabled people are picked out only “in particular”. I do not think we should introduce a non-regression standard. It is simply the case that what counts as consumer protection changes over time and things that might be important to consumers now might be less important in the future. If we had non-regression of safety standards, we would still have men with red flags walking in front of motor cars, but things change and things are adapted. What matters to consumers also changes, and sometimes trade-offs are necessary.

The effect of removing “in particular” from the Government’s amendment would be to retain the non-regression clause in respect of disabled people—and having listened now and in Committee to the noble Baronesses, Lady Brinton and Lady Grey-Thompson, I have no hesitation about the rightness of doing that—while removing the effect of a non-regression clause in relation to those who are not disabled.

Although that means that I disagree with the noble Baroness, Lady Grender, that is what political difference is all about. We are in favour of a commercial and flexible approach to aviation, which is, after all, one of the few genuinely private and successful enterprises that we have in this country.

[Baroness Foster of Oxton (Con)]

My Lords, I have some comments and observations. This is a wide-ranging group, and very varied regulations are part of it. We must be careful not to mix them all together. The former EU regulation 261/2004 was about delays and compensation and regulation 1107/2006 was about passengers with reduced mobility. We appear to be having conversations here where it is all mixed into one, and that is obviously not how we can legislate.

These regulations are already in place, and I was very involved with them as a Member of the European Parliament. We put in place robust regulations over the last 20 years, and they have fared well. In my view, we have been let down not by the regulations themselves but by certain bodies in certain airports that are not being compliant in ensuring that they are fulfilling their obligations. We have heard examples of passengers with reduced mobility in wheelchairs being separated from carers or relatives. That is not allowed—it should not be happening.

I gently remind colleagues who were in Committee the other week that it was not, ironically, the airlines themselves that wanted to put in place the responsibility for passengers with reduced mobility. The European Commission took away the responsibility for passengers with reduced mobility to be looked after by the airlines. That was part of what you got in your ticket. That changed about 20 years ago, when it was put into the hands of the airports. As I said at the time, this will not be reversed now. It is a massive operation.

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Lord Moylan]

3: Clause 1, page 1, line 12, at end insert—
“(1A) When making regulations under subsection (1), the Secretary of State must have regard to promoting economic growth.(1B) In complying with subsection (1A), the Secretary of State must in particular consider the impact of the regulations on—(a) the competitiveness of air transport service providers and airport operators, (b) investment in the United Kingdom aviation sector, and(c) the burdens imposed on air transport service providers and airport operators in complying with the regulations.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment requires the Secretary of State to have regard to the desirability of promoting economic growth before making regulations under clause 1, with particular reference to the competitiveness of the aviation sector, investment, and the regulatory burden on businesses.

[Lord Moylan (Con)]

My Lords, as I indicated earlier, I am not at all satisfied with the Government’s response to my Amendment 3 and I wish to test the opinion of the House.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Foster of Oxton (Con)]

My Lords, we have raised the issue of enforcement. It may be that amendments are put in place and will, I hope, reinforce the legislation but, unless legislation is enforced—we have strong regulations already in statute—then we are just having a conversation that does not go anywhere. I therefore ask the Department for Transport and the Civil Aviation Authority to really put some pressure on airports to ensure that they are complying now—I emphasise “now”—with the regulations that are laid down to see whether we can at least put to bed these awful experiences that some of our passengers and fellow travellers are subject to.

[Lord Moylan (Con)]

My Lords, I start by paying tribute briefly to the Minister who, over the last 15 years or so that I have known him, has taken issues about disabled access on transport systems very seriously and made a personal commitment to them. I am delighted to say that the efforts made by noble Lords who suffer disabilities and the arguments that they made in Committee have found a resonance with him and, therefore, he has been able to come forward with amendments. They do not necessarily give everybody what they want—I suppose that is the nature of the way the legislative process works—but, generally speaking, they take this issue forward in practical terms. We support those amendments, as we indeed support the case that has been made by various noble Lords in the course of this debate.

[Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill (Lab)]

My Lords, I begin with the government amendments in this group and start with Amendment 24, tabled in my name, which establishes duties and principles to guide the future use of Clause 1. It is intended to ensure that the power is used, wherever possible, to strengthen air passenger rights and to address barriers faced by disabled passengers and those with reduced mobility. I thank the noble Baronesses, Lady Grender and Lady Brinton, and the noble Earl, Lord Russell, for their time and expertise to strengthen broader air passenger rights, which has helped lead to this amendment.

The amendment seeks to ensure that all air passengers are treated with dignity and have their individual physical and mental health needs respected, and that those with disabilities or reduced mobility are afforded access to air transport services equal or comparable to that afforded to other passengers. The examples that we have heard, in particular the powerful speech by the noble Lord, Lord Blencathra, set out exactly why we need to do better. I hear the noble Baroness, Lady Hoey, and I am sure that noble Lords agree that there are many individual members of staff who are good. However, we have also continuously heard that there is terrible, and unacceptable, inconsistency. That is clearly too frequent an experience.

I turn next to Amendment 25, tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, which would amend government Amendment 24. I understand the noble Baroness’s concerns, but I reassure her that the use of the word “desirability” does not allow the Secretary of State to shy away from their obligation to have due regard. I want it to be clear that Clause 1 is intended to strengthen and enhance air passenger rights, and that this duty reinforces that. It requires the Secretary of State to have due regard to improving passenger rights every time the power is used. However, the impact of policy changes must always be considered holistically—for example, safety, cost, deliverability and wider impacts. The word “desirability” ensures that the regard to strengthening air passenger rights is properly weighed alongside those other factors, so that the Government can act on the full picture.

The second government amendment in this group removes the compensation cap for damaged or lost mobility aids on domestic UK flights. Many wheelchairs and mobility aids are highly customised, specialist pieces of equipment that can cost many thousands of pounds, well in excess of the current Montreal convention liability limit. Removing the cap for domestic UK flights allows passengers to recover the full cost of repair or replacement. That reduces a barrier to travel, gives passengers confidence and gives carriers a far stronger incentive for careful handling.

I turn to the amendments tabled by noble Lords and begin with the amendment from the noble Baronesses, Lady Grey-Thompson and Lady Brinton, the noble Lord, Lord Blencathra, and my noble friend Lady Kennedy of Cradley, seeking minimum standards for passengers who need assistance. I recognise the intention behind the amendment and the important issues identified by the Aviation Accessibility Task and Finish Group, under the leadership of the noble Baroness, Lady Grey-Thompson. The Government greatly value that work and will ensure that it informs the next stage of policy development. As I noted previously, government Amendment 19 requires a statutory consultation on accessibility issues following Royal Assent. That consultation will consider all the matters raised in this amendment, alongside wider issues affecting disabled passengers and passengers with reduced mobility, with any necessary reforms capable of being taken forward under Clause 1.

On the amendment on complaints procedures, the Government agree that passengers, in particular disabled passengers and passengers with reduced mobility, should have clear and effective mechanisms for raising concerns when standards fall short. However, the detail needs careful consideration. Legislating now risks creating a provision that is either too vague to enforce or too rigid to work well. Government Amendment 19 therefore identifies complaints procedures as a specific area for consultation, with Clause 1 providing powers for any resulting reforms.

The noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, has also tabled an amendment seeking clarity on the timing of the consultation under government Amendment 19. As I said on the last group, we will begin that consultation as soon as possible after Royal Assent. The wording is designed not to delay the process but to ensure that the Secretary of State has sufficient time to consider the full range of accessibility issues properly before reporting on the outcome. As I said on the previous group, we will meet interested noble Lords two months after Royal Assent to show what has been done, what is being done and what will be done under my amendments.

I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, for Amendment 23, which concerns who should be consulted. She is right that the consultation must be informed by those with relevant expertise and lived experience. This Government are committed to the principle of “nothing about us without us”. The clause uses a non-exhaustive list so that the right people can be consulted on the right issues without requiring every listed group to be consulted on every matter. We will draw on expertise—including from the Disabled Persons Transport Advisory Committee—to identify who should be engaged at each stage.

In tabling the government amendments in this and the previous group, we recognise that aviation operates within an international framework of conventions, agreements and regulatory arrangements. There are limits to what any one country can achieve through domestic legislation alone. However, as we have heard, that is not an argument for inaction. Rather, it is an argument for leadership. These amendments are a significant step forward for United Kingdom passengers. We have long been a leader on accessibility and the Government will use their influence internationally to press the higher standards for disabled passengers. Specifically, through our work at the International Civil Aviation Organization and the European Civil Aviation Conference, we will use appropriate fora to champion the UK’s approach to accessibility, promote improvement of standards and seek international alignment.

We will take every opportunity available to raise these important issues at all relevant meetings, starting with those following Royal Assent, such as, but not limited to, the ECAC sub-group on the transport of persons with reduced mobility and the ICAO working group on accessibility in international civil aviation. By strengthening passenger rights at home and placing accessibility at the centre of our approach, the United Kingdom can continue to use its influence internationally and in its engagement with partners across the sector to advocate for higher standards of accessibility worldwide. I note the suggestion from the noble Lord, Lord Holmes of Richmond, to convene an international meeting. I will discuss with the Aviation Minister and the Secretary of State in the other place when we might do that.

The noble Lord, Lord Harper, asked about standards and enforcement. Both are needed—hence the powers in the Bill for enforcement by the Civil Aviation Authority, which cannot currently impose penalties. That is the reason for Clause 2.

Taken together, the government amendments relating to air passenger rights provide a significant and practical step forward for passengers, in particular disabled passengers and passengers with reduced mobility. I therefore hope that the House will support the government amendments in this group and that noble Lords are reassured that the issues raised in their amendments will be addressed through the consultation process and the powers provided by the Bill. On my own position, I echo the words of the noble Baroness, Lady Grey-Thompson, that I wish for everybody else only the experience that I have myself when I travel by air.

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Lord Moylan]

7: Clause 1, page 2, line 4, leave out “or CMA”
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment ensures the CAA will be the sole aviation regulator.

[Lord Moylan (Con)]

My Lords, I will speak to a number of amendments in this group that are in my name. Nearly all of them are technical in character. None of them would make an enormous difference to the Bill, except perhaps the last one. There is not the slightest prospect of the Minister accepting any of them and I do not intend to divide the House on any of them. Therefore, it would be of assistance to noble Lords if I go through them briefly so that they are aware of the good things that the Government are casting aside and taking no notice of.

Amendments 7 and 12 relate to the Government having decided that the relevant aspects of the aviation sector, in particular consumer protection, will be regulated by two bodies—the Civil Aviation Authority and the Competition and Markets Authority. The Government have no way of ensuring that they work together effectively, or who takes the lead on one rather than the other. None of this is vouchsafed to us, but the Minister will have a sort of balancing power at the top to sort it all out ad hoc. We made the argument in Committee that it would be sensible to have one regulator and that dual enforcement is never a good idea, especially where potential criminal penalties arise. We have tabled these amendments to put an end to it, but the Government are not going to pursue that line.

Amendment 15 raises a cause of concern for the many noble Lords who are worried that the only ideas the Department for Transport has continue to come from the European Union. It would put restrictions and limitations on the ability of the Government to use these powers simply to adopt European legislation and continue to be compliant with European legislation as it changes, which indeed they are expected to do, because I understand that the European Union is reviewing some of these aviation regulation areas at the moment. I was moved to table this because I was shocked when I picked up the final version of the impact assessment that the department prepared to go with the Bill—a document that is at least two inches thick, I would think. One has to get only to page 3 to discover that the Government are saying how wonderful it is that this legislation will give us the powers to continue to align with any changes the European Union makes in the future, because those powers expire this month, so we would not be able to align with the European Union, but now we are going to be able to.

We have to have a Civil Service and a Government who actually realise that we are not part of the European Union, that there is no prospect of our being part of the European Union for a very long time—indeed, if ever; I do not think it will be ever—and that we have to come up with some policies of our own that are good for this country. That is the substance of Amendment 15.

Amendments 16, 17 and 29 address some of the many instances in the Bill where the negative procedure for statutory instruments is preferred over the affirmative procedure. There are also two massive Henry VIII powers in the Bill—I will come to these separately in their appropriate cases. I am not going to press these further at this stage, because to give the Minister the credit that is due to him, he has tabled amendments, which in some cases will move negative procedures over to affirmative procedures. Indeed, in one case, he has actually signed my own amendment having an effect on that. So he has come some way to meet the criticism that I tabled in Committee, so I will not press the fact that he has not come all the way, although I would be delighted if he announced, even at this last moment, that he would change his mind and perhaps accept these amendments.

Amendment 32, finally, perhaps has a little more hope of being adopted—I do not know. Under the current approach of the Bill, the only way that someone subject to a civil aviation decision can appeal against it is to the High Court. The courts are chock-a-block with demands on them at the moment. It seemed sensible to seek to create an intermediate mediation stage where someone aggrieved by a particular decision against them would have the opportunity to have an independent mediator appointed to seek to resolve the issue, and an amendment was tabled to that effect.

In Committee, the Minister was very dismissive of the whole idea and obviously believes that the High Court has nothing much to do and will be able to take these things on and that is the appropriate place. But a lot of money and testosterone can be wasted going to the High Court, when some of these matters can be sorted out better through more of a mediative approach, and that was the purpose of the amendment.

Those are my amendments in this group. As with many of the amendments I tabled in Committee, they are all intended to improve the operation of the Bill and the operation of administrative law. With that, I beg to move.

[Lord Grayling (Con)]

My Lords, Amendments 13 and 14 are in my name. I declare again my interest as an advisor to AtkinsRéalis in the UK and Ireland.

I have a lot of sympathy with my noble friend on the Front Bench and his comments about various aspects of the Bill; in particular, his comments about the European Union. We should not be looking simply to match the European Union going forward. Indeed, I am very much in favour of having high standards which are not tied to the European Union. Where we can do better—and we should do better—without doing damage to the commercial viability of the UK industry, we should seriously consider taking that kind of step.

While mentioning briefly the international side, in the light of the easyJet takeover proposals, I urge the Minister and his colleagues in the department to use the most muscular approach on this. It would not normally be possible for a UK airline to buy a US one. We need to make sure that the rules and ownership are properly and rigorously enforced. It is urgent to do that.

My two amendments are designed simply to try to put some limitation on the powers that would reside with the Civil Aviation Authority as a result of the Bill. I always envisaged changes upon leaving the European Union as likely to lead to a degree of deregulation and a relaxation of restrictions. The Minister knows that I raised a number of concerns with him in Committee about the extent of the powers to enforce—to enter premises and to impose penalties. These two amendments are designed to put some limitations around the freedoms of the regulator to take enforcement action, so that it does so only in what are genuinely serious situations. I know the Minister is not going to accept these amendments, but I would ask him to give some thought to how this is applied in regulations. Of course, we need a regulator to have the ability to take serious action in a serious situation, but what we do not want is to create a situation where we have undue levels of enforcement on small matters in a way that is overly onerous on the commercial independence and freedom of businesses. We want common sense; these two amendments are designed to apply common sense, and I hope the Minister will be able to take that principle forward.

Finally, I will just comment on my noble friend Lord Young’s amendment, which I am sure he will be speaking to in a moment. Given the impact on the airlines of the failures, when they do happen, in the air traffic control system, I think he makes an important point that is worthy of consideration by the Government.

--- Later in debate ---

For the reasons I have stated, the Government are unable to support the amendments tabled by noble Lords. However, I hope the House will support the government amendments, which improve transparency and provide greater clarity in the operation of the enforcement framework. Finally, I note the comments of the noble Lord, Lord Grayling, on the position on easyJet. The Aviation Minister in the other place is currently considering that position.

[Lord Moylan (Con)]

My Lords, I am, of course, overcome with disappointment. The Minister has been disdainful of the many excellent amendments that have been advanced in this debate. I am not proposing to debate them further except to say, first, that he has waved his trump card in the shape of my noble friend Lord Harper at your Lordships’ House. From our point of view, it is rare, almost inconceivably rare, but none the less possible, that my noble friend can have made a mistake. In that context, if my noble friend Lord Young of Cookham chooses to divide the House, as he has intimated he would on this point, we will support him. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment 7 withdrawn.

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Lord Moylan]

33: After Clause 3, insert the following new Clause—
“Review of airport drop-off charges(1) The Secretary of State must, within six months of the day on which this Act is passed, conduct and publish a review of the impact of airport drop-off charges on users of airport services in the United Kingdom.(2) The Secretary of State must lay a copy of the review before both Houses of Parliament.(3) In this section, “drop-off charge” means any charge levied by an airport operator on a vehicle entering a terminal forecourt or designated kerbside area for the purpose of setting down one or more passengers.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment requires the Secretary of State to conduct and publish a review of the impact of airport drop-off charges on passengers.

[Lord Moylan (Con)]

My Lords, I shall endeavour to be brief. Nobody, I think, in your Lordships’ House can fail to have been affected by the growing scandal of rapacious drop-off charges being charged by airports for people who have to arrive—some choose to, but some have to arrive—at the airport by car, sometimes to drop off and sometimes to collect a passenger who might be a relative or a friend. These charges have got higher and higher. They are a burden that people are not expecting. Many passengers, particularly families, older passengers and disabled passengers, do not have a realistic alternative to being dropped off at the terminal, yet the policy direction appears to be to make that more expensive, and the airports are stepping up to it with great enthusiasm.

Only last month, the Department for Transport published A Strategic Vision for Transport to an Expanded Heathrow Airport. That is a non-statutory document to accompany the now-renamed Heathrow Expansion National Policy Statement, which was issued for consultation. The document’s purpose was to give us the Government’s picture, their strategic vision, of what transport would look like at an expanded Heathrow Airport. I have read it. I know very little about what transport is going to look like as a result of reading that document. It is very vague, and it contains no commitments, but there is one thing in it that is absolutely nailed on now even before we have a deliverable plan for Heathrow expansion. That is that there are going to be increased terminal drop-off charges or a fee to access Heathrow-owned roads. At the same time as motorists have been looking for relief from higher costs, including after His Majesty’s Opposition forced the Government to U-turn on their planned fuel duty rise, the Department for Transport is now openly floating higher terminal drop-off charges and road access fees for Heathrow.

This cuts against the Government’s stated concern for disabled passengers. The Government have gone some way, as I said earlier in this Bill, to improve protections for disabled passengers in aviation, but it is no good strengthening rights inside the airport while supporting surface access policies that make it harder and more expensive for disabled passengers or those assisting them to get to the terminal in the first place. Amendment 33 in my name—there is a similar amendment in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Empey, which I am sure he is going to speak to now—simply asks for a review of the impact of airport drop-off charges on airport users. That is the least that we could expect. I beg to move.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill (Lab)]

I am referring to choices in the method of access to the airports, rather than the choice of airport itself.

[Lord Moylan (Con)]

My Lords, I thought that was a deeply unsatisfactory answer that failed to address the amendment. The Minister said there was no case for restricting these charges in primary legislation. Who has proposed that? Nobody has proposed that. The noble Lord, Lord Empey, and I have asked for a survey, an examination or a report to be done on the effect of these drop-off charges. There is no proposal to restrict them. That was a deeply unsatisfactory answer, so I fear I will insist on testing the opinion of the House on my Amendment 33.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Brinton (LD)]

My Lords, this group addresses the most profound structural shift in this Bill: the delegation of aviation rule-making to the Civil Aviation Authority. We are pleased to see that Amendment 62 now carries the Minister’s name, alongside that of the noble Lord, Lord Moylan. This is a vital victory for parliamentary scrutiny. The amendment mandates the affirmative procedure for regulations, specifying the limits of the CAA’s new rule-making powers, ensuring that this House retains its right to debate and approve the scope of what is delegated.

We similarly welcome government Amendment 58, which requires ministerial directions to the CAA to be laid before Parliament. For too long, the single guiding mind of the aviation sector has operated one step removed from democratic oversight. However, we must go further to prevent the creation of an all-powerful and potentially unaccountable regulator. We support the spirit of Amendment 57 from the noble Lord, Lord Moylan, which would remove the CAA veto over the Secretary of State’s statement of priorities. It is a constitutional nonsense to suggest that a Minister must secure the agreement of the body they are intended to oversee before setting their strategic objectives.

We support government Amendment 56, which correctly identifies that the Secretary of State must retain responsibilities for matters of public interest, including environmental protection and the needs of disabled passengers.

Regarding technical safety, we offer our strong support for Amendments 34 and 37, from the noble Lord, Lord Empey, and the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay of Llandaff. The monitoring of aircraft cabin air for carbon monoxide and other toxins is not a luxury; it is a fundamental safety requirement. If we are to grant the CAA more agile powers to update safety rules, those powers must be used to address the very real concerns of flight crew and passengers regarding air quality.

Similarly, Amendment 66, from the noble Lord, Lord Empey, regarding the enforcement of flight time limitations, is essential to ensure that operational efficiency never comes at the cost of pilot fatigue or of public safety.

Let us all ensure that, as we delegate these powers, we do not defang the regulator or emasculate Parliament. We must fill this skeletal Bill with the furniture of transparent reporting and mandatory safety reviews. I urge the House to support these measures to ensure that the UK remains a safety-led aviation hub that respects both the expertise of the regulator and the sovereignty of this House.

[Lord Moylan (Con)]

My Lords, the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay of Llandaff, and the noble Lord, Lord Empey, raised important points that can only arouse the sympathy and interest of all Members of your Lordships’ House. Cabin air quality is crucial to safety. Without committing myself to the wording of either amendment, I do not think that this subject can be allowed to rest today. The Government will have to commit to come back to it in a credible and convincing way.

The noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, is correct in saying that this group is largely about administrative matters related to Clause 8. Although we have tended to focus so far, quite properly, on the consumer protection parts of the Bill, in Clauses 1 and 2, we are now coming to that part of the Bill where the Civil Aviation Authority is authorised to make rules. These rules were previously made either by statutory instrument or by means of European Union legislation. The complaint from the Department for Transport is that it does not have enough time to do the statutory instruments and that it is all too much, so could we not, by statute, give the power to the Civil Aviation Authority to make these rules for it. I am not making that up. That is actually the complaint that has been made: that there are too many statutory instruments, so the department wants to give them to the unelected bureaucrats, regulators and so on—especially as it is not receiving new regulations from the European Union any more, which would be a different matter.

Many of the amendments in this group are about that administrative process and trying to reverse some of the original draft of the Bill, giving these powers without any accountability to the Civil Aviation Authority. I thank the Minister for his letter on this and for engaging in the concerns that were raised in Committee on this point. I also welcome the fact that the Government have tabled amendments to give effect to the recommendations of the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee. In Committee we were clear that the Bill should set out the principles underlying the exceptions to delegated rule-making, and government Amendment 56 now seeks to do that.

Government Amendment 58 addresses an important scrutiny point by requiring directions for the CAA to be laid before Parliament. I am also grateful to the Minister for adding his name to my Amendment 62, which ensures that the Secretary of State’s power to define exceptions to the CAA’s rule-making powers is subject to the affirmative rather than the negative procedure.

I turn to Amendments 59 and 60. If the CAA is to make detailed aviation rules directly, industry must be able to find, understand and rely on the rules in force. The Bill says that the CAA may publish its rules. It really is not good enough to say that it may publish its rules; these amendments simply say that it must. It will not have to publish them in hard copy—they can be published on the internet—but even if the rulebook is very thick, which the noble Lord told us in Committee was the case, it must be possible to publish it and keep it up to date. Otherwise, how can anybody be sure that they are actually keeping the rules?

There is part of Clause 8 that really upsets me, and I am quite upset about it because I think it is a constitutional outrage. It was referred to by the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, and it is on page 12, where new Section 61F is being added to the existing legislation, the Civil Aviation Act 1982. It says, in relation to these new rule-making powers:

“The Secretary of State must issue a document that … sets out the Secretary of State’s priorities and objectives … and … deals with matters relating to the exercise of the functions”.


That is good; I am all in favour of it. The document, by the way, is going to contain guidance. It says quite clearly, in subsection (2), that it will contain guidance on consultation, for example, and

“guidance about how the CAA should interpret and apply the environmental principles”,

and so forth. I imagine that is statutory guidance. But it then goes on to say:

“The Secretary of State … may not issue the document without the agreement of the CAA to the contents of the document”.


I think this is absolutely unprecedented. In Committee, the Minister said it was a new way of working; it certainly is. He said it was more like a contract. I think this is very misleading.

It is perfectly possible for the department, or the Secretary of State, to enter into contractual-type arrangements with the Civil Aviation Authority. I have no objection if they do that. Contractual types of arrangements exist in various parts of public life. It might contain key performance indicators. It might contain all sorts of things; I am not going to attempt to enumerate them. It would say, “This is your task, this is what we expect from you, this is what you are going to do in exchange for the funding” and so on. That is a contract—I understand that—and it is not precluded by this. But overarching all that, there must be a power, always, for an accountable Minister to issue guidance to an arm’s-length body or executive agency, to issue binding statutory guidance, without having to seek its agreement to the contents of the guidance first. Otherwise, where does ministerial accountability come in?

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Grayling (Con)]

My Lords, I will speak very briefly. I raised the issue of consultation in Committee. The Minister gave me a very helpful response, but he very clearly said that, in a case where the Government took a decision, that approach would already have been subject to detailed consultation. That was only one particular approach. In a situation where there could be three or four different options for an airport, what is his view on the Government’s job in explaining why they have chosen one of the different options available?

That is where we get down to the basic principle in the amendment from the noble Baroness, Lady Grender: the Government cannot simply take a decision out of the blue without detailed explanation and without some degree of clarification to, and discussion with, the communities affected about why they have taken it out of maybe two or three options. I accept the Minister’s very helpful response to my comments in Committee, but can he now set out for us how the Government will approach a choice between numerous options? What approach will they take to consultation in that situation?

[Lord Moylan (Con)]

My Lords, some very important points have been made about consultation. I just want to be clear that I understand what points are being made. I believe these amendments are not about airport expansion. On airport expansion, I would say that, especially as it is subject to a process under planning law—namely, the development consent order—there will not be a shortage of consultation as a result of that development consultation order. Certainly, in the case of Heathrow, if it expands, the consultation will take place.

I think that the amendment that the noble Baroness, Lady Grender, put forward is not about expansion but about airspace modernisation. Although I would not want to commit myself to the wording of her amendment in particular, she has a point which the Government need to be quite clear about and they need to reckon what the difficulties are; that is, the reorganisation of flight paths will have winners and losers. It is not simply that flight paths might be moved from one corner, one area or one approach to another; part of the purpose of airspace modernisation is to concentrate flights, so there could be quite a lot of winners but some very bad losers as a result of this. The Government need to take people with them as they do this. There is a strong case for doing it, and we support modernisation, but the Government cannot leave their successor in a position where people have not been given a chance to be brought along.

My Amendment 39A in this group is about charges for air traffic and air navigation services in Clause 6. I drew attention in Committee to the sheer incoherence of the drafting of this clause. The Government have come forward with an amendment which improves it somewhat, but it slightly misses the point—it still leaves it saying something quite incoherent. I offer this only because I like to see properly drafted legislation. There is no politics in this; the Government should be doing their job properly in the first place. Clause 6(3)(c) says:

“Persons may be specified … if the services concerned are available for their use”—


note that phrase—

“or benefit, and it is immaterial whether or not the services are actually used or could be used by … them”.

I understand the part about it being immaterial whether they are used: “It is available for your use, but you did not use it; we’re still going to charge you”. That may be right or wrong, but that is what the law says. That is the situation. How can the services be available for their use, but they could not be used by them? You could still be charged for them even if they could not be used by you. How is that consistent with them being “available”? I do not understand it. I just think it is very poor drafting.

Anyway, I look forward to hearing what the Minister has to say. I am glad he has corrected the other part of it that was incoherent; we are getting somewhere slowly. Maybe he will come forward with some sensible amendments at Third Reading so that the Bill makes sense in some key areas.

[Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill (Lab)]

My Lords, the next group concerns airspace modernisation, consultation and charging. I begin by thanking the noble Baroness, Lady Grender, for retabling her amendment, and I have also heard the noble Lord, Lord Grayling, and the noble Baroness, Lady Bray, on this matter.

I have considered this carefully, but the Government’s position remains unchanged. The environmental assessment and consultation are, and will remain, fundamental parts of the airspace change process. Nothing in these powers removes or weakens existing requirements for thorough consultation or robust assessment of environmental and noise impacts.

Any procedure or policy the Civil Aviation Authority puts in place, or any decision it makes to change airspace, must be exercised in accordance with the duties set out under Section 70 of the Transport Act 2000. These require the Civil Aviation Authority to take account of the Secretary of State’s guidance on environmental objectives, as well as the interests of any person in relation to the use of airspace.

In practice, sponsors of an airspace change must undertake detailed assessments of potential impacts, including noise exposure and greenhouse gas emissions, and consult meaningfully the affected communities, airspace users and other relevant stakeholders. The CAA then scrutinises these assessments before any proposal can be approved. In response to the noble Lord, Lord Grayling, my understanding is that the CAA will bring forward only one proposal at a time.

--- Later in debate ---

I also reassure noble Lords that the Bill does not affect existing safeguards for charges. Under the Transport Act 2000, the Civil Aviation Authority is already subject to duties to consider relevant interests and promote efficiency when setting charges. Before charges are set, the CAA must consult affected parties, and those who are materially affected have a right of appeal. This established process will continue to apply in future. For these reasons, I believe that the Government’s existing Amendment 40 sufficiently clarifies the charging intent. I hope that noble Lords will support this and that the noble Lord will not press his amendment.

[Lord Moylan (Con)]

Before the Minister sits down, he has again misconceived the point. It is not that you can be charged for something that you do not use. He says that this is a well-established principle. I have already said that it might be rough justice, but if it is what the law says then it is what the law says. What he has to explain is how something can be available—it has to be available before there can be any charge at all—yet be something which the person being charged could not use. What does he understand by “available” in that case, bearing in mind that, unless it is available, there is no charge at all, as that is the first condition?

[Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill (Lab)]

I think I have explained that to the noble Lord. I certainly feel that I have.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Moylan (Con)]

My Lords, any debate on aviation is enriched by a contribution from my noble friend Lord Kirkhope of Harrogate. I am grateful to him for what he said.

The House benefited too from the speech by the noble Lord, Lord Barber of Ainsdale. I have some slight concerns about his amendment. I appreciate that there may be a crisis in the supply of pilots, but I would be very anxious if the Government were to become involved in workforce planning in this sector. I understand entirely that his amendment does not quite call for that, but the last part of it points in the general direction that the CAA should be taking an active role in this, and that would be a very bad thing. Aviation is a very successful part of our private economy, and it should be for the industry itself to take responsibility for recruiting and training the people it needs in order to operate. That is the first principle.

However, the noble Lord does an important service in bringing to the House’s attention the cliff edge that is allegedly being faced. I look forward to hearing what the Minister has to say.

[Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill (Lab)]

My Lords, I begin with Amendment 41. I thank the noble Lord, Lord Kirkhope of Harrogate, for this and for his kind remarks. I also heard the noble Viscount, Lord Goschen, and other noble Lords clearly on this subject.

General aviation is an important part of the UK’s aviation industry, covering a wide range of public service, commercial and recreational activities. As the noble Lord remarked, it plays an important role in introducing people to aviation and helping to develop the skills pipeline for future aviation careers.

Clause 6 seeks to provide the CAA 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 costs of providing those services can continue to be recovered fairly and proportionately, in line with the well-established “user pays” principle.

As the noble Lord will be aware, these costs are currently recovered primarily from commercial airlines, while general aviation is largely exempt. Any future changes would be subject to the CAA’s statutory consultation process, with affected parties retaining rights of appeal. The Civil Aviation Authority also 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 would and does naturally include considering impacts on the sustainability and growth of general aviation. Given those existing safeguards, the established charging process, and the fact that there are currently no plans to introduce new charges for general aviation users, I do not believe the amendment is necessary.

I turn to the amendment from my noble friend Lord Barber of Ainsdale, which would require the CAA to report on anonymised demographic trends among commercial pilot licence-holders. Demographic trends among skilled aviation personnel are a matter of interest to the industry, the Government and the Civil Aviation Authority.

The Civil Aviation Authority already collects demographic information on commercial pilots and other skilled personnel. This supports robust regulatory decision-making, enables the CAA to identify relevant trends and allows it to publish data on licence-holders where it considers that useful. Indeed, the CAA has published annual data on different categories of licensed pilots, including commercial pilots, broken down by age and sex, since 1994.

The proposed requirement to publish such statistics and analysis with a particular frequency could impose additional costs on the CAA. These would have to be met from the CAA’s scheme of charges and thus would be a burden on the aviation sector. For those reasons, I consider the amendment unnecessary and ask my noble friend not to press it.

More broadly, I reassure the noble Lord, as well as my noble friends Lord Barber of Ainsdale and Lord Tunnicliffe, of the importance that the Government place on maintaining a robust pipeline of flight crew, particularly pilots. The department is addressing workforce challenges through targeted programmes, such as Generation Aviation, and through evidence-based assessments of skills needs. The department will shortly commission a skills gap analysis across all aviation professions as a follow-up to analysis that was conducted in 2023. This will consider factors including retirements and sector growth, helping to identify emerging workforce pressures at an early stage.

In response to the noble Lord, Lord Grayling, the Government recognise and value the important role aerodromes play in their local communities. That is why the National Planning Policy Framework ensures that planning authorities consider their economic, leisure, training and emergency service roles when making planning decisions about them.

I thank noble Lords for their engagement on this matter and I trust that, as a result, they feel reassured. I ask the noble Lord to withdraw the amendment.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Grender (LD)]

My Lords, I turn first to Amendments 42 to 44. Although we understand the desire for commercial certainty, slot allocation is a strategic lever for regional connectivity, as described by the noble Lord, Lord Empey, and for national health. We strongly support his Amendment 46. Hub airports must provide adequate access for regional destinations. Regional routes must not be casualties of best-profit models.

On transparency, we support Amendments 47 and 48, which would mandate formal consultation and parliamentary statements before reforming the slot regime. As we have talked about in the past, Parliament and the public deserve to see evidence regarding impacts on competition and consumers before the rules of the game are fundamentally altered.

Procedurally, we support Amendments 52 and 53. All regulations under new Section 34A should be subject to the affirmative procedure, in our view. We welcome government Amendments 45 and 49, in particular, as referenced by the noble Lord, Lord Grayling, the removal of imprisonment for slot offences, which we see as a vital move toward proportionality. We welcome the Minister’s change on this.

[Lord Moylan (Con)]

My Lords, I have two amendments in this group, and I am grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Grender, for saying that she would support them. Both would change the making of regulations from the use of the negative procedure to the affirmative procedure. I shall not say anything more about them.

Both my noble friend Lord Grayling and the noble Lord, Lord Empey, have made very important points. I have great sympathy with my noble friend, who is trying to ensure that the Government interfere as little as possible with the allocation of slots. I equally understand, and I do not think there is a tension with, what the noble Lord, Lord Empey, says about the importance of maintaining regional connectivity. In fact, as I recall, not that long ago the Minister was the tsar of regional connectivity and wrote a very important report about it for the Government, so I look forward to hearing what he has to say, drawing on his experience and knowledge of the subject.

[Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill (Lab)]

My Lords, I am grateful to noble Lords for these amendments and for the thoughtful debate we have had on the slots regime. I will deal with the amendments in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Grayling, before turning to those from the noble Lords, Lord Empey and Lord Moylan.

The amendments in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Grayling, seek to limit intervention on slot allocation to specified circumstances. I certainly understand the intention behind the amendments but we believe that they would unduly constrain the flexibility that the Bill is designed to provide. The airport slots regime operates in a complex and rapidly changing environment, and future circumstances cannot be anticipated. Limiting intervention to a prescribed set of scenarios could impede timely and effective action in the public interest, particularly in exceptional and unforeseen circumstances. The Government therefore consider it preferable to retain a sufficiently flexible regulation-making power, subject to the appropriate parliamentary scrutiny of any regulations made under it.

Amendment 47 would require statutory consultation before any regulations on slots are made. The Government recognise the importance of proper engagement before changes are made to the slots regime. I commit that, where new policy is developed under this power, there will be appropriate consultation, including with industry and, where relevant, communities. However, it would not be appropriate to place an inflexible statutory consultation requirement in the Bill. This power may need to be used in response to urgent disruption in the aviation sector, as we saw during the pandemic. In those circumstances, the Government must be able to act swiftly and proportionately.

Amendment 48 seeks to require consultation, transparency and regard to commercial allocation for the slots regime. The Government do not believe that this amendment is necessary. A core principle of the slot allocation regime is that slots are allocated by an independent co-ordinator. In the UK, this role is carried out by Airport Coordination Ltd. This principle is reflected in global guidelines, which require co-ordinators to act independently so that scarce airport capacity is allocated fairly, neutrally and without bias towards any airline, airport or government. That independence helps prevent conflicts of interest, protects new entrants and maintains confidence in a transparent global system.

Amendment 50 questions whether criminal offences are needed under the slot allocation regime. I do not believe that this amendment is necessary, as the Government have tabled an amendment to remove the power for any amended slots regime to include provision for new criminal offences. However, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Grayling, for prompting a debate on this matter.

I turn to Amendments 45 and 49, tabled in my name. These amendments provide greater clarity and place a clear limit on the regulation-making power. In particular, they remove any ability for future regulations to create new criminal offences. At the same time, they preserve the effective operation of the existing slot allocation regime and make it clear that, where the existing regulations are restated, any offence already contained in those regulations may also be restated. This strikes an appropriate balance. It avoids conferring an unnecessarily broad power to create new criminal offences, while ensuring that restatement of the current regime does not inadvertently remove or undermine existing enforcement mechanisms. The amendments therefore support legal certainty, maintain continuity in the regulation of airport slot allocation and respond proportionately to concerns about the scope of the delegated powers on slots. For these reasons, I hope the noble Lord, Lord Grayling, will not press his amendments, and that he and other noble Lords will support my amendments.

The amendment from the noble Lord, Lord Empey, seeks to require that

“adequate slots at hub airports are allocated to flights from regional airports in the United Kingdom”.

The Government recognise the importance of strong regional connectivity and are committed to ensuring that people and businesses across the country benefit from effective air links, including access to major hub airports. However, the slot allocation regime gives airlines rights to equivalent slots in future seasons where usage requirements are met. This amendment could therefore require the reallocation of slots currently held by incumbent operators, raising legal and practical concerns. Of course, the slot regime applies only where capacity is constrained.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Grender (LD)]

My Lords, we are on the home stretch, and Amendments 51 and 63 are in my name. Throughout these proceedings, the Minister has offered various reassurances from the Dispatch Box that the Bill is not intended to be a vehicle for airport expansion, either directly or indirectly. We take those words in good faith, particularly from him, but, as I have argued previously, faith is rarely the same as an absolute guarantee. For the communities who live daily with the noise and emissions of a flight path, verbal comfort is an insufficient shield against the vast, unscrutinised delegated powers contained in this legislation.

Amendment 51 addresses the technical reality of Clause 7 regarding airport slots. While the Government maintain that slot co-ordination itself cannot increase capacity, it is undeniable that slots are the strategic levers that manage how expanded capacity is utilised. If the Government proceed with their publicly stated ambition for a third runway at Heathrow by 2035, the regulatory framework we build today will be the one that governs those new movements. We cannot allow the rules of the game for slot allocation to be rewritten by secondary legislation without a statutory requirement for community consultation and mandatory environmental and noise impact assessments. The Minister points to the forthcoming review of the airports national policy statement—ANPS—as the proper venue for such scrutiny, but scrutiny of a statement is a far cry from a legal duty in the Bill. Without these safeguards, a future Minister could quietly facilitate expansion through the back door of delegated slot regulations without ever returning to this House for a discrete policy debate.

Amendment 63 provides the ultimate safety catch. It specifies:

“No power in this Act may be used for the purposes of, or in connection with, the facilitation of airport expansion”.


This is a necessary boundary, because the Bill’s reach is so broad, touching everything from airspace redesign to the CAA’s new rule-making functions. If expansion is truly not the intent of the Bill, the Government should have no hesitation in accepting this new clause that makes the limitation explicit and enforceable. Indeed, it should be welcomed as a useful and helpful contribution.

The residents overflown deserve the certainty that can come only from primary statute. We must ensure that the redesign of our skies and the reform of our airports are anchored in democratic consent and environmental transparency, not left to the administrative discretion of an unelected regulator or the temporary reassurances of a Minister. I therefore look forward to hearing the Minister’s response to these two amendments and I beg to move Amendment 51.

[Lord Moylan (Con)]

My Lords, the noble Baroness makes some important points, and I look forward to hearing what the Minister has to say in reply.

[Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill (Lab)]

My Lords, I thank the noble Baronesses, Lady Grender and Lady Jones of Moulsecoomb, for their amendments on airport expansion. I addressed the relationship between the Bill and airport expansion in Grand Committee. Having considered the arguments put forward then, the Government’s position remains unchanged.

This Bill is concerned with aviation consumer protection and the aviation regulatory framework; it is not a Bill about airport expansion. The measures in the Bill are needed regardless of whether any airport expansion proposal comes forward and regardless of the outcome of any such proposal. The Government are supportive of airport expansion where it can deliver economic and connectivity benefits and meet the relevant environmental and planning requirements. However, decisions on airport expansion are taken through separate planning processes, not through this Bill.

Indeed, during Committee, the Government published the draft Heathrow expansion national policy statement for consultation. This underlines the fact that airport expansion proposals are considered through dedicated planning processes, with their own consultation, scrutiny and parliamentary oversight. The Bill does not alter those processes or predetermine their outcome.

The Government are concerned about the practical effect of Amendment 63. Its scope is not limited to Heathrow or to any specific airport expansion proposal. By preventing powers being used “in connection with” the facilitation of expansion, it could create uncertainty around routine regulatory functions that are not themselves about approving airport expansion. For example, slots regulation does not create airport capacity; it manages capacity once it has been approved through the planning process. However, the amendment could potentially call into question the use of such powers where they relate to approved airport expansion.

Regarding the consultation requirements on slots regulations put forward in Amendment 51, the Government are committed to meaningful community consultation and robust environmental and noise assessment before any airport expansion proceeds. These requirements are already addressed through the statutory planning process.

As I have said, slot regulations do not determine whether airport expansion takes place. The Bill simply ensures that, where necessary, slot regulations can be updated to make effective use of new capacity at co-ordinated airports. The amendment would therefore add little, as consultation and assessment on airport expansion already take place through the planning system before slot allocation becomes relevant. I therefore ask the noble Baroness to withdraw her amendment.

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Lord Moylan]

62: Clause 8, page 14, line 31, leave out “negative” and insert “affirmative”
Member's explanatory statement
This amendment changes the power in section 61A(7) of the Civil Aviation Act 1982 to an affirmative procedure, in the light of the recommendations from the DPPRC.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Foster of Oxton (Con)]

My Lords, I support this amendment from the noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, co-signed by the noble Lord, Lord Davies of Gower. We have had discussions on this over the last couple of years.

When I was a member of the European Parliament, I was a rapporteur on GNSS—global navigation satellite systems. That was key when we were looking at how we were covering airspace and airports, et cetera. Switching off EGNOS when we left the European Union affected somewhere in the region of 27 airfields around the United Kingdom, including areas such as the Highlands and Islands, and the Scilly Isles, not just where fixed-wing aircraft go but where helicopters fly in. Therefore, it has reduced the landing limits—for landing and take-off—and the operational aspect, not just for passengers but when they are taking in goods or freight. It is an extremely important issue.

Under the last Government and this one, we have not got very far on this. I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, that we need to seriously look at this and reintroduce something like EGNOS, because it is important for the United Kingdom. To have done this and then just left it has not been helpful at all. I certainly support what the noble Lord said and I hope that the Minister will seriously look at this again, because we need to reinstate this system.

[Lord Moylan (Con)]

My Lords, I have listened carefully to the debate. We do not support the amendment.

[Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill (Lab)]

I thank my noble friend Lord Berkeley and the noble Lord, Lord Davies of Gower, for this amendment. The Government are actively reviewing the case for access to the European geostationary navigation overlay service, or EGNOS. This includes engagement with organisations that have been affected by the loss of the service, as well as those who could benefit from it in the future. I noted in Committee the importance of the service to connectivity; for example, for outlying islands and throughout all seasons of the year.

The output of the current work is expected later this year, but any move to rejoin EGNOS would in any case require agreement with the European Union. It would not be appropriate to pre-empt that review by accepting this amendment. For these reasons, I am unable to accept it. I hope that my noble friend will withdraw it.

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Lord Moylan]

70: Leave out Clause 10
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment deletes a Henry VIII Clause.

[Lord Moylan (Con)]

My Lords, very briefly, or perhaps at length, Amendment 70 would remove a Henry VIII power that allows the Government to rewrite primary legislation. It would do so on the grounds that the Government—or the department—have said in their memorandum to the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee that they have identified all the legislation that is affected by this Bill. Therefore, they do not need a Henry VIII power to make amendments to Bills that may yet appear, because they have already identified all the Bills. Indeed, I must say, they have not just identified them but made the corresponding adjustments to ensure that this Bill is in conformity with existing legislation, or that amendments are made to it through this process.

The power is entirely redundant. It is also offensive in general to your Lordships’ House that Henry VIII powers should exist. The Minister has been so good about accepting, at least in part, many of my suggestions in Committee and today on Report. However, it would be the cherry on the cake and would seal his reputation with all Benches in this House if just at this last minute, before we conclude, he were to rise to his feet and simply say that he accepts the amendment. I beg to move.

[Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill (Lab)]

How disappointed the noble Lord, Lord Moylan, is going to be. Without Clause 10, any amendment to existing legislation which is consequential to this Bill, however minor or technical, would require further primary legislation. That would be an unnecessary and disproportionate use of parliamentary time and that of your Lordships’ House. This clause is needed to ensure that the statute book appropriately reflects the changes made by this Bill and to avoid any potential inconsistencies following the Bill’s enactment.

Powers of this nature are a well-established feature of legislation. They ensure that the statute book continues to operate coherently once Parliament has enacted new legislation. This clause is drafted no more broadly than is necessary. I reassure the noble Lord, Lord Moylan, that the clause is both necessary and appropriately limited. It cannot be used to make substantive policy changes or revisit decisions taken by Parliament in the Bill. Where it is used to amend or repeal primary legislation, regulations are subject to the affirmative procedure, ensuring scrutiny by both Houses. For those reasons, the Government remain satisfied that Clause 10 strikes the right balance between ensuring a functioning statute book and providing appropriate parliamentary oversight where primary legislation is affected. I therefore invite the noble Lord to withdraw his amendment.

[Lord Moylan (Con)]

My Lords, you can always tell whether the Minister is speaking in his own voice or merely as a tool of departmental officials. I will leave it to noble Lords to decide which category that speech fell into. For the moment at least, I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.

Amendment 70 withdrawn.

Maritime and Coastguard Agency

Lord Moylan Excerpts

Wednesday 8th July 2026 Lords Chamber

[Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill (Lab)]

I am not sure that I am as grateful to my noble kinsman as he is to me—but, as usual, I will answer his questions. This change has not taken place yet; it is due to take place in September. There is time for my colleague, the Maritime Minister in the other place, to listen and reflect. I have talked to him three times today and I will talk to him again after this Question. He will reflect deeply on what he has heard and what needs to be done.

[Lord Moylan (Con)]

My Lords, the staff survey on which the Maritime and Coastguard Agency has relied in making its case has been reported in the press as having been misrepresented by the agency to Ministers and, consequently, by Ministers to Parliament. In that light, do the Government still have confidence in the chief executive of the Maritime and Coastguard Agency? Do they continue to rely on that staff survey?

[Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill (Lab)]

I have two things to say. First, in the course of the Maritime Minister reflecting on what he has heard, he will reflect on the accuracy and veracity of the information he has been given. Therefore, it is far too early to say what the consequence of that might be. Secondly, he has asked his officials to tell him the data that can be legitimately released so that Members of Parliament in the other place and Peers in this Chamber can hold the Government to account.

Railways Bill

Lord Moylan Excerpts

2nd reading
Tuesday 7th July 2026 Lords Chamber

[Lord Moylan (Con)]

My Lords, I start by associating myself with the remarks made by noble Lords, particularly the Minister, concerning the doleful anniversary we are marking today of the attacks on London’s transport 21 years ago. I also congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Wilson of Dinton, on his valedictory speech and his service to your Lordships’ House over so many years as well as his broader public service. I thank all noble Lords who have contributed to this wide-ranging debate. I do not propose in this winding-up speech to respond to each of them individually, but it is worth saying that I was very touched, as I think all of us were, by the remarks made by our noble colleagues who have been affected by the very poor service that the railways often give to those who are in wheelchairs or disabled in other ways.

I thank the Minister for the way he introduced the Bill. Personally, I would be delighted—I am sure your Lordships’ House will understand my position—if Mr Burnham were to replace the Minister on the Front Bench in speaking for transport, but I entirely understand why that is not a widespread opinion across the House.

I will start with a point of agreement. The existing model of privatisation, despite having been profoundly successful and transformative over 20 or 30 years, is not fit for purpose currently, because it depended on very high volumes of passengers. During the pandemic, those volumes collapsed, and they have not recovered since. In current or indeed foreseeable circumstances, it is not possible to maintain the financial model on which privatisation was based. I will grant that point to the Minister from the outset, as I did when we discussed the previous railways Bill that he introduced. Under the existing privatisation scheme, the transfer of fares risk to train operating companies that are not able to bear it in a crisis was a flaw. Although it appeared to work for a very long time, that was, as I said, because the railways were doing very well in terms of passenger demand, but it is not capable of being sustained now.

A degree of reform is needed, and it is worth congratulating the previous Government and my noble friend Lord Grayling on recognising a need for reform and setting it in hand. So we had the Williams review, which recommended maintaining private sector involvement but having the operations conducted on what is often referred to as a concession basis. That is the basis used for the Docklands Light Railway, the Elizabeth line, the London Overground, and buses in London and Greater Manchester. On a concession basis, the fares risk is retained by the franchiser; otherwise, it operates in a very similar manner to what we have at the moment. Nobody recommended going back to British Rail, but that is what this Bill gives us.

At the heart of the Government’s argument is the claim that managing the track and train together is more efficient than any alternative. However, my noble friend Lord Young of Cookham—I was not aware of his speech in advance—simply tore that argument to pieces, with complete forensic acuity, in explaining that what is regarded as fragmentation by the Minister is a specialisation that works in so many other areas of our lives. It is a completely ideological position—an unevidenced ideological bet—that the Government are taking on a particular model that has been tried in the past and failed, but they believe that this time somehow it will work again. The Minister needs to explain why the European Union has moved in the opposite direction. He needs to explain why train services are getting better with private competition on the European continent, not getting worse. He needs to tell us what would happen to this Bill if we rejoined the European Union. It would not simply be the detail that would need to change; the whole structure would collapse.

Let me move to the detail. The first question that comes up is devolution. These are the words of Andy Burnham in giving evidence to the Public Bill Committee in the other place:

“We want the right to specify timetables … Rather than a right to request, the onus should be the other way around; there should be the right to refuse”.—[Official Report, Commons, Public Bill Committee, 20/1/26; col. 78.]


He also said:

“From our point of view, we would want … joint decision making”.—[Official Report, Commons, Public Bill Committee, 20/1/26; col. 86.]


Do the Government still adhere to the principles in this Bill on devolution, given that that is what the incoming Prime Minister said just a little while ago?

And he is not alone. The Mayor of London—hardly a person I would expect to be quoting favourably—has said something very similar. He said that, as drafted, the Bill would give GBR extensive control over network access for both GBR and non-GBR operators; the difference between the Mayor of London and the Mayor of Greater Manchester, of course, is that the Mayor of London actually runs passenger rail services. He went on to say that there is no sufficient safeguard for devolved or open access services. So it is not simply a right-wing fantasy that express services might be given priority over local services. I ask the Minister plainly: will the Government now concede that Clause 5 must become a genuine right to devolution, or is the Minister going to come back to the Dispatch Box within months explaining why the Government have changed their position?

On the ORR, in effect, the Bill discards years of economic regulatory expertise that the ORR has built up on track access and charging decisions, handing that role instead to GBR for it to be judge and jury in its own operations. Where the ORR can still act under the Bill, its powers are illusory. It may quash a decision, but that appears to me no more than asking GBR to reconsider, with substitution of the ORR’s own judgment reserved for cases of legal error—a very high threshold and a very difficult bar to meet.

That brings us to understanding the policies that underlie the Bill. Five of the documents that are most central to how the Bill will work in practice have all, we are told, been pushed back to spring 2027. The rumour is that we are not going to have Committee on the Bill until October at the earliest—but even that is not good enough. It will not be spring 2027. We still will not have the documents we need. The ORR’s consultation on its own appeals function—the very process that freight and open access operators will depend on to challenge GBR—is not due until spring 2027. The retail code of practice, which was brought up by my noble friend Lady Harding of Winscombe and the noble Lord, Lord Dixon of Jericho, among others, is not due to be published until spring 2027. GBR’s own access and use policy—the document that is meant to stop it favouring its own services over freight and other users—will not appear until spring 2027. The long-term rail strategy will also not be out until spring 2027. So I ask the Minister: how are we meant to give the Bill serious and detailed scrutiny when so many of the documents are still missing?

Let us turn to freight in that case. I am happy to accept the Minister’s personal commitment to the role of rail freight and to increasing it, but there is a clear risk that freight will be deprioritised within Great British Railways—particularly given the network capacity constraints and GBR’s control of both infrastructure and passenger services.

We come to open access. The passenger-focused, innovative railway that the Government promise from GBR already exists. Lumo and Hull Trains scored 90% and 94% respectively for overall satisfaction in Transport Focus’s most recent survey, outperforming most of the contracted network, and they have delivered it through competitive fares and genuine value for money, not through a single national monopoly. Yet this is the sector now being asked to withhold investment in the railways because a Bill built around GBR’s vertical integration signals precisely the animosity towards open access enterprise that these operators have warned against throughout its passage. Of course, access charges can be set as high as GBR decides. It is a matter for GBR; there is no cap. Has the Minister costed the cost to the country of the loss of private investment from open access that this uncertainty is already producing?

That brings us to the passenger. Passenger numbers have gone up since privatisation, as journeys have roughly doubled over that time. The Government’s answer to any problems that passengers have is a new passenger watchdog expanded out of Transport Focus. It is going to cost a large amount of money to run, but what does the passenger get for this expense? It gets a watchdog with no enforcement powers of its own, because enforcement stays with the ORR on referral at the ORR’s discretion. What precisely is the watchdog for if it cannot make GBR do anything?

Turning to industrial relations, even the noble Lord, Lord Doyle, admitted that this is an area that needs proper attention. This Bill is a gift to the trades unions —one almost detects their hand in the drafting of it. The Government have removed in other legislation the 40% support threshold for strike ballots in important public services, including transport. They have scrapped the 50% turnout threshold as well, handing trades unions considerably greater latitude to shut down passenger services at will. But still there is no requirement that pay rises be linked to productivity. Indeed, the RMT’s own Network Rail settlement, which the union openly celebrated, secured a 3.8% RPI-linked rise with explicitly no efficiency or productivity conditions attached. The RMT has said that it now expects similar deals from the train operating companies. I have asked the Government twice at the Dispatch Box whether pay awards under GBR will be linked to productivity and twice received no answer. Will the Minister respond today? There is a further question that the Government cannot dodge indefinitely. The RMT has threatened national strikes, capable of shutting down the network entirely. Will GBR bring about the standardisation of terms and conditions as the sole employer? If it is going to do so, on what terms, at what cost and in exchange for what productivity benefits?

I come to the GBR website and app, mentioned by my noble friend Lady Harding of Winscombe and the noble Lord, Lord Dixon of Jericho. This is a solution in search of a problem. We already have a range of innovative retailers, and passengers are perfectly well served by them. Competition has built Britain a world-class rail retail sector, with passengers the primary beneficiaries. I have asked the Minister several times now in Written Questions how much the Government are spending on the GBR website and app but have not been told. Can the Minister answer today?

GBR will compete in a retail market that it also controls, having simultaneously taken over the industry management functions that are currently held by the Rail Delivery Group, including licensing retailers and managing access to data—that is an unprecedented structural conflict of interest, with GBR’s own retailer embedded in its operational business. There is no requirement for independent governance or accounting separation, and no safeguard against public funding cross-subsidising it against competition. When the Minister was Commissioner of Transport for London, under the wise guidance of Boris Johnson, all the TfL journey and fares data became open free to app developers. That was of great benefit to passengers, and we see the apps on our phones. Is he willing to make all of GBR’s fares and journey data, without restriction, open to app developers? Is that something that he might be willing to consider?

I conclude as I started, by trying to find a point of agreement. I concede that there are certain aspects of the railway where a single controlling mind is beneficial—for example, the timetabling or, potentially, the management, improvement and expansion of the infrastructure. However, there is no logic in the single controlling mind also being the largest operator of passenger services. It is that decision to make the single controlling mind also the largest but not the sole operator of passenger services that sets up all the contradictions and conflicts in this Bill which will keep us so busy in Committee.

Drink-Driving

Lord Moylan Excerpts

Wednesday 1st July 2026 Lords Chamber

[Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill (Lab)]

I am sure that our hearts go out to my noble friend and to many other people like him who have suffered this sort of terrible family or close relationship catastrophe. Of course, the enforcement of the law is a matter for chief police officers. However, I have no doubt that, if we improve both the techniques that can be used to detect drink-driving and drug-driving and the range of penalties that are available for enforcement, chief police officers will treat this seriously, as will the courts.

[Lord Moylan (Con)]

My Lords, I too welcome the fact that the Government are consulting on how to improve road safety, and I am sure that the noble Lord would agree that any response to that consultation needs to be evidence-based. In that light, how does he take account of the fact that it appears from Scotland, where the limit has been reduced, that there has been no discernible effect on accidents as a result of that measure?

[Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill (Lab)]

The noble Lord is right that we should respect the evidence. Scotland’s experience is relevant, but it is not the only evidence. The Government recognise that Scotland did not see a significant casualty reduction, but we also cite wider evidence that alcohol impairs driving ability below the current England and Wales limit. Evidence cited in the consultation found that drivers with a blood alcohol concentration of 20 milligrams to 50 milligrams per 100 millilitres have at least a three-times greater risk of dying, and we will certainly take that into account when we decide what to do as a result of the consultation.

West Midlands Combined Authority (Key Route Network) (Amendment) Order 2026

Lord Moylan Excerpts

Tuesday 30th June 2026 Grand Committee

[The Minister of State, Department for Transport (Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill) (Lab)]

My Lords, I am pleased to say that this draft order was considered by the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments and the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee without any concerns raised. It relates to the key route network of the West Midlands Combined Authority, which, sadly, I will hereafter refer to as the KRN and the WMCA.

It might help noble Lords if I explain what a KRN is. It is a set of the most important locally managed roads in a strategic authority’s area. Under the English Devolution and Community Empowerment Act 2026, mayors are required to designate a KRN, but most strategic authorities, including the WMCA, already have one. It allows the most important local roads to be managed in a strategic way across the whole strategic authority area.

Statutory guidance on how to decide the composition of a KRN was published by the Government in April this year, as part of wider guidance on producing local transport plans. In short, the KRN roads should be those that are the most important locally for the delivery of policies in the local transport plan. Authorities should consider things such as traffic levels, public transport use, active travel and freight movement. In mayoral strategic authorities such as the WMCA, the KRN is agreed by a resolution of the authority following a proposal by the mayor. The KRN in the WMCA area constitutes 605 kilometres of roads, accounting for 7% of the total road network and carrying 50% of its traffic.

The constituent councils of the WMCA are Birmingham, Coventry, Dudley, Sandwell, Solihull, Walsall and Wolverhampton. The WMCA is responsible for the strategic oversight, but the councils are the local highways authorities and remain responsible for the management, maintenance and safety of the roads in the KRN. The WMCA does, however, have some powers over these roads, which it shares with its constituent councils. These include powers relating to making agreements with National Highways, promoting road safety and street works permit schemes.

In addition, the English Devolution and Community Empowerment Act 2026 gave all mayors of strategic authorities a power of direction over the roads in the key route network. The power of direction allows the mayor to direct the local highway authority to exercise its powers over a KRN road that it manages. The power of direction is a limited power, designed to be used only when necessary for the delivery of a measure that has been set out in at least one agreed plan or strategy of the strategic authority, such as a local transport plan.

In summary, the KRN allows for roads to be managed in a strategic way across an area. It enables improved traffic flow and reduces congestion. It also allows for the introduction of traffic management measures to improve infrastructure and bus journey times. I hope that I have set out clearly why a KRN is a useful tool. I am sure that it will have occurred to noble Lords that, due to the changing nature of travel patterns, in particular during the years following the pandemic, it would be prudent for a strategic authority such as the WMCA to keep its KRN under review and update it when it no longer reflects the most important locally managed roads.

For most strategic authorities, updating the KRN is logistically straightforward. It usually requires simply updating the list of roads on its website following a resolution of the authority. For the WMCA, however, making changes is not as straightforward because the roads in that key route network are set out in legislation, in the West Midlands Combined Authority (Functions and Amendment) Order 2017, where they are described as “combined authority roads”.

The WMCA was an early adopter of a key route network. In 2017, under the previous Government, listing the roads in the KRN in legislation provided certainty at a time when the combined authority was new and the key route network had not yet been used. Nine years have now passed and the WMCA would like to update its KRN as part of its work to publish a new local transport plan. The inflexibility of having the KRN roads set out in legislation is a barrier to this. I am sure that noble Lords will agree that a process whereby the combined authority must write to the Department for Transport to ask us to legislate every time it wants to amend its KRN is far from optimal. This is especially true when we consider that other authorities simply need to update their website to do the same thing.

After discussions with officials in my department, the combined authority has therefore written to the Secretary of State to ask that we draft and lay this instrument. This follows a public consultation in which 69% of respondents supported the proposal. Subject to its approval by Parliament, this instrument will remove the KRN roads from the 2017 order. Following this, the combined authority will be able to update its KRN roads in the same way as other strategic authorities, allowing it to respond as flexibly as possible to changing travel patterns and deliver better outcomes for road users in the area. I beg to move.

[Lord Moylan (Con)]

My Lords, we do not oppose this instrument.

Motion agreed.

DVLA: Staffing Levels

Lord Moylan Excerpts

Tuesday 23rd June 2026 Lords Chamber

[Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill (Lab)]

I just thought I should say that so that nobody thought it was in somebody else’s name. It is important that, as people get older, they consider whether they are capable to continue driving and have the right medical history to do so. I realise that it is a real issue for their mobility, particularly in rural areas. That is why the digital medical services platform, to which I referred, enables much more of this to be done online. If the noble Lord would like to give me some further details of his very young wife’s licence application, I will look into it.

[Lord Moylan (Con)]

My Lords, I imagine that my noble friend Lord Hamilton of Epsom put his name on his licence application as well, though with slightly different results. The DVLA used to be, not so long ago, one of the more highly regarded agencies, rather like the Passport Office. It was pretty efficient and reliable, but it seems to have gone downhill. Taking another example, the Government committed last year to reduce the wait for driving tests to seven weeks by summer 2026. Here we are in the height of summer 2026 and the waiting time is still 23 weeks. What are the Government going to do about this? What date can they now give for saying that they will bring these waiting lists within bounds?

[Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill (Lab)]

Some issues of government are more intractable than others. Given the statistics I quoted earlier about a 10% rise in medical licence notifications yet a reduction in the timescale dealing with them, I think that the DVLA is not an example of an organisation in crisis but one that is seeking, together with technology, to address the issues it faces on a real-time basis. However, the noble Lord is right that the Government anticipated reducing the waiting time for a driving test to seven weeks; the Secretary of State recently said that it was taking a long time to sort it out and that it will not be sorted out until autumn next year.

That is not to say that nothing has been done. The number of examiners has gone up by 147. In the period between June 2025 and May 2026, the DVSA conducted 242,000 more tests than in the same period. Pass rates are going up, which is very satisfactory. The noble Lord ought to know the effects that the actions to make the booking system fairer—limiting learners to two changes to their driving tests, restricting bookings so that only learners can book and amend tests, and limiting the area a learner driver can move a test to once booked—are already producing. Those actions were taken at the end of March, in the middle of May and in early June, and they are already clearly increasing the availability of test slots. He is right that it is taking longer but we will solve it.

HS2 Ltd: Consultants

Lord Moylan Excerpts

Monday 22nd June 2026 Lords Chamber

[Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill (Lab)]

I certainly thank the noble Lord for his clarity about the purpose of HS2. I am not the best person to stand here and talk about consultancy expenditure in government in general, but I sympathise with him about getting long-term work done, because the cheapest way of getting it done is to get people to do it on an employment basis. However, if we look at what has had to be done by Mark Wild, under the supervision of Mike Brown and the new board, we see that a company that does not know how it spent its own money and what work was done for it, in circumstances where there are currently cost-plus contracts, is in need of serious help. That serious help, frankly, can be established in the short term only with the use of consultants.

[Lord Moylan (Con)]

My Lords, on behalf of these Benches, I also express my condolences to the family of the driver who lost his life in the tragedy on Friday—happily, a very rare event on Britain’s railways. On HS2, one of its principal contractors has warned that the Government’s steel tariffs are “ill-timed and unhelpful” and will “exacerbate” existing challenges facing HS2. Why have the Government chosen to make HS2 even more expensive by putting these tariffs on imported steel?

[Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill (Lab)]

Fortunately, nearly all the steel for HS2 has already been purchased so, although it suffers from many things, it will not suffer from changes in steel prices going forward. If the noble Lord looks at either social media or at pictures, or even goes to see the route, he will see that a vast amount of steel has already been erected on the route to Birmingham.

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

Lord Moylan Excerpts

Committee stage
Thursday 18th June 2026 Grand Committee

[Baroness Pidgeon (LD)]

My Lords, this is an important group of amendments, and this has been a useful debate. It goes to the heart of what the Bill could enable and the safeguards clearly needed to protect communities that will be impacted by any changes to airspace use. As my noble friend Lord Russell outlined, Amendment 60, in the name of my noble friend Lady Grender, would put those guardrails in place. It would require the Secretary of State to consult affected communities, alongside making environmental and noise impact assessments, before being able to make a direction. This is critical. As we know, altering flight paths and redesigning airspace will have a significant impact on a surprisingly large area, as those communities impacted by the existing Heathrow and Gatwick airports, for example, are only too aware. A Secretary of State must understand the impact on people, noise and the environment of any potential decision. It is an important part of the decision-making process.

I understand that the Minister has given assurances that the Bill is not intended as a vehicle for airport expansion, but that is not a legal safeguard, as my noble friend Lord Russell outlined. Putting a duty in the Bill would ensure that Parliament and the public can distinguish between a necessary operational change and a change that, in effect, facilitates additional capacity without the transparency that would accompany a normal expansion decision. Without mandatory consultation and that impact assessment, there is a real risk that expansion could be delivered through the back door. This amendment matters to residents under the flight path, including communities such as those in Richmond, Kingston and Hounslow. They already live with the consequences of aircraft noise and emissions. If the Secretary of State is to have this power, the Bill must clearly specify procedural safeguards.

As we have heard from noble Lords, the other amendments in this group test the same principle of whether airspace modernisation is being carried out in a transparent, accountable and proportionate way. We are sympathetic to their aims as detailed by my noble friend Lord Russell. I am rather nervous about the noble Viscount, Lord Goschen, getting lost in the sky, as he said earlier. I am very grateful that we have modern navigation systems these days. If we are to redesign our skies, we should not do so in a way that leaves people on the ground with less say, less information and fewer protections than we had before. I look forward to the Minister’s response.

[Lord Moylan (Con)]

My Lords, I am impressed by the enormous experience of aviation and ministerial responsibility for aviation present in the Committee. I do not claim either, but I will do my best to respond to this group. First, I say that we support the principle of airspace modernisation. If we have a complaint about it, it is that it is taking so long. If it needs legislation, why is that legislation is arriving only now, seven years after it started? The Minister might explain that and what sort of timetable he is expecting to pursue with airspace modernisation.

The Bill gives the Minister new powers of direction that are extremely broad, and that is the basis for most of the complaints and concerns—I think concerns rather than complaints—expressed in the Committee so far. They are very broad powers of direction and are almost unconstrained. I think it fair to say that no part of the Committee believes that those powers should be unconstrained. We believe that there should be processes that allow for consultation and accountability. Indeed, one could even argue that it would be more appropriate than giving directions for the Secretary of State to have to have recourse to a statutory instrument. That is not an amendment that has been proposed today, but it would be one way of addressing the Committee’s concerns.

I will briefly deal with the amendments. Both Amendment 60, in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Grender, and Amendment 61, in the name of my noble friend Lord Grayling, seek to impose a consultation requirement of a general character on the Minister. I do not think that that can be gainsaid; the Minister will have to agree it in one form or another. If he cannot give us assurances today that he will bring forward an appropriate amendment on Report, I very much hope that the noble Baroness and my noble friend will work together to draft an amendment that we can all rally behind.

Amendment 62 is in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Tunnicliffe. As at Second Reading, I found his speech most enlightening and interesting. I will make a small diversion to comment on it in a moment. However, the general principle is whether pilots—either through their trade union or in some other forum, as he said—should be consulted, and consulted specifically and early, about airspace changes. The answer is surely that they must be, since, as he explained—I do not need to repeat it—their stake in the business and activity is so high and so responsible that they should of course be involved in consultation at an early stage.

I will comment briefly on the broader question raised by the noble Lord of how this system works. We are seeing automated systems very much on the railways and certainly on London Underground—I know the noble Lord has great experience in rail and not just as a pilot—and in the motorcars with gubbins on the top that one now sees around the streets, driving themselves but with a driver present. The essential point of all these systems is to get them to drive closer together. They will drive closer together more safely under these automated systems. Take the example of the Victoria line, where the trains come practically every 90 seconds: that would not be possible if there was a human driver responsible for stopping and starting, because they would need to make judgments about how to do that.

The crucial difference—here I support the noble Lord—with ground-based systems such as railways, and, I assume, cars, is that the fail-safe if something goes wrong is to bring the system to a total stop. You can do that on a railway; you can just stop it, so that no train moves until you work out what has gone wrong and how to put it right. That is the safety mechanism. You cannot do that in the air, so our approach to aviation safety has to be very different. The input of pilots must be crucial to all of this. If, in the absence of an amendment from the Minister, one were to come forward from the noble Lord that expressed that—although not necessarily in these words, but if he could show himself open to adaptation—we would be very happy to support it.

My noble friends Lord Kirkhope and Lord Goschen spoke about the importance of general aviation. I am happy to second that for all the reasons they gave on both its economic contribution and its role in being a feeder to the skills necessary in the larger commercial aviation sector.

I will focus particularly on what my noble friend Lord Kirkhope said about charging and turn to my own Amendment 64, which is on just that point. There is a striking new subsection in Clause 6. It says:

“Persons may be specified (or of a description specified) if the services concerned are available for their use or benefit, and it is immaterial whether or not the services are actually used or could be used by, or actually benefit or could benefit, them”.


There is something of a contradiction written into that, because they would have to meet both limbs of the test. The first limb says that they

“are available for their use or benefit”.

The second limbs says, “Well, they could not be used by them and could not benefit them”. How can they be available for their use or benefit on the one hand and it still be the case that they could not be used by or benefit them and are still chargeable? I hope that I have expressed that correctly but, if noble Lords read the clause carefully, they will see that that is what it says. It says that they have to be available for their use or benefit but that it is immaterial whether they could use them or benefit from them. That seems like an obvious contradiction.

Introducing the word “persons” obviously requires some explanation. I am sure that the Minister is going to give it. I suspect that the explanation might be along the lines of the fact that there are drones and other things in the skies now, not simply aircraft. If that is the explanation, it has to deal with the clear point made by my noble friend Lord Kirkhope of Harrogate, but I am a little more relaxed about that. What I am not relaxed about is being asked to give the Minister the power to levy charges on people who could not use or benefit from the services in question. As it stands, this clause shows every sign of being hastily and poorly drafted. One would hope that the Minister would come forward on Report with improved drafting, but, if not, I suspect that there will be an amendment to deal with it.

It is fair to say, in these happy circumstances that have arisen, that the whole of the Committee is united on nearly all of the points we have debated in this group. I very much hope that the Minister will be able to join that circle and not disrupt the unanimity that the Committee has so fortunately achieved.

[The Minister of State, Department for Transport (Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill) (Lab)]

My Lords, I am grateful to noble Lords for their thoughtful contributions on this group of amendments. Although I rarely seem to agree with the noble Lord, Lord Moylan, I do so now in admiring the depth of aviation knowledge in this Committee today.

I will respond to the points that have been made and set out how the Bill enables progress on essential airspace reforms while maintaining the appropriate safeguards. I will start with Amendment 60, which was introduced by the noble Earl, Lord Russell, and the comments from the noble Baroness, Lady Pidgeon. It will be convenient for me to address Amendments 61 and 62, in the names of the noble Lords, Lord Grayling and Lord Tunnicliffe, respectively, and to note the comments from the noble Baroness, Lady Bray of Coln.

I assure all of them that environmental assessments and consultation are, and will remain, a fundamental part of the airspace change process. Let me be clear at the outset that nothing in these powers removes or weakens the existing requirements for thorough consultation and robust assessment of environmental and noise impacts. The Bill will extend the Secretary of State’s existing powers under the Air Traffic Management and Unmanned Aircraft Act 2021. It allows her, if needed, to require the implementation of an approved airspace change. For the avoidance of doubt, that means an airspace change proposal that has already been properly developed, consulted on and approved.

The powers introduced by the Bill do not circumvent the existing requirements built into the airspace change process, and any proposal must first go through the Civil Aviation Authority’s CAP1616 process. This requires the sponsor of an airspace change to undertake detailed assessments of the potential impacts of flight paths, including noise exposure and greenhouse gas emissions. Sponsors must hold meaningful consultations on the proposals with affected communities and other stakeholders, including airspace users or groups representing them, and, where appropriate, with pilots and those who represent them. These assessments must be rigorously scrutinised by the Civil Aviation Authority before any proposal can be approved. Where a change is taken forward by the UK Airspace Design Service, it will work closely with airports, in line with the bespoke partnership agreements.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill (Lab)]

I will take some advice and respond further. But I note in response to the comments from the noble Lord, Lord Grayling, that both proposals will have been consulted on and agreed, so it is not the case that consultation would not have applied to either of them. I will write to him with the precise answer to his very reasonable question and copy it to other noble Lords.

Amendment 63 is from the noble Lord, Lord Holmes of Richmond, and he is right that information about airspace changes should be secure and transparent. I take the noble Lord’s point about the choice of technology. The Civil Aviation Authority’s CAP1616 airspace change process is designed to ensure transparency throughout. There is already a legal requirement for directions related to airspace change to be published, as well as any steps the CAA takes to enforce them. In addition, both the sponsor of an airspace change and the CAA are required to publish relevant documentation throughout the process, which is held on the CAA’s airspace change portal—a secure platform which acts as a single source of truth. When an approved design is implemented, it is published in the UK Aeronautical Information Publication, as required by international law.

This is not an area where there is a lack of trust or accountability requiring a more complex or novel audit mechanism. The CAA operates within a well-established statutory framework with clear oversight and requirements for publication and traceability. Introducing a requirement to store this information in a prescriptive or novel format risks adding complexity without corresponding benefit, given that the core objectives of transparency, accessibility, and auditability are already being met. It would also apply irrespective of any identified gap, creating additional cost and rigidity on how information is managed, so I respectfully ask the noble Lord not to press his amendment.

Amendment 64 from the noble Lord, Lord Moylan, relates to a technical change arising from the proposed expansion of who can pay charges for air traffic services, which will ensure that the “user pays” principle can continue to be fairly applied in future. Air traffic services are provided for all users within a block of airspace. Even when an airspace user does not use a service directly, they may still benefit from it. For example, if two aircraft avoid a collision because one is directed away from the other, both benefit even though one did not directly receive the service.

It is right that the charging framework reflects this. The Bill does not say that charges may be imposed on persons who cannot use or benefit from them. We reassure noble Lords that charges are not set without safeguards and that the Bill maintains them. The Civil Aviation Authority accounts for factors such as efficiency and proportionality and follows an established process, including extensive engagement, statutory consultation and rights of appeal.

A requirement to prove the precise level of use or benefit for every airspace user would be disproportionate and unworkable, particularly as an increasing number of emerging uses, especially drones and other unmanned aircraft systems, are integrated into shared airspace and require air traffic services in future. That issue is what the existing provision is designed to avoid and what the changes in the Bill seek to maintain. For that reason, I ask the noble Lord to withdraw his amendment.

[Lord Moylan (Con)]

The Minister says that the Bill does not say that you can be charged if you cannot use the service, but that is precisely what it says. It says that

“it is immaterial whether or not the services are actually used or could be used by, or actually benefit or could benefit, them”.

I do not think it is logically coherent, because they have to be available to them to qualify on the first limb of the clause.

It may well be that the noble Lord has the intention he expressed at the Dispatch Box. However, I ask him whether he considers this clause to be drafted to articulate that intention. As it stands, it seems internally self-contradictory. But if it is not internally self-contradictory and he can prove that it is not, I would still object to people being charged for services that they could not use or benefit from.

[Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill (Lab)]

In those circumstances, I will take away the noble Lord’s very detailed point and attempt to either explain why it does what I said, or alter it so that it does what I said.

Finally, I will address Amendment 65 from the noble Lord, Lord Kirkhope of Harrogate. I also listened carefully to the noble Viscount, Lord Goschen, on this subject. As experienced pilots themselves, they know better than most that general aviation is an important part of the UK’s aviation industry, covering a wide range of public service, commercial and recreational activities.

Clause 6 seeks to provide the Civil Aviation Authority with greater flexibility as to who can be charged for air traffic services provided under a licence. This will ensure that, as the UK’s airspace evolves, the cost of providing those services can continue to be recovered fairly and proportionately, in line with the user pays principle. I note the replication of the IATA view on this from the noble Lord, Lord Harper, and I will take that away.

As noble Lords will be aware, these costs are currently recovered primarily from commercial airlines as they are the main users of the relevant services. General aviation is largely exempt. The noble Lord is right that we do have in mind drone operations on operators and other unmanned aircraft. Ahead of any changes in future, the CAA has a statutory duty to consult on its proposals. Those whose interests are materially affected by its decision could appeal if they considered they had grounds to do so.

The CAA already has an obligation under the Transport Act 2000 to further the interests of operators and owners of aircraft, including in relation to the availability and cost of licensed air traffic services. This includes any that might be classed as general aviation to the extent that they are affected. Given this duty, the thorough and well-established processes for setting charges and the fact that there is currently no plan to create a new charge for general aviation users, I ask the noble Lord not to press his amendment.

--- Later in debate ---

Amendment 65C on satellite navigation is closely related. Air ambulance crews, along with the wider general aviation community, depend on precise, reliable navigation. EGNOS, the European satellite-based augmentation system, which we have debated many times in the past, provided that reliability. We lost it after Brexit, and the timeline for its replacement is unclear. A requirement for a report from the Secretary of State on access to EGNOS or an equivalent service is a modest ask, and I hope the Minister will be sympathetic. We need to understand where we are and when parity will be restored. I hope the Minister will consider these amendments and I look forward to his response.

[Lord Moylan (Con)]

My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, has brought before the Committee some interesting and valuable amendments. I look forward to hearing what the Minister has to say about them.

On EGNOS, I never quite understand why everyone wants to crawl back to Europe. The problem with that is that, every time you ask the Europeans for something, they want to exact a very large price, simply because they are still very cross with us for voting to restore our representative democracy in this country and for taking advantage of Brexit.

It is worth asking the Minister if he has discussed whether this service might be available, with a bit of expenditure, from Mr Elon Musk. As I understand it, Elon Musk is now in command of around two-thirds of the satellites going around the earth. I am sure that a man of such ingenuity and enterprise could easily develop a navigation system that depended on these satellites. Would that not be a sensible alternative? It might keep the Europeans on their toes, should we want to use their system, if they thought of taking advantage of us. Otherwise, I look forward to hearing what the Minister has to say. There is a bigger world out there—it is not just Europe—and we should all take advantage of it.

[Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill (Lab)]

My Lords, this grouping covers resilience, infrastructure and connectivity. I begin by addressing my noble friend Lord Berkeley’s Amendment 65B. I listened carefully to the noble Viscount, Lord Goschen, and the noble Baroness, Lady Pidgeon, on this subject. The Government support the life-saving work of air ambulances and the department, alongside the Civil Aviation Authority, regularly engages with air ambulance charities to understand their unique needs. Air ambulances already operate under a special regime from the Civil Aviation Authority that allows them privileged access to airspace and ensures that they can land wherever they need to in order to carry out their life-saving work. If my noble friend or the operators have any concerns about how this is working, the Minister for Aviation in the other place would be more than happy to hear them and deal with them. I hope that reassures my noble friend that his amendment is not needed.

On my noble friend’s Amendment 65B, the Government recognise the importance of satellite navigation services to support operations in all weather conditions. As my noble friend notes from his observation of the Answer to a Written Question in the other place, the Government are actively reviewing the viability of these services, including our access to the European geostationary navigation overlay service, or EGNOS, and the output from that is expected later this year, as he said. I will not pre-empt that review by accepting this amendment. I have not personally spoken to Elon Musk on this, or indeed any other subject, but I am sure that the Government are considering the full range of possibilities to do what EGNOS delivered in the past. I hope my noble friend understands that I cannot pre-empt the outcome of that review.

Finally, I thank my noble friend Lord Berkeley for his amendment relating to an airfield advisory team. The CAA carries out extensive engagement with aerodrome operators and values the insights and feedback that they provide, which play an important part in informing policy development in this area. At present, there is no clearly established rationale for creating a statutory panel for this group of stakeholders, particularly when similar arrangements are not in place for other stakeholder groups. Introducing such a panel could risk creating an imbalance by conferring a status on one group over others. But, having noted the concerns of the noble Lord, Lord Harper, I will take the issue away and inquire further about this team and the reasons for its disbandment. I hope that my noble friend will not press his amendment.

I should add clarity to my comments in Committee on Tuesday, to which my noble friend referred. I said this in my speech:

“Requiring training would not be appropriate for all airfields”.—[Official Report, 16/6/26; col. GC 114.]


I then gave some different reasons, which my noble friend quoted, for why training might not be possible at some airports. It was certainly not intended to suggest that no airfields would be suitable for training, as that would be unacceptable. I hope that that makes things clear.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Pidgeon (LD)]

My Lords, this is a substantial group and I am grateful to noble Lords who have tabled amendments covering how slot allocation powers should be structured, constrained and scrutinised. It is a clear theme in many of the amendments before us. I thought the referee versus regulator point from the noble Lord, Lord Grayling, was powerful in summing up a lot of this.

Before I turn to the amendments, I will remind the Committee of a thread that ran through Second Reading: the question of airport expansion and, in particular, whether the slots regime and the significant new powers that the Secretary of State is taking in relation to it could be used to facilitate or, in effect, predetermine expansion decisions. As your Lordships have heard, slots are capacity. Control over slot allocation is, in important respects, control over how airports can grow and who benefits from that growth. The Government may say that the expansion question is separate, but the mechanisms are not neatly separate, and I suspect that those questions will return on Report.

The regional connectivity concern raised in this group is one that many noble Lords feel strongly about. Hub airport access for regional routes is not just for commercial convenience. It is a question of whether communities and economies across the United Kingdom are connected nationally and then internationally.

Finally, on parliamentary procedure, the House has consistently held that significant regulatory powers should be subject to proper parliamentary oversight. I hope the Minister would not want to resist that principle here. I look forward to his response.

[Lord Moylan (Con)]

My Lords, I will briefly introduce my own amendments and then comment on others. I have Amendments 70, 71 and 72. Amendment 72 is consequential on Amendment 71 so, in effect, I have two amendments, and the first is to do with consultation.

I can see no requirement in the Bill for the Government to undertake any consultation prior to exercising the powers they seek under this legislation. We recently debated the Airports Slot Allocation (Alleviation of Usage Requirements) Regulations 2026, and the industry told us that the consultation on those was extremely short. That was partly to do with getting the regulations done before the powers gap closes or opens, but the consultation was extremely short.

The result of it, according to the Government’s own statement, was that the airlines supported what the Government were doing but the airports were adamantly opposed. They were opposed principally because, as my noble friend Lady Foster said, the slots allocator already has the powers to respond in emergencies; there is no need for this action to take place. I come back to the point about consultation. That was a good example of consultation done badly and not listened to. Here, we have no consultation promised at all. My amendment would require it.

My second amendment concerns the fact that statutory instruments will be used here. The significant ones will be done by the affirmative process, but there is an exemption for those that have temporary effect, which will be done by the negative process. This is a direct downgrading because the airport slots regulations we considered in Grand Committee only last week were temporary in their character; they last only for the coming summer and winter seasons. It is precisely that type of statutory instrument—that type of government action—that will now be moved to be taken under the negative process. This is definitely a downgrade of parliamentary scrutiny and my amendment would eliminate it. Amendment 72 is, as I say, consequential on that.

To come to the other contributions in this debate, it is fair to say that, between them, my noble friends Lord Grayling and Lady Foster of Oxton have driven an entire coach and horses through this section of the Bill. They ask the crucial question: what is the necessity for this? Not only that, but what is the benefit to the public of the Government intervening in something that is, in essence, first, a private market activity and, secondly, working perfectly well at the moment, with no reason to think that that is likely to change? Although I am sure that the Minister will want to defend these proposals when he gets to his feet, the tenor of debate in Committee is that they should be done away with wholesale. My amendments, which would simply require consultation and better processes, are inadequate to the task. When we come back on Report, we will have to challenge clearly why the Government are involved in this at all, with what purpose and to what effect—unless, of course, the Minister can satisfy us today.

[Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill (Lab)]

My Lords, as we have heard, this group concerns the airport slots regime. I am grateful to noble Lords for their amendments. I will address each one in turn but first note two common points that apply across this group.

The UK slots regime depends on independent, fair, transparent and non-discriminatory allocation by the slot co-ordinator. It also operates within international frameworks, such as the Worldwide Airport Slot Guidelines, the global standard for managing airport capacity at congested level 3 and capacity-constrained level 2 airports. The regime already recognises commercial expectations that require clarity, consistency and timely decision-making. Where I refer to independence, proportionality, flexibility or international alignment, these are the common justifications I have in mind. I also say to the noble Baroness, Lady Pidgeon, that the processes in this Bill do not in themselves allow airport expansion; they are about the efficient allocation of capacity created by expansion, which is a different issue.

I begin with Amendment 66, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Grayling. I understand the concern that the Government should not interfere in a liberalised and well-functioning sector, and our policy intent is not to interfere in this. These provisions, however, largely replicate provisions previously available through EU legislation. All the Government are doing is replicating the powers we think we appropriately need to continue. I refer the noble Lord to paragraphs 20 to 24 of the Explanatory Notes to the Bill.

Neither the Government nor airlines have a role in the day-to-day allocation of slots. As noble Lords have noted, that is undertaken by an independent slot co-ordinator who must allocate slots openly, fairly, transparently and without discrimination. The amendment would therefore not have the intended effect and would create uncertainty. The temporary reallocation or suspension of unused slots during an international crisis is already addressed by Clause 7. In our view, Amendment 66 is therefore unnecessary and duplicative.

I turn to Amendment 67, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Empey, which would require sufficient slots at hub airports such as Heathrow to be allocated to flights from UK regional airports. The Government recognise the importance of strong regional connectivity and effective access to hub airports for people and businesses across the United Kingdom.

However, I cannot support the amendment because requiring hub airports to prioritise domestic regional services over international routes could conflict with non-discrimination and fair competition obligations in the UK’s bilateral air services agreements. It could also require the reallocation of slots from incumbent operators that have historic rights where usage requirements are met, raising legal and practical issues. I therefore ask the noble Lord not to press his amendment.

The next amendment, from the noble Lord, Lord Grayling, seeks to remove the ability to create regulations on enforcement of the slots regime through criminal and civil sanctions. Existing assimilated law already contains criminal and civil enforcement provisions, which the Government believe are necessary. Removing this power would freeze the current enforcement regime, meaning that even proportionate updates could be made only through further primary legislation. I do not believe that that is the noble Lord’s intention.

[Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill (Lab)]

I will respond to the noble Lord after today.

Clause 7 already reduces the severity of sanctions by removing the possibility of imprisonment for breaches of slots regulations. Any exercise of the power to amend enforcement provisions would be subject to the affirmative procedure, ensuring scrutiny and debate in both Houses. For those reasons, I ask the noble Lord not to press his amendment.

I turn to Amendment 70, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Moylan, which would place a statutory duty on the Secretary of State to consult airlines, airport operators and others before making any slots regulations under Clause 7. The Government recognise the importance of proper engagement and, where new policy is developed under this power, will carry out appropriate consultation, including with industry and, where relevant, communities. However, an inflexible statutory consultation duty would not be appropriate. The power may need to be used urgently in response to significant disruption, as was necessary during the pandemic. In those circumstances, government must be able to act swiftly and proportionately. I therefore ask the noble Lord not to press Amendment 70.

I will take Amendments 71 and 72, also tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Moylan, together. They would require all regulations relating to slots to be subject to the affirmative procedure. I recognise the desire for parliamentary scrutiny, but the Bill already draws a proportionate distinction. The negative procedure is available only where there is a significant threat to public health, or another substantial reason, and only for temporary changes to slot-usage requirements. Requiring the affirmative procedure in every case could delay necessary action during disruption, where speed may be essential. I therefore ask the noble Lord not to press Amendments 71 and 72.

Amendment 73, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Harper, would—

[Lord Moylan (Con)]

The point that the Minister makes about emergencies and so forth is not reflected in the text of the Bill, which says on page eight:

“Regulations are excluded regulations if the Secretary of State considers that their only substantive effect is temporarily to disapply or modify a requirement as to regularity of use of slots”.


That would cover the airport slots regulations that we debated last week. Those would move from being affirmative procedure SIs to negative procedure SIs. The additional stipulations that the Minister mentioned are not reflected in the clause that defines an excluded regulation.

[Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill (Lab)]

I thank the noble Lord for that observation. I will of course take it away and consider what he has said.

Amendment 73, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Harper, would place the slot co-ordinator under the oversight of the Civil Aviation Authority. I understand the intention to strengthen oversight, but the amendment would cut across a fundamental principle of the slots regime: that the co-ordinator must remain functionally and financially independent of all interested parties, including government. The noble Lord asked whether we are content with the current system, and we are. That principle is reflected in the Worldwide Airport Slot Guidelines, which align these matters across all level 2 and level 3 airports across the globe and are essential to ensuring that scarce airport capacity is allocated fairly, neutrally and without bias towards any airline, airport or Government. They protect new entrants and maintain confidence in the global system. Creating a statutory CAA oversight role would risk putting the UK at odds with established international practice and creating legal and operational uncertainty. I therefore ask the noble Lord not to press Amendment 73.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Foster of Oxton (Con)]

My Lords, I will comment briefly on the subject in general. I have long been an advocate for airport expansion, particularly at Heathrow. On that note, I support the Government taking this brave step. Having lived in south-west London and under the odd flight path from time to time, I recognise that there was an airport there long before me and before most people who live in the area. It was unfortunately most regrettable—I now intend to be quite party political—that the fortunes of the Liberal Democrats relied on objecting to every element of expansion at Heathrow, whether for new terminals or runways. Most people would agree that we should have had a third runway more than 30 years ago, when the cost would have been substantially less.

My final point is that, while I fully support the Government pushing ahead with expansion and a third runway, the decision on this particular project, at a cost of £49 billion, with disruption to areas around the M25 and elsewhere, is completely wrong. I see it ending up like some of the other massive infrastructure projects that we have had in rail. I do not believe this is the best way forward. There should be a rethink. Other projects would be less disruptive but have not been fully considered. As a general point, I fully support the Government’s ideals to expand but think that the initial decision is wrong at this time.

[Lord Moylan (Con)]

My Lords, I note the publication, while the Committee has been sitting, of the revisions to the Airports National Policy Statement. Obviously, I have not read it, and I do not imagine that other Members have, apart from the Minister and his close associates.

It is worth saying that that this publication does not take us forward; it takes us back to 2018, when the Airports National Policy Statement was published. It was then taken through the courts. There were some ridiculous objections to it, but it got through the High Court. It fell on one particular objection only at the Court of Appeal, which turned, as I recall, on the question of the definition of the word “policy”—this is how great infrastructure projects proceed in this country. It eventually went to the Supreme Court, which took a different view on the definition of “policy” and finally approved the ANPS. By that stage, of course, it was totally out of date and Covid had intervened, so the work had to be started again by the department. The fruits of that work are what have been published today. As I say, I am not in a position to comment on it. We are back to where we were in 2018 and have made no progress in that period. We will see whether this new ANPS survives the sort of process that the previous one was subjected to and whether we will need a third ANPS a few years down the road.

In relation to these amendments, I unfortunately find myself not entirely able to agree with my Liberal Democrat colleagues on the two in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Grender. It is not because of the intention, because that is of course important—there should be consultation, an environmental impact assessment and a noise impact assessment if Heathrow is to be expanded—but because I think those things will happen anyway without this amendment. Nor can I honestly say that I support Amendment 105. One cannot create powers for the Government in specific areas of aviation and then say that they cannot be used for one particular purpose within the field of aviation. That makes no sense so, sadly, I am slightly out of sympathy on those two.

I understand the comments about the amendment proposed by the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett of Manor Castle, but, sadly, this time, I do not feel I can pursue that either. There are other amendments relating to the environment later on, not least one in the name of my noble friend Lord Harper, which raise some interesting questions.

I find myself very much in support of the amendment tabled by my noble friend Lord Harper. I sympathise with his remarks about the financial consequences and financial circumstances relating to Heathrow expansion. Perhaps I can give a few figures that will help the Committee put this in some context, and then put a couple of questions to the Minister.

Heathrow is a private company and it is very difficult to know its market valuation, because its shares trade so rarely. There was a trade 13 or 14 years ago, which valued the company at approximately £14 billion. That was roughly the same as the value of the airport’s regulated asset base at the time. There was then a trade approximately two years ago—there was quite a reorganisation of shareholders approximately two years ago—and I understand that the valuation implicit in those trades was that the airport was now worth only £10 billion, roughly. Its value had fallen over that period. Meanwhile, its regulated asset base has gone up to in excess of £20 billion, so the shareholders bought a regulated asset base for half its price.

Of the capital structure of the company, there is a large amount of debt—in fact, more debt than there was some years ago. The amount of equity belonging to the shareholders in the company is therefore probably no more than £2 billion—let us say £3 billion to be generous. Now we hear of a company with £3 billion of shareholder commitment that wishes to embark upon a project costing, conservatively, £49 billion at current estimated prices. This is vaunting ambition at the very least. If it were purely a private company, it would be completely unfinanceable without a huge new infusion of shareholder capital, because no bank will lend £49 billion to a company that has only £3 billion of equity and already has several billion pounds of debt on top of that. It is simply an unfinanceable project.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill (Lab)]

My Lords, this group concerns airport expansion capacity. I am grateful to noble Lords for their amendments.

I will address Amendments 69, 105, 110 and 114 in turn. Before doing so, I will make two points that apply across the group. First, as I made clear at Second Reading, the Bill is not a route to airport expansion. It does not grant planning consent, remove environmental safeguards or predetermine the outcome of any expansion proposal. Secondly, where airport expansion is proposed, the relevant issues, including noise, carbon emissions, air quality, economic benefits and local impacts, are considered through national policy statements and the development consent order processes, with consultation, assessment, scrutiny and independent examination. Those are the common justifications, which I will refer back to. Expansion decisions sit within the planning regime, while this Bill concerns aviation consumer protection and regulatory reform.

I turn first to Amendment 69 spoken to by the noble Baroness, Lady Pidgeon. This amendment would require the Secretary of State to undertake consultation impact assessments before laying slot regulations that facilitate airport expansion. I reassure the noble Baroness that the Government are fully committed to meaningful consultation with communities and to thorough environmental and noise assessment before airport expansion proceeds. However, slot regulations do not grant planning for physical expansion, nor do they increase the legally permitted cap on aircraft movements. They determine how capacity at co-ordinated airports is allocated between airlines. The slots measure in the Bill would allow regulations to be updated if needed so that any capacity already approved through the planning process can be used effectively. Amendment 69 would therefore duplicate consultation and assessment processes that already take place before slot allocation becomes relevant, and for that reason I ask the noble Baroness to withdraw the amendment.

I turn next to Amendment 105, also tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Grender. This amendment would prohibit the powers in the Bill being used for the purposes of airport expansion. The Bill and the question of airport expansion are distinct. The Bill is focused, as I said, on consumer protection reform of the aviation regulatory framework. The Government would take forward these measures, irrespective of any expansion decision. The Government support Heathrow expansion, but any decision on the third runway is subject to the national policy statement and the development consent order processes, both of which include consultation and scrutiny. Airspace modernisation is also needed, whether or not a third runway is proceeded with. Its purpose is to make UK airspace more efficient, resilient, quieter and cleaner, not to provide a shortcut to expansion. Similarly, slots regulation does not create airport capacity; it manages capacity after it has been approved through the planning process.

Amendment 105 would undermine the workability of the Bill’s regulatory framework. For example, it could prevent reforms to slot regulation where those reforms are needed to manage new capacity that has already been approved. I therefore ask the noble Baroness not to press it.

I turn next to Amendment 110, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Harper, on a third runway at Heathrow. The Government agree that decisions on airport expansion should be evidence-based and subject to transparency, consultation and scrutiny. However, Amendment 110 is not necessary to achieve that, because decisions on Heathrow expansion will be taken through the national policy statement and development consent order processes.

As noble Lords have noted, the department has today published the revised airports national policy statement, which has been renamed the draft Heathrow expansion national policy statement, to clarify that it applies only to Heathrow expansion and its associated infrastructure for consultation.

In response to the noble Lord, Lord Harper, and others, I am not going to be in a position to respond to the detail of what has literally just been published, which I am sure he and others will understand. However, I have no doubt that the points he and others raise will be discussed both in your Lordships’ House and in the other place. I have also heard the noble Earl, Lord Russell, the noble Baroness, Lady Foster of Oxton, and the noble Lord, Lord Moylan, but as I say, this is for discussion at another time.

I have also written today to all noble Lords with further details. I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Moylan, will accept that I am not going to answer his questions now, because the Written Statement was laid less than two hours ago.

[Lord Moylan (Con)]

Would the noble Lord be so good as to answer them by letter before we reach Report?

[Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill (Lab)]

I will certainly consider what I can say to the noble Lord before Report.

The Heathrow expansion national policy statement includes the full suite of appraisal and supporting analytical documents. Alongside the public consultation, that draft policy statement will be laid before Parliament and subject to parliamentary scrutiny by a nominated parliamentary Select Committee. Following the consultation, the Government will carefully consider all responses received, alongside the report of the parliamentary Select Committee, before deciding whether to designate an amended national policy statement. If the Government decide to proceed, the amended policy statement will be published and laid before Parliament, in accordance with the requirements set out in the Planning Act 2008, and be subject to a vote in the other place before it can take legal effect. Any development consent application for expansion at Heathrow must include detailed, project-specific assessments, including operational and system-wide impacts, and will be published and examined through the Planning Inspectorate process.

Not all the matters covered by Amendment 110 can be determined at a single point. Airspace design, in particular, is developed iteratively and requires sufficient certainty about an expansion scheme before it can be finalised, approved and implemented. Airspace change proposals are also subject to their own oversight processes, including detailed assessment and public consultation, and do not pre-empt planning decisions. It would not be appropriate to include requirements for a specific infrastructure project in this Bill, which is concerned, as I have said, with consumer protection and regulatory reform. Given the extensive information and scrutiny that will already apply to Heathrow expansion, I ask the noble Lord not to press his amendment.

Finally, I turn to Amendment 114, tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, but spoken to by the noble Earl, Lord Russell. I agree that tackling climate change and reducing aviation emissions must remain central to aviation policy. However, I cannot accept this amendment. Elements of Amendment 114 would duplicate existing duties under the Climate Change Act 2008, but the provisions on airport capacity go significantly further. This Government support airport expansion where it is justified. The UK needs sufficient airport capacity to support economic growth, trade, freight and connectivity across the country. Proposals are, and will continue to be, assessed case by case against strict climate, environmental and economic tests.

Amendment 114 would prevent the Secretary of State using powers under the Bill to support any expansion of airport capacity and go further, by requiring a reduction in capacity. That would remove the Government’s ability to respond to real capacity constraints, even where a scheme could meet the rigorous tests I have described. This Bill is not the vehicle for making those determinations. I therefore ask for Amendment 114 not to be pressed.

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Lord Moylan]

76: Clause 8, page 9, line 15, leave out “CAA may by rules (to be known as “CAA rules”)” and insert “Secretary of State may by regulations”
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment would provide for CAA rules to be made by regulations by the Secretary of State.

[Lord Moylan (Con)]

My Lords, I have a lot of amendments in this group, but I assure noble Lords that a number of them are duplicative, because they seek to replace “document” with “guidance” wherever it appears in the clause. None the less, it will take me a moment to go through my amendments.

We are dealing here with the CAA’s rule-making powers. It is worth reminding noble Lords that the first part of the Bill is about consumer protection and the CAA’s role as the direct enforcer of consumer protection powers. This is a very different part of the Bill. It is about making rules. It gives the CAA huge, unprecedented powers to make rules, including ones that may have criminal penalties, and it does so with practically no supervision—certainly not by Parliament and, as far as I can make out, very little by the Minister either. That is what these amendments are intended to deal with.

The first one probes why it is necessary for the Civil Aviation Authority to have rule-making powers at all. Until recently, the rules it made emanated from the European Union; in fact, they often came through from the ICAO, trickling down in that fashion. But, for all their faults, regulations made by the European Union were not made in secret. One could see what was happening. We had, here in your Lordships’ House, a committee that reviewed regulations and statutory instruments relating to European Union legislation.

All these rules were made under air navigation orders, which are a form of statutory instrument—again, it is a parliamentary process. In future, neither will apply. There will be no scrutiny whatever. But, since these rules have been made by statutory instrument and similar in the past, a question arises: why should they not be made in that fashion in the future?

The Minister said—or I may have read this somewhere in some of the supporting documentation—that there is a backlog of 100 or so of these that have to be got through, and that using parliamentary time for this purpose is not appropriate. It is disturbing to think that there is a backlog, but that is not an excuse in itself. After all, we are all being made to sit here in Grand Committee for five hours rather than four, and for three hours on a Tuesday morning. There is no lack of parliamentary time for considering statutory instruments. We are all being held to the last, and we work very hard. There is no excuse that there is no room for them when the Chamber is full of debates on subjects such as tackling child poverty, rather than legislating, which is what it should be doing while we are in here. We will carry on in here; we will do the statutory instruments and put the time in, so there is no problem there.

At an earlier stage—I cannot remember whether it was on our first day in Committee or at Second Reading—the Minister said he had a trump card. He said that the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee thought that it was appropriate for this regulator-led rule-making approach to be adopted. But he did not read the next sentence:

“Inherent in the proposition is that CAA made rules would be highly technical in nature”.


But this Bill does not limit the CAA to making rules that are highly technical in nature. It does not limit it simply to implementing ICAO powers.

In fact, this has caused concern to another committee of your Lordships’ House: the Constitution Committee. The chairman of that committee, my noble friend Lord Strathclyde, has written to the Minister saying among other things that:

“This Bill strengthens the secondary law-making and rule-making powers of both the Civil Aviation Authority and the Secretary of State”


and that this

“will, by the nature of negative parliamentary approval of secondary legislation, be subject to minimal parliamentary oversight. We are concerned that this will result in a scrutiny gap”.

We will wait to hear, but so far the Minister has had no answer to that.

So my first question is: why should we make such a dramatic change at all? Secondly, if there is going to be a rule-making power of this character, the Secretary of State should publish the underlying principles. It is not all given to the Secretary of State: it is for the Secretary of State, following the enactment of this Bill, to decide which rule-making powers are given over. There is no limit in the Bill on what those powers are. The second amendment, Amendment 77, would require at least a statement of principles, in advance of enactment of the Bill, as to what basis the Secretary of State is going to use for deciding which powers should be transferred over into this new process. Amendment 79 would require consultation by the Civil Aviation Authority when making rules. There is no requirement for consultation in the Bill.

Amendment 81 in my name probes why the Secretary of State’s priorities and objectives statement is described as a “document” rather than “guidance”. As I said at Second Reading, this is the oddest part of the Bill. It says that the Secretary of State is allowed to issue a document that gives guidance to the CAA on what the Government’s priorities are in relation to rule-making. The word “document” is used and the word “guidance” is avoided. I fear that that is a deliberate choice. The word “guidance” has a legal weight to it; we understand what guidance is in relation to the action of public bodies and how they are bound to it, but we do not understand what obligation a public body has to pay attention to a document issued by the Secretary of State. Does it have the weight of guidance? What weight does it have? I am trying to replace it with the word “guidance” so that we have clarity.

Then we come down to this further point: the Bill prohibits the Secretary of State from issuing this “document”, which I would change to “guidance”, without the agreement of the Civil Aviation Authority. This is truly remarkable. I do not think that I have ever come across an example where a regulated body acting on behalf of the Secretary of State can refuse to accept the document or guidance that the Secretary of State is going to issue. I raised the point at Second Reading, and the Minister made no defence, although no doubt he is better prepared now—but what could it possibly be, and how could your Lordships possibly agree to such a thing?

There are other matters here. For example, on Amendment 98. The Bill states that the Civil Aviation Authority “may” publish a consolidated set of rules so that people can look at them. That is a good idea, but it would be a better idea if the Bill said that it “must” publish a set of consolidated rules. How could this be left to the discretion of the Civil Aviation Authority? Then the Bill has the cheek to say that anybody who is so impertinent as to ask for a printed copy of that set of rules can be charged a fee, with no limit placed on the fee or on how that might be used. My amendment would take away the fee.

This whole section gives new and unprecedented powers. There is no justification given for them and it is very difficult to understand why the Government would want to do this. I have respect for the Civil Aviation Authority because, as a safety regulator, it is of the highest quality. It is in the box of good regulators; there are bad regulators, but the CAA is not a bad regulator. I do not like to say something disobliging about the CAA, but it seems that this Bill has been written as an enormous power grab by the Civil Aviation Authority. It muscled its way into the digital markets Act in relation to consumer protection, and now it is taking over a whole swathe of rule-making powers. I just remind the Minister that, when we voted for Brexit, one thing we voted for was that rules should not be made by unelected bureaucrats. This Bill moves from a system where there is some scrutiny and understanding of the process and some parliamentary scrutiny of how these rules are made, to one where they are all being made by unelected bureaucrats, without supervision. It is a retrograde step, and not one that we should support. I beg to move.

[Lord Tunnicliffe (Lab)]

My Lords, I have Amendment 78 in this group. I shall only say a few words, and I suppose the very few words I could say are that, if we are to get new powers that may affect pilots, we wish to be consulted. In many ways, it is as simple as that. Hopefully, the Minister can give us a better feel for what this piece of legislation will be used for. I find myself almost agreeing with the noble Lord, Lord Moylan. If we are to have powers where we are not clear what they will be used for and what their extent will be, there are two sensible outcomes: either you do not bother with the powers, or you have an appropriate set of checks and balances to make sure that the powers are sensible.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill (Lab)]

My Lords, this group concerns Civil Aviation Authority rule-making. I begin with the amendment from the noble Lord, Lord Moylan, which would require aviation safety regulations to continue to be made by the Secretary of State, and on which the noble Lord, Lord Harper, also spoke. That would prevent the delegation of technical rule-making to the Civil Aviation Authority, which is a central purpose of the Bill. As I said at Second Reading, the current process risks the UK falling behind its international safety obligations. Delegating technical rule-making to that authority will allow the regime to keep pace with international standards and industry change, while retaining robust safeguards, ministerial oversight and parliamentary accountability. As I will say on a number of amendments in this group, the Bill is designed to create a quicker, more responsive regulator-led system, without removing proper democratic controls.

The words of my noble friend Lord Tunnicliffe at Second Reading strongly resonated with me then, as they do now, but I note that the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee clearly recognised a case for such an approach. The noble Lord, Lord Moylan, referred to the letter from the chair of the Constitution Committee, which as yet I have not seen but will obviously fully consider when I do. I will reply to it as soon as I can and take on board all those matters that need to be considered in the Bill before Report.

[Lord Moylan (Con)]

The argument is that these rules have to be made by the CAA because parliamentary scrutiny slows things down and there is a risk that we fall behind meeting our international obligations. That is the case for change, but how often in the past have we fallen behind our international obligations using the existing system?

[Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill (Lab)]

I will certainly consider what the noble Lord says and respond to him. I am sure that what I have said is correct, but I will produce an answer for him as soon as I can.

Amendment 102 from the noble Baroness, Lady Grender, and Amendment 77 from the noble Lord, Lord Moylan, respond to the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee’s recommendations. Amendment 102 would move the relevant regulation-making power to the affirmative procedure, while Amendment 77 would require the Secretary of State to publish principles explaining how the power to prevent CAA rule-making in certain areas would be used.

I am grateful to both noble Lords for seeking to address the committee’s concern. The power is important because it helps to define the boundary between the Civil Aviation Authority and the Secretary of State. We are considering these points carefully, and, as I said at the previous Committee hearing, I fully intend to return before Report. I strongly note the advice of the noble Viscount, Lord Goshen, to be careful about what we wish for, given the possibly hundreds of technical amendments. On that basis, I hope the Committee notes that I will fully answer the points of the Constitution Committee and the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee, and that noble Lords will not press those amendments at this stage.

My noble friend Lord Tunnicliffe’s amendment, which is supported by the noble Lord, Lord Empey, would require the CAA to consult the British Airline Pilots Association. The Bill already requires the CAA to consult. The Secretary of State will expect it to consult appropriately with all relevant stakeholders, and the British Airline Pilots Association will of course be able to respond to consultations. However, a specific duty to consult that organisation in all cases would not be appropriate, because, as the noble Lord, Lord Empey, pointed out, the British Airline Pilots Association is not the only trade union representing pilots, and pilots are not the only people affected by CAA rules. Nor would it be proportionate to require that trade union to be consulted on every rule, including matters unlikely to affect pilots. I hope that reassures my noble friend. I will, of course, be happy to meet him to discuss how consultation will work in practice.

The next amendment from the noble Lord, Lord Moylan, would give the Secretary of State a power to direct the Civil Aviation Authority to consult specific persons. As with the previous amendment, I recognise the importance of appropriate consultation. However, new Section 61G, inserted by Clause 8, already enables the Secretary of State to direct the CAA in how it uses its rule-making functions, including by requiring consultation with specific parties. The amendment is therefore unnecessary and I ask the noble Lord not to press it.

Amendment 80 from the noble Baroness, Lady Grey-Thompson, would require the Civil Aviation Authority to prepare a disability impact assessment for significant rule changes. Accessibility is a priority for the Government, and we are committed to ensuring that anyone who wants to fly can do so without barriers. The Civil Aviation Authority is already subject to the public sector equality duty and must have due regard to equality impacts when making rules. As the noble Baroness, Lady Pidgeon, remarked, that should be considered automatically where appropriate. It includes careful consideration of the impact on disabled people and people with reduced mobility. I hope that reassures the noble Baroness and that she will not press her amendment, but, as I said on Tuesday, I am considering the many powerful points raised about disabled travellers and what we can and should do further in this Bill.

I will deal next with the 10 amendments from the noble Lord, Lord Moylan, which would replace references to a document setting out the Secretary of State’s priorities and objectives with references to guidance. As he notes, the distinction matters. This is not statutory guidance; it is intended to be an agreed administrative framework and work programme for the CAA’s functions. That approach allows Ministers to set clear expectations, maintain appropriate oversight and secure visibility of future rules, while respecting the CAA’s statutory independence. Labelling the document as guidance would weaken that intended effect. I therefore ask the noble Lord not to press those amendments.

Amendment 83, also from the noble Lord, Lord Moylan, would require the Secretary of State to explain how the CAA’s new rule-making function supports regional connectivity. The Government fully recognise the importance of strong air connectivity across the United Kingdom. However, most technical safety rules will have no direct bearing on that policy. Those wider objectives are more properly addressed through aviation strategy and policy, rather than through technical safety and operational rules. I therefore ask the noble Lord not to press this amendment.

I will speak to Amendments 89 and 91 together, as both concern the governance of the priorities and objectives document. Amendment 89, from the noble Lord, Lord Kirkhope of Harrogate, and my noble friend Lord Barber of Ainsdale, would replace the requirement for agreement with the CAA with a broader duty to consult stakeholders. Amendment 91, from the noble Lord, Lord Moylan, would similarly remove the CAA’s role in agreeing the document.

Here, I return to a common point in this group: the Bill seeks to create a streamlined, effective system with clear roles, while preserving regulatory independence. Replacing agreement with broad consultation would duplicate consultation that already takes place on individual rule changes and would slow the process. Removing agreement would also undermine the CAA’s ability to stand behind the programme it is asked to deliver. Agreement is not a veto; it ensures the programme is credible, deliverable and consistent with the Civil Aviation Authority’s statutory duties. If agreement cannot be reached, the Secretary of State retains existing powers, including the ability to make regulations directly. I will further explore the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Harper, on this. I therefore ask noble Lords not to press Amendments 89 and 91.

The next amendment, also from the noble Lord, Lord Kirkhope of Harrogate, and my noble friend Lord Barber of Ainsdale, concerns parliamentary oversight of the priorities and objectives document. I recognise the importance of transparency. However, Ministers must retain clear backstop powers to direct or intervene quickly where appropriate. Where directions are issued, they will be published, and the Secretary of State will remain accountable, including through the Transport Select Committee. In that context, laying the document before Parliament may not add significant transparency. We will continue to reflect on the points raised but, meanwhile, I ask the noble Lord and my noble friend not to press the amendment.

I turn to Amendment 96 from the noble Lord, Lord Holmes of Richmond, on AI technical standards. Artificial intelligence and automation are already important to aviation safety, and automation has contributed significantly to the high levels of safety achieved over recent decades. The Civil Aviation Authority takes developments in AI seriously and has a developed AI strategy, which it will continue to review as technology evolves. The Civil Aviation Authority already scrutinises technology used in safety-critical systems, including AI, through expert, system-specific certification and oversight. A single framework for all AI use would not be workable, and mandatory human intervention in every decision could undermine safety by introducing avoidable human error. I therefore ask the noble Lord not to press his amendment.

I will take Amendments 97 and 98, from the noble Lord, Lord Moylan, together. They would require the Civil Aviation Authority to republish the entire rulebook whenever a new rule is made, or an existing rule is updated. The CAA rulebook runs to many thousands of provisions. Republishing it in full for even minor changes would be disproportionate, costly and time-consuming, and would frustrate the aim of an agile, consolidated rulebook. The Civil Aviation Authority will publish new rules and updates to existing rules in a timely way. I therefore ask the noble Lord not to press Amendments 97 and 98.

[Lord Moylan (Con)]

Can the Minister give a commitment that the Civil Aviation Authority will maintain an up-to-date rulebook on its website at all times? Any changes made could simply be inserted on the website. That is what I am asking for; I am not asking for a book. The amendment says “publish”; it does say “publish a book”. At the moment, the Bill does not require the CAA to do that; it specifically exempts it from doing so.

[Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill (Lab)]

The noble Lord makes a reasonable point; I will take it away.

Amendments 99 and 100, also from the noble Lord, Lord Moylan, would require the Civil Aviation Authority to provide a free paper copy of the rulebook to anyone who asks. As I have just noted, the rulebook is extremely large, so requiring free paper copies would create a significant cost and administrative burden and, frankly, could be open to abuse. It is right that the CAA may charge for that expense, while ensuring that rules remain available to view for free on its website. I ask the noble Lord not to press Amendments 99 and 100.

I am grateful to the noble Lord for Amendment 101. The provision he seeks to remove is needed to ensure that the transition to CAA-led rule-making works coherently, including by enabling necessary consequential changes to existing legislation and enforcement provisions. Without it, gaps could arise that would require further primary legislation, which would not be proportionate or efficient. This is not an unfettered power. It is limited to what the Secretary of State considers necessary to facilitate or give effect to CAA rules, and it is subject to parliamentary procedure—affirmative where it amends primary legislation and negative in other cases. That provides proper oversight while allowing the new regime to operate effectively. Therefore, I ask the noble Lord not to press Amendment 101.

Finally, Amendment 118 from the noble Lord, Lord Empey, concerns flight time limitations. The CAA is responsible for ensuring that operators comply with those regulations. It already has powers to audit and enforce compliance, and is currently reviewing flight time limitations and enforcement. That review will be published later this year and will inform the CAA’s future approach. I will write to the noble Lord on the points he raised. I hope that that reassures him, and I ask him not to press Amendment 118.

[Lord Moylan (Con)]

My Lords, I note and am grateful for the assurance from the Minister that he will return on Report with an amendment—or amendments—that will address the points raised by the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee. I am sure that the noble Baroness, Lady Grender, and I will study that carefully, to see whether it will allow us not to press our own amendments. Beyond that, I am afraid to say that the Minister has, I think, disappointed the Committee with his response.

I will briefly comment on the relationship between the Secretary of State and the CAA. In normal circumstances—we might take Great British Railways as an example, as it is being created at the moment—we expect the Secretary of State to issue a document setting out the Government’s priorities and to impose them on the body being regulated. However, in this case, the Minister seems to envisage a partnership arrangement—a contract of some sort—between the Department for Transport and the Civil Aviation Authority, in which the CAA can say, “No, we don’t accept that part of the contract. We want something else”.

That seems to be unprecedented, although it is possible that the Minister can find precedence for it elsewhere in the regulatory environment in which we exist. It seems unprecedented, but it also seems to requires its own supervisory structure. In the end, if the Civil Aviation Authority can decide what it is willing to do, and the Secretary of State does not have the power to issue guidance requiring it to do those things, then we have created a monster that is totally outside of our control. I hear the Minister’s justification, but, as far as I understand it, it seems to raise more questions than it answers. I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.

Amendment 76 withdrawn.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Pidgeon (LD)]

My Lords, this group of amendments focuses rightly on the environment and climate impacts. My noble friend Lord Russell has set out clearly Amendments 106 and 107. They are modest, sensible asks and the Government should not find them difficult to accept, given that the aviation sector accounts for a significant and growing share of UK emissions and that it is one of the hardest sectors to decarbonise. We strongly support my noble friend’s amendments and look forward to hearing from the Minister how the Government intend to address this gap.

[Lord Moylan (Con)]

My Lords, between them, my noble friend Lord Harper and the noble Earl, Lord Russell, have drawn attention to the unreality of this debate. Everything in this Committee and everything to do with this Bill is about growth—economic growth, building new airports, having a new runway at Heathrow and so on. However, elsewhere there are, as I mentioned, government policies and statutory commitments that are undeliverable unless that growth is restricted. It is a great advantage to the Committee that the two noble Lords between them have drawn attention to that.

My Amendment 111 asks for a review of the cost of sustainable aviation fuel and takes us back to the issue that we discussed when the Sustainable Aviation Fuel Act was before your Lordships’ House.

Ministers have said that SAF costs are subject to fluctuation but are currently based on costs of £3.30 per litre for conventional SAF and approximately £4 per litre for power-to-liquid fuel. They have also set out estimated RAF market costs rising from £16.5 million in 2025 to £187 million by 2040 as a result of SAF. That has been reported as the RAF spending more than £1 billion over 15 years on switching to sustainable jet fuel. Wider commentary has suggested that sustainable aviation fuel can cost up to eight times as much as conventional jet fuel.

It matters because, as we know, the mandate requires an ever-increasing amount of SAF to be used by the commercial aviation sector. For passengers, it will mean higher fares, and therefore less demand. For airlines, it may mean higher operating costs, but also weaker competitiveness and a reduction in aviation activity. If the demand is falling, the number of planes in the air will be fewer, the number of destinations served will be fewer and the amount of regional connectivity that we can look forward to will be less.

If the Government are imposing this policy, they should be prepared to assess openly what it means for airfares, airline costs, public expenditure and national security for the UK. My amendment calls for the Government to make that assessment within two years—plenty of time—of the passing of the Bill and to publish it. It is the least they can do.

--- Later in debate ---

My final question is to test whether the Government are going to remain completely hands-off and allow the CAA to finish its consultation, decide which of those four models it prefers and just go along with whatever the CAA says or are the Government going to take a view on whether what the CAA has come up with is actually going to enable it to deliver the Government’s preferred choice of the more expensive £49 billion option for the third runway? That was the purpose of tabling the amendment, and I hope that the Minister can set out some detailed answers when he responds.

[Lord Moylan (Con)]

My Lords, I wholly support the amendments proposed by my noble friend Lord Harper. I keep coming back—I must—to the absolutely cruel imposition of increased business rates on airports. They are a smash and grab of deliberate design; they can have no effect other than to make aviation less accessible to ordinary people, despite what the Minister has just said is the Government’s policy. Equally, if the CAA is to have these very substantial new powers, it is reasonable to ask why it should not also have a clear duty to promote competition. For that reason, I strongly support the amendments in this group.

[Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill (Lab)]

I thank your Lordships for the debate on this group regarding economic impacts and competition, and I thank the noble Lord, Lord Harper, in particular for his amendments. I turn first to his amendment on the impact of business rates revaluation. At the Budget, the Valuation Office Agency announced updated property values from the 2026 revaluation. This revaluation is the first since the pandemic to result in significant increases in rateable value for some property, which includes some airports. The Government recognise the impact that these changes can have. We have considered this carefully and have put in place measures to ensure that the effects are manageable. We are delivering a support package worth £4.3 billion over the next three years, including a £3.2 billion transitional relief scheme. That provides more generous support to the largest ratepayers, including airports. It caps increases in airport bills arising from revaluations to just over double by 2028-29, before any supplements and reliefs are applied, preventing the much larger increases they otherwise would have seen.

The Government believe these arrangements strike the right balance, reflecting updated property values while ensuring a smooth and manageable adjustment for airports. Looking ahead, however, the Government recognise that businesses with decades-long capital cycles need stability and predictability to deliver capital investment plans. To provide this, the Government published a call for evidence around the receipts and expenditure valuation methodology and its impacts on long-term, high-value investments. This will allow the Government to work constructively with airports and other ratepayers ahead of the 2029 revaluation. I should also note that if an airport, or indeed any business, disagrees with their business rates valuation, they may challenge it with the Valuation Office Agency and, if that fails to produce a satisfactory outcome, the affected party may escalate the case to the independent Valuation Tribunal. As a result, I hope the noble Lord feels able to withdraw this amendment.

I turn to Amendment 116. The Government agree that effective competition, where it can be delivered, plays an important role in improving outcomes for passengers, airlines and the wider sector. The CAA already has a clear statutory role in economic regulation and a duty to further the interests of air passengers, both of which it actively applies. The Civil Aviation Act 2012 provides a well-established framework designed to give the Civil Aviation Authority clear focus on furthering the interests of passengers. The framework ensures that competition is properly considered as a means of furthering those interests, while allowing the regulator to take a balanced and proportionate approach in markets where competition may not always be effective. It is important that the CAA continues to have discretion in how it regulates airports, including by balancing the promotion of competition with other ways to further the interests of consumers where those are more appropriate. Although the CAA’s competition remit is targeted, the Competition and Markets Authority is able to intervene when wider competition issues arise.

We recognise that there are arguments for looking more broadly at the CAA’s role in relation to competition, but so far we have seen no evidence that the current framework is not working effectively, although we will continue to keep it under review. If we consider it necessary, we will, indeed, as the noble Lord, Lord Harper, suggested, add competition to the next letter to the Civil Aviation Authority chair.

Changes in this space could have wide-ranging implications for investment, passenger costs and regulatory independence, so it is important that those impacts are fully considered before any changes are made. Amendment 116 does not address those broader questions, and it risks cutting across a more considered approach. The proposed reporting requirement is unlikely to add significant value, given the CAA’s existing transparency and reporting obligations. For those reasons, I hope the noble Lord feels able not to press his amendment.

Finally, Amendment 117 seeks to enable the CAA to impose pro-competition remedies at Heathrow. As noted, the CAA already has a well-established framework of powers relating to economic competition. These enable it to act where competition is not working effectively. It can impose and enforce licence conditions on dominant airports and has concurrent competition powers alongside the CMA. In short, the tools to act are already in place, and competition consideration is already embedded in the statutory duties.

We note, as the noble Lord did, that the CAA is currently consulting on aspects of the future regulatory framework at Heathrow, including options, as he mentioned, that relate to competition and the delivery of airport infrastructure. In answer to his question, the CAA does not believe it needs further powers if it chooses a more radical option. On his second question, about whether the Government will take a view on the CAA’s choices, I cannot say at the moment, but since the Heathrow expansion national policy statement has been launched, we will no doubt be able to in due course. I have no doubt that the noble Lord is engaging with those processes and, for that reason, we do not believe that this amendment is necessary.

The noble Lord asked on Tuesday about the department’s role in reducing the administrative burden of regulation on business by 25% in this Parliament. I can confirm that the department is working closely with regulators and with the Department for Business and Trade to identify legislative and practical changes to deliver that. We have already made progress: for example, changes to rules for large vehicle licence holders with diabetes, which reduce costs by several million pounds a year; and there are some examples of Civil Aviation Authority initiatives that contribute to a reduction in the administrative burden incurred by businesses, including investment in systems modernisation, the recent update to the Airspace Coordination and Obstacle Management Service, and the general aviation licensing and training simplification programme. I am very happy to write to him further, and I will do so.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Moylan (Con)]

My Lords, I shall briefly oppose Clause 10 standing part of the Bill. This is a wide-ranging Henry VIII power, and wholly unnecessary. In a letter sent by the Civil Service to the Delegated Powers Committee, civil servants identify every Act that this Bill interacts with and states that all amendments necessary are already made in the Bill. Why should the Government be seeking a Henry VIII power to amend even further legislation, yet unknown and undiscovered, when the case has been closed off already?

[Baroness Pidgeon (LD)]

My Lords, the Clause 10 stand part notice tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Moylan, raises a point of constitutional principle that the Committee will wish to consider carefully. I draw attention to subsection (6), which enables regulations to be implemented using the negative procedure. Have the Government considered whether the affirmative procedure should apply to all regulations made under this clause, rather than only to those presently specified? Given that the power extends to modifying primary legislation, there is a reasonable case that every exercise of it should require the active approval of both Houses, rather than passing on the nod. Can the Minister confirm whether he is prepared to reflect further on that question before Report?

[Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill (Lab)]

My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Moylan, opposes the inclusion of Clause 10 in the Bill. I recognise the importance of proper parliamentary scrutiny where powers are taken to make consequential provision, particularly where those powers may be used to amend primary legislation. However, I reassure the noble Lord that this clause is both limited and appropriate. I note that the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee did not draw this clause to the attention of your Lordships’ House.

Clause 10 gives the Secretary of State a power to make consequential regulations so that the statute book properly reflects the changes made by the Bill. It is not a power to make substantive policy changes. The clause allows regulations to amend, appeal or revoke provision made by or under an Act passed before this Bill or later in the parliamentary Session, but only when that is consequential on the Bill. Importantly, where regulations made under this power amend or repeal primary legislation, they must be laid before Parliament and approved by both Houses under the affirmative procedure.

Such consequential powers are a common and practical feature of legislation used to ensure that the wider statute book works coherently once a Bill is enacted. In this case, the power is appropriately constrained and subject to the necessary parliamentary safeguards. Removing this clause would mean that the Government may need to rely on primary legislation to make minor changes and that, if there were delays, this could create inconsistencies in legislation and legal uncertainty.

I note the suggestion made by the noble Baroness, Lady Pidgeon, to reflect on Clause 6. I will, of course, consider that further. For those reasons, the Government consider it necessary to retain this power, and I hope the noble Lord will withdraw his opposition to Clause 10 standing part of the Bill.

[Lord Moylan (Con)]

My Lords, the fact is that the job has been done. The Minister did not address the point that all the relevant Acts have already been identified and that no further amendments are required. He did not explain—perhaps he cannot explain—what legislation this power should be used for. It is not constrained and, as the noble Baroness, Lady Pidgeon, said, some of its provisions, although not those that allow the alteration of primary legislation, can be processed using the negative procedure. It is not appropriate.

I will conclude very briefly. We started by identifying this Bill as a massive power grab. Our last discussion in Committee is yet more about massive power grabs. This is not the way to treat Parliament. I think many of these issues are going to come back on Report and there will be widespread opposition to the way the Government are conducting themselves. For now, however, I withdraw my opposition to Clause 10.

Clause 10 agreed.

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

Lord Moylan Excerpts

Committee stage
Tuesday 16th June 2026 Grand Committee

Moved by

[Lord Moylan]

1: Before Clause 1, insert the following new Clause—
“Purpose(1) The purpose of this Act is to—(a) promote the international competitiveness of the United Kingdom aviation sector;(b) support economic growth in that sector;(c) protect the rights and interests of consumers of air transport and airport services.(2) The Secretary of State must, in taking any actions under the provisions of this Act, have regard to this purpose.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment inserts a purpose clause into the Bill requiring the Secretary of State and the CAA to have regard to the promotion of the international competitiveness of the United Kingdom aviation sector and economic growth in that sector.

[Lord Moylan (Con)]

My Lords, this Bill represents and achieves an astonishing transfer of power away from Parliament and away from the scrutiny that your Lordships and Members of the other place have customarily brought to regulation and legislation pertaining to the field of civil aviation. Some of this is a necessary transfer of power to the Minister since we have left the European Union. One bears in mind that much of the regulation in the field of consumer protection was made by the European Union, but that is no longer the case and any changes that we might want to make to it now need to be made by a different mechanism. This Bill provides that mechanism, but it does so in a way that is not adequately scrutinised by Parliament. The Bill does other things, one of which is that it makes a massive and unprecedented transfer of power to the Civil Aviation Authority. We will discuss that in a later group and we will want to probe it, because it will be wholly outside the remit of parliamentary scrutiny.

Those are the key constitutional and legal issues, it seems to me, at the heart of the Bill and we must probe them forcefully, even though I completely understand that other noble Lords will bring forward particular measures that they feel would improve the operation of civil aviation. Those are, for the purposes of this Bill, secondary, because the intention is that this Bill does not make those decisions; it is to provide a framework to allow them to be made by other routes. The crucial thing is ensuring that those other routes are under proper parliamentary control.

My Amendment 1 would insert a purpose clause. I know that Governments do not particularly like purpose clauses; they do not want to disclose to the rest of the world and to Parliament what they are actually trying to achieve with a piece of legislation. None the less, I put one in to probe the Government on what they are trying to achieve with this. The Government’s own impact assessment says that the Bill is designed to

“unlock the benefits of airport expansion … help the UK aviation sector to grow … reinforcing the UK’s global leadership in aviation”.

If that is in fact their purpose, I do not see that they can object to a clause that says as much in the Bill, which is the effect of my Amendment 1.

The amendment would insert a purpose clause stating that the Act should

“promote the international competitiveness of the United Kingdom aviation sector … support economic growth”

and

“protect the rights and interests of consumers”.

They are not in conflict with each other, and they should not be treated as if they are. A strong aviation sector needs passengers to have confidence in their rights, but it also needs airlines, airports and investors to have confidence that regulation will be proportionate, predictable and pro-growth. Amendment 23 is intended to make sure that, when the Secretary of State makes regulations under Clause 1, the impact on growth is considered at the start, rather than as an afterthought.

In other words, Amendment 1 would apply to the whole Bill, and Amendment 23 seeks to apply the same effect to Clause 1, which relates in particular to consumer rights. It is obviously vital that consumers are properly protected, but they should be protected in a way that supports demand for aviation, encourages investment and allows aviation businesses to grow. The Government have repeatedly said that economic growth is their number one priority. I fully realise that, depending on the day of the week, there will be a different number one priority. But, at various times, growth has occupied that slot, so the Government should be prepared to apply that test to the regulations made under the Bill. The amendment is simply asking the Minister to take seriously the economic consequences of the powers that they are seeking.

Amendment 24 concerns alignment with EU law and international standards. I was appalled when I read the large final-stage impact assessment document. By page three it is already talking about aligning with European Union legislation. We know that the European Union at the moment is in the midst, or maybe approaching the end, of a contested argument about changes to consumer protection rights. We can take it, with some degree of certainty, that there will be changes to aviation consumer protection rights in the European Union as a result of those discussions.

Already, the department is thinking not what is best for Britain, what is best for the growth of the aviation sector, nor what is best for passengers. It is simply thinking the way it has thought for 47 years: what are we going to do to align with the European Union? To prevent that from being the lodestar of how regulation develops in the future, Amendment 24 would put in certain trip-wires in any case where the intention is to align with European Union regulations. I object to the assumption that the United Kingdom’s ambition should be merely to mirror what the European Union does next.

Amendment 25 concerns the Government’s own target to reduce the administrative cost of regulation on businesses by 25% by the end of this Parliament. That is a noble ambition, to which I can give every level of support. It is an ambition where it is difficult to see, even though the Government have now been in power for about two years, that progress has been made in those first two years. The Public Accounts Committee has warned that the Treasury and the Department for Business and Trade do not have a robust plan to deliver the 25% reduction in administrative burdens. It has also said that the Treasury does not even know if the Government are on track.

In light of that, it is important that in any Bill that is to do with business, there is a requirement that the Government meet their own target on the reduction of the effects of regulatory burdens. Of course, it is open to the Minister to say that that is no longer the Government’s target, and that would be an interesting policy development. But if it is the Government’s target, it is about time that they started meeting it. This amendment is aimed directly at that.

These amendments are not about weakening passenger rights. They are about making sure that passenger rights sit within a regulatory framework that strengthens the aviation sector rather than holding it back. I beg to move.

[Lord Davies of Gower (Con)]

My Lords, I will speak to Amendment 113. It has been on a bit of a circuitous tour of groupings, but I am pleased to say that it is back in group 1. I declare my membership of the Aircraft Owners and Pilots Association. I am vice-president, and I apologise for not mentioning that at Second Reading.

My Amendment 113 is very clear. It seeks to require the Secretary of State and the Civil Aviation Authority, when exercising functions under this Act, to

“have regard to the need to promote and encourage general aviation”.

To achieve this, the Secretary of State and the Civil Aviation Authority

“must consult such persons representing general aviation as they consider appropriate”.

Given the importance of the general aviation community within the UK aviation sector, one would have thought that it would have at least merited an appearance in the Bill, but no. There is not even the tiniest of mentions.

The Minister will recall that, at Second Reading, my noble friend Lord Kirkhope and I spoke passionately about the relevance of general aviation. I even asked questions of the Minister, to which his response was:

“The noble Lord, Lord Davies of Gower, asked about general aviation. This Government support general aviation. They see the connection, particularly with training pilots and so forth, and will continue to maintain their interest in general aviation. They note the importance of general aviation in airspace modernisation and will continue to consult it”.—[Official Report, 2/6/26; col. 827.]


I was very grateful for that short response. However, I am not persuaded as to how this will be achieved. Indeed, it takes two to tango, and I am not currently convinced that, for general aviation, what is on offer at present sufficiently demonstrates that the DfT and the CAA are willing dancing partners.

There is also a belief—I have heard it said—that this is not an appropriate Bill in which to raise the issues of general aviation. I disagree vehemently with that notion. The Bill is clear in its intention: it is a Bill

“to make provision about airspace change, air traffic and air navigation services”,

which are parts that GA is very interested in, and

“to confer power on the Civil Aviation Authority to make rules”

and

“to make provision about aviation offences”,

which GA is extremely interested in and subject to the effect of. These, I suggest, are extremely relevant to general aviation, and we need a recognised voice.

As a vital part of the aviation community, general aviation plays a hugely significant role. I pointed out at Second Reading that, at the last count, it contributes £4 billion to the UK’s economy and supports some 40,000 jobs. Yet it is treated as a peripheral, regarded as nothing more than hobby flying. The current Government, unlike the previous one, do nothing to recognise the value of the sector, having disposed of the general aviation unit within the DfT—an issue I asked for confirmation about at Second Reading, but I did not get a response. Martin Robinson, the chief executive of the Aircraft Owners and Pilots Association, put it well when he said that general aviation

“should be recognised as a strategic national asset and … should be reflected in the Secretary of State’s priorities for the CAA”,

but there is not a mention of it in the Bill.

General aviation underpins much of UK aviation. It is where most pilots begin their careers and is the first step on the ladder to becoming a commercial pilot or an aero engineer. General aviation supports business aviation, the emergency services, aerial surveying, engineering skills and a whole lot more. Yet, as I have said, there is no mention of it in the Bill. Again, I am reminded of Martin Robinson’s words:

“The challenge is not hostility so much as a persistent institutional mindset that prioritises airline operations, major airports, and commercial air transport”,


leaving general aviation struggling to be heard. Although I am afraid that the worm is making a very strategic turn, to be ignored in a Bill of such importance is foolhardy and contradicts any aim of making the UK the best place in the world for general aviation as a flourishing, wealth-generating and job-producing sector of the economy.

My amendment is well intentioned. If we are to create an environment which enhances safety and encourages compliance then, without the voice of general aviation being heard at the top table, we are likely to endure overly complex regulation, which will create unnecessary barriers, particularly for smaller organisations with limited resources. I urge the Government to accept my amendment, and I commend it to the Committee.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Harper (Con)]

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

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

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

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

[Lord Moylan (Con)]

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

[Lord Harper (Con)]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill (Lab)]

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

[Lord Moylan (Con)]

My Lords, I note that the Minister quotes the Delegated Powers Committee favourably. I hope, therefore, that he will be willing to accept, when we come to it, my later amendment, which gives effect to the recommendation of the Delegated Powers Committee that certain powers in the Bill be constrained. We will debate that, as I say, at a later stage.

I am grateful to noble Lords who have spoken on these amendments. I say a particular word of thanks to my noble friends Lord Davies of Gower and Lord Goschen for their contributions on the general aviation sector, which, as they say, is not always remembered with the prominence due to it. I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Grender, for the support that she found able to give to my amendments in general and to raising a case that we will pursue. I thought that the Minister might have been able to agree with my amendments in the same way, but he was not. He found somewhat footling reasons for saying that they were unnecessary. That only makes it more likely, I am afraid, that we will return to them on Report.

I am persuaded that when the Minister says that he is committed to a competitive and successful aviation sector, he is right. But he is not the only voice in Whitehall. That is why these amendments are so important. I do not imagine that the Minister was consulted when the Chancellor of the Exchequer decided to impose bone-crunching increases in business rates on the aviation sector that he wants to see remaining internationally competitive. I do not know the extent to which the Minister is consulted when DEZNZ—I hate that expression —is pushing for ever-increasing drop-off charges at airports. This is something that we will discuss again in considering further amendments, which clearly imposes a cost on flying for ordinary families, and is intended to do so, and which can only damage the aviation sector and make it less competitive. I was disappointed by what the Minister had to say. None the less, at this stage I beg leave to withdraw my amendment, although I expect to return to the matters on Report.

Amendment 1 withdrawn.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Grender (LD)]

My Lords, we support these amendments because they test whether the Bill does more than just create broad enabling powers. If we are giving the Secretary of State and the CAA new regulatory and enforcement functions, Parliament should also be clear about the statutory floor, the scope and the standards against which those powers are to be exercised.

We believe that Amendment 9, tabled by my noble friend Lord Russell, should be agreed to because it would insert a specific passenger safeguarding obligation to prohibit carriers separating children from accompanying adults. In doing so, it would remove a gap in the consumer protection framework and prevent airlines monetising what is, in practical terms, a safeguarding issue. It would also give statutory weight to the principle that family seating should not be treated as an optional extra, which is consistent with the Bill’s wider consumer protection purpose. Although we are aware of the CMA’s present investigation into Ryanair, we think that this an excellent opportunity to embed something in this legislation. We think that that is the right approach.

My Amendment 13 is technically important because it would refine Clause 1 by requiring air passenger rights regulations to standardise hand baggage dimensions by reference to recognised industry standards. This matters because the present position is too often defined by variable carrier policies rather than a clear statutory baseline, which makes the operation of Clause 1(2)(d), on price transparency, much harder in practice. A uniform volumetric standard would enable genuine, like-for-like comparisons at the point of sale. We all know people who have to hold three different sizes of hand luggage if they are using three different airlines. It just does not make any sense.

This amendment would still preserve commercial freedom because it would standardise the box but not the fee. It would also give the CAA an objective benchmark for compliance and enforcement, which is preferable—we can all agree on this, I think—to relying on what is, after all, very patchy guidance or post hoc disputes at the gate. We have all seen those, I am sure.

My Amendment 20 would provide a non-regression safeguard as domestic aviation consumer law replaces assimilated EU-derived protections. The amendment would require the Secretary of State to ensure that new regulations are at least equal to, and ideally better than, the protections that are already in place. I mentioned this in our debate on the previous group. It would provide an important constraint on delegated power because it would prevent the framework being used to dilute rights over time. It would also convert what is currently a permissive approach into a continuing duty of review, which is a sensible way to ensure that consumer rights do not fall behind evolving standards.

Amendment 36 would give the Bill a more coherent accountability structure through providing a passenger charter—I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay, not only for her support but for bringing to life the realities of being on a plane in some difficult circumstances. At the moment, the risk with the Bill as it stands is that powers exist in principle but passengers have no clarity or codified statement of what service standards they can expect or how failures will be remedied. Embedding a charter with objective performance measures and a defined redress framework would make the regulatory architecture more intelligible and more enforceable. That said, I recognise that the Minister has set out the challenge to us about being more specific about this passenger charter and we will continue to attempt to do that, including in the run-up to Report. I thank him for the ongoing discussions about that.

Amendment 2, tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Grey-Thompson, and my noble friend Lady Brinton, is also an important technical correction, because it would turn accessibility from a general policy objective into a legal duty. Disabled passengers should not be left dependent on guidance, voluntary compliance or uneven airline practice. A statutory obligation, accompanied by annual reporting, would create clearer lines of accountability for both operators and the regulator. That is especially significant where the Bill is otherwise expanding the CAA’s enforcement role. I thank the Minister again for his willingness to engage and discuss this issue with us behind the scenes. I feel that there is a door that is reasonably open to achieving some kind of understanding, particularly in this area and particularly in the light of the absolutely hair-raising stories that we all heard in the Second Reading debate.

I added Amendment 59B a bit late. It is—with apologies to the noble Lord, Lord Moylan—about echoing and shadowing EU 261. This is a probing and exploratory amendment, which goes to the coherence of the UK passenger rights regime at the moment, when the European framework is evolving and the Government are asking Parliament to confer broad powers on the Secretary of State. If the Bill is to modernise aviation consumer protection, it should not allow UK 261 to drift away from EU 261 without some kind of explicit policy choice or decision and clear scrutiny here in Parliament with a proper explanation.

The practical concern is straightforward. We know that EU 261 is making progress on embedding greater rights—for instance, about travelling with your child or about compensation after three hours’ delay. It would be useful to make sure that we mirror that, unless we can do better. That is in my other amendment, which is saying, “Let’s not do a race to the bottom; let’s do a race to the top of the highest possible standards”. That is why Amendment 59B should be seen as a non-regression and alignment safeguard, not a mere technical tidying-up provision. That said, I very much look forward to hearing what the Minister says in response.

[Lord Moylan (Con)]

My Lords, I will introduce my amendments in this group and will then make a few comments about remarks made by other noble Lords in the course of debate—not, I assure your Lordships, responding to every noble Lord who spoke, although it was a very valuable and interesting debate. I will speak first to Amendments 4, 5 and 30. I also have Amendments 38 and 39 in this group, but Amendments 4, 5 and 30 stand as a set that work together, so I will speak to them first.

Amendment 4 would require a review of hidden or undisclosed charges imposed on passengers by airlines or airport operators. I am singing from a similar hymn book to that used by the noble Baroness, Lady Grender, the noble Earl, Lord Russell, and others in trying to get to the heart of understanding how, cumulatively, passengers are being charged for various things. I have cast my amendment in the form of asking the Government to have a review. We all have anecdotal experience of this sort of thing. I booked some air tickets the other day. Of course, a very attractive price is offered, but by the time I have chosen the option that includes the suitcase and I have booked my seats, it is a bit more expensive than it started out.

--- Later in debate ---

These arrangements do not exist in a regulatory vacuum. Parking operators function within the bounds of UK consumer protection law and industry standards, allowing for intervention if such practices constitute a breach of these standards. The revenue generated from parking and drop-off charges is an important part of an airport’s wider commercial model, and that income can be used for essential investment in airport infrastructure and passenger facilities, including to support the delivery of an airport’s surface access strategy, directly subsidising cleaner public transport options.

[Lord Moylan (Con)]

My Lords, there is the case of airports such as Heathrow—admittedly few in number—that are economically regulated on the basis of a regulated asset base. Assuming that it was approved by the CAA acting as economic regulator, a Heathrow investment in infrastructure would be added to the regulated asset base, and it would earn its return that way. It does not defray those returns on the grounds that it has income from shops, drop-off charges and so on; they are pure bonus to the shareholders.

[Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill (Lab)]

I note the noble Lord’s point on Heathrow and other airports that have a regulated asset base. Airports must retain the ability to manage their own infrastructure. The Government’s role is to ensure that competition and consumer laws are protected and upheld. Ultimately, each airport operator must justify the charges they levy and show that they are fair, transparent and carried out with proper accountability. For those reasons, I hope noble Lords will feel able not to press their amendments.

I thank the noble Lord, Lord Young of Cookham, for his amendment relating to reimbursement for airlines if delays are caused by air traffic management, and I note the support from the noble Baroness, Lady Foster of Oxton, and others. Long delays and cancellations that are caused by air traffic management decisions are considered extraordinary circumstances under the current law, and therefore compensation is not due to passengers in those cases. None the less, the airlines are responsible for providing refunds, or care to passengers, such as meals and refreshments, when there are such delays and cancellations, provided certain qualifying conditions are met.

I note that National Air Traffic Services is subject to a robust regulatory regime overseen by the Civil Aviation Authority, and it includes performance targets linked to delays and a financial penalty mechanism when these targets are not met, meaning that NATS must reduce what it charges airlines in the following period. This is at least currently the effective penalty on NATS for poor performance.

I recognise that the noble Lord has diligently pursued this issue across the previous Government and this one. With relative joy, I have discovered how many previous Secretaries of State there are not only on the opposition Benches but in this Room. I am very grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Harper, for his explanation of what happened in the case that the noble Lord, Lord Young of Cookham, referred to. He supposes that I have some sympathy with the proposition that, somehow, the charges levied on Network Rail did not act as the incentive that they were supposed to. He is right, which is why the Railways Bill does not go in that direction. I am grateful to him—seriously—for explaining what decision he came to in that particular case, because he is right that the shareholding of NATS is very far from a conventional commercial company with a range of shareholders.

I hope I have never been grudging. I may—as the noble Lord, Lord Moylan, probably thinks frequently—be unpersuasive, but I think I owe the noble Lord, Lord Young, at least the courtesy of a meeting on this subject to understand better what he has said and to see whether the current Government’s position ought to be the same as what the noble Lord, Lord Harper, described in his Government’s case, or whether there is a persuasive case for change.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Grender (LD)]

Wow—how much blood has to boil before this is dealt with? It was striking at Second Reading to hear these stories, and striking that a lot of them came from behind the Minister on the Government Benches. In a sense, that gives me a little hope that there is enough political will and heft here that something can be done. From meetings that we have had with the Minister, I think there is political will here.

We cannot ever hear these stories again without having taken this opportunity and this moment to do something. It is beyond shocking that this happens. It should never happen, but, in a modern age, today, that this is happening on a regular basis is beyond the pale and needs to stop. Whatever support the Minister requires to get this over the line, I know that my noble friend Lady Brinton, the noble Baroness, Lady Grey-Thompson, and the noble Lords, Lord Holmes and Lord Blencathra, are powerful advocates who can help deliver on that.

We support the amendment by the noble Baroness, Lady Kennedy. I have two amendments in my name, one of which is about an accompanying adult with a child. This is an incredibly important issue. We recognise that there is one bad actor at the moment on this and that the CMA is looking into it. That said, embedding this in the Bill would give the reassurance that families need and deserve. When I was talking about this amendment with my noble friend Lady Brinton, she pointed out that it is not simply families who get separated from their children; people get separated from their carers—when you go searching, you find that there are plenty of examples of that. Again, surely this is a small change that can and should be implemented.

I am incredibly hopeful that there is an opportunity between this Committee and Report to do some serious and significant work, to make use of this Bill to ensure that we never have to hear of this appalling treatment ever again.

[Lord Moylan (Con)]

My Lords, it has been an important, valuable and moving debate. I do not have anything to add that would be helpful to the Committee, except to say that we must all take account of the important stories of people’s real experience, which are illustrative of what so many others have to face.

I said at Second Reading that I hoped that there would be sufficient unanimity on these issues and that the Government themselves would bring forward amendments around which we could rally. The advantage of that would have been that any government amendments would be workable and acceptable, so we would have been able to rally around something that worked rather than struggling as Back-Benchers, with the modest support we have, to devise something and impose it on the Government, which is always unsatisfactory in a certain sense. Unfortunately, the Government have not come forward with amendments, but there is still an opportunity for them to do so on Report. If they do not, I am sure that there will be a wide range of amendments that will almost certainly go to a Division. I do not see that they are going to be defeated, given the attitudes that have been expressed by noble Lords across the Grand Committee.

I urge the Government that it is in their interests to seize this issue and run with it. If they did so, I think that the whole Committee, across parties, would rally round them.

[Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill (Lab)]

My Lords, I am grateful to noble Lords for their thoughtful and powerful contributions on accessibility and consumer protection. The noble Baroness, Lady Grender, is right that we should not have to hear these stories. Some of them are simply dreadful, and the worst thing is that they are only examples.

The Government share the objective behind the amendments that disabled passengers and others who need assistance should be able to travel by air with confidence, dignity and appropriate redress when things go wrong. It is for those reasons that the Government established the Aviation Accessibility Task and Finish Group. I have already welcomed the report of July last year from the noble Baroness, Lady Grey-Thompson.

Before turning to individual amendments, I should make one point that applies to very many of them. Clauses 1 and 2 are designed to provide powers to strengthen passenger rights and enforcement. The Government’s view is that detailed requirements relating to passenger rights are best developed through secondary legislation, following consultation, evidence gathering and impact assessment, rather than fixed in primary legislation now, when the time to do those things is insufficient. I ask noble Lords to keep these common factors in mind as I progress but, to be clear, I will gladly meet interested Members of your Lordships’ House to discuss each individual amendment and describe further the Government’s intentions. To gently contradict the noble Lord, Lord Blencathra, Ministers will have influence on what is brought forward in the regulations; it will not just be civil servants who propose. However, I will be asking noble Lords not to press their amendments, for the reasons I will set out.

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Lord Moylan]

8: Clause 1, page 2, line 4, leave out “or CMA”
Member's explanatory statement
This amendment probes why both the CAA and the CMA require powers to compel information from air transport service providers and airport operators, and whether this function should rest with the CAA alone as the aviation regulator.

[Lord Moylan (Con)]

My Lords, we come now to a debate about the mechanics of the Bill, and it involves a considerable amount of detail. We are focused on the purposes of Clause 1 and 2. The purpose of Clause 1 is to give the Secretary of State the power to make regulations about the consumer protection of air passengers. As we know, those regulations have until recently been made by the European Union. It is right that the Secretary of State should be given those powers. The Secretary of State is accountable to Parliament and to the public, which is all to the good.

We object to the fact that so many of those regulations are to be made by the negative procedure. I know that at Second Reading, the noble Lord, Lord Tunnicliffe, said that it did not matter either way, but it does matter to us as Members of your Lordships’ House that statutory instruments of importance, especially those making regulations to do with consumer protection, should come forward as instruments under the affirmative procedure. We have amendments to that effect in this group. As things stand, the only instruments that would come under the affirmative procedure, as the Bill is written, would be those creating criminal offences. The Government, at least, accept that. But the others, which are matters to do with consumer protection, would be under the negative procedure. That is not good enough.

The second question relates to who is to do the enforcement and how. This is more to the thrust of Clause 2. Clause 2 itself is very short, but it enacts Schedule 1, which in terms of paper takes up about half the Bill. It is a very lengthy schedule, which is why this group might not be as short as one might hope.

Clause 2, with its schedule, splices—I think that is the right word—the Civil Aviation Authority into the Digital Markets, Competition and Consumers Act, which gives the Competition and Markets Authority its power to engage as a regulator with British businesses, looking at matters to do with competition, monopolies, abusive behaviour and so forth. It is interesting that reference was made earlier in the debate to the case being pursued at the moment by the Competition and Markets Authority against a British airline for charging families a fee in order to sit together, particularly a fee that affects younger members of the family under the age of 16. The noble Lord said he was not going to comment on the merits of that case, and understandably; nor am I, but it is interesting that that case, which is clearly a consumer protection case, is being pursued by the CMA.

We are going to have the CAA spliced into the Bill as a parallel regulator. We will have two regulators, with broadly similar powers, regulating the aviation sector. Anyone with even the remotest experience of low-level local government, such as myself, knows that one of the principles of enforcement in British law is that, for one crime, there is one prosecutor, so you cannot be prosecuted twice or pursued twice by different prosecutors for the same offence. That applies to traffic offences. They are enforced by the local authority, as parking generally is, or, if they are moving traffic offences, then, depending on the area—I am speaking of London now, where this is true, but it is not true of the rest of the country—they are enforced by either the local authority or the Metropolitan Police but not both, for the very good reason I have explained. It is simple. Why is the CAA being spliced into this structure—the architecture of the Bill—as a parallel regulator, and how will the two work together?

Well, the Bill has an answer to that: they will work together because the Secretary of State is given powers to sit on top of this Tweedledum, Tweedledee structure and decide—there is no guidance given and nothing explained as to how he will decide—how to co-ordinate the two. One could hardly imagine a more bizarre structure, a sort of pushmi-pullyu horse with two people inside it, and how they will work together. I do not have a solution. My amendment simply removes one of them from the structure and leaves it to the other; I suspect that that is not a wholly satisfactory solution, but my amendment is for the purpose of provoking this debate. But it is wholly unsatisfactory that the Government are proposing this architecture. I think it is for the Government to come forward with something workable that satisfies the Committee that they are actually able to deliver this in a way that will work. At the moment, it will not.

There are amendments from my noble friend Lord Grayling, which I have signed and which I am sure he will speak to himself shortly, but I have further amendments in this group that relate to the enforcement powers. According to the Bill, the way the Civil Aviation Authority will work if it has to take an enforcement action is that it will issue a notice to the miscreant airline or whatever operator it is that comes within the scope of the Bill. That is perfectly all right, but there is no appeal built in against the notice. The only way in which somebody who disputed the notice could appeal against it, as far as I can see, is by way of judicial review, which the Civil Aviation Authority’s decisions are subject to. You would have to proceed to judicial review, which is an astonishingly heavy and wasteful, time-consuming and expensive process, when the Bill is clearly calling out for some sort of intermediary step, tribunal, mediator or body that can sort out disputes where the two are not in agreement and where it is believed that the Civil Aviation Authority has not conducted itself properly or in a way that is reasonable.

--- Later in debate ---

Moreover, passengers are affected by many different causes of disruption, such as technical, supply chain and airspace issues, which often occur outside the UK. It would not be proportionate to single out industrial action for bespoke legislative treatment. Importantly, mandating a review in primary legislation risks creating a rigid and resource-intensive process, which would reduce the Government’s ability to respond to emerging issues flexibly and in a timely way. For these reasons, the Government do not consider this amendment necessary or proportionate; I therefore hope that the noble Lord will feel able not to press it.

[Lord Moylan (Con)]

My Lords, the structure that the Bill introduces is not going to work. Having two regulators that are, frankly, fighting over turf in carrying out enforcement actions will not work. It will fail. I am giving the Government an opportunity now to recognise that and do something about it.

On whether it should be the CAA or the CMA, my amendment would remove the CMA from the process —my noble friend Lady Foster supported this—so that it stays with the CAA, but I am open to an argument either way as to which of the two enforcement authorities it ought to be. That is not my main point, which is that there needs to be just one. The Minister says that this is all going to be sorted out by a statutory instrument. Indeed it will—that is mentioned in Schedule 1 on page 19—but it is going to be a negative statutory instrument, so we will know almost nothing about it.

In relation to powers, I fully appreciate that the Bill does not in itself create new consumer rights nor particular enforcement powers. I was careful to say that Clause 1 gives the Secretary of State the power to give powers to the Civil Aviation Authority; I was clear about that, I think. None the less, all of those powers, which the Minister says are going to be transparent and consulted on, will be carried out under the negative procedure. Except for the powers creating criminal offences, they should not be; they should be carried out under the affirmative process.

This matter is so important to the Bill, as a piece of administrative legislation, that it is very likely, I am afraid, that I will come back to some of these issues on Report. For the moment, though, I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.

Amendment 8 withdrawn.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Grender (LD)]

My Lords, the amendments in my name insist on statutory duties that would secure workforce resilience and international regulatory alignment, rather than leaving these matters to open-ended secondary legislation.

Amendment 103 would require the CAA to prepare an annual report on commercial pilot licence holders, including anonymised demographic data, and an assessment of workforce sustainability as a regulatory monitoring tool. The licensing authority needs to understand whether the pool of qualified pilots has been maintained at a level that supports safe and continuous operations. I thank BALPA for supporting this amendment and helping to draft it. An important point that has not so far been drawn out is the need to identify the proportion of pilots licensed to fly commercial airliners who are women—the kind of important data that ensures that there is a workforce that reflects the future.

The amendment would also require the CAA to consider the future availability of a pilot workforce. As we have heard, commercial airline pilots must retire at 65. An authoritative annual assessment by the CAA would flag issues about the future supply of trained pilots.

I feel that we are all currently dancing on the head of a very particular but extremely useful and important pin. Between now and Report, I hope that we can put some of this together—unless the Minister says in the next few minutes that he is accepting all our amendments. We live in hope.

Amendment 104 would place a statutory duty on the Secretary of State to pursue UK-EU mutual recognition in relation to pilot and engineer licensing and aircraft parts certification. This came through from one of the APPGs, which had particular concerns about this issue. The absence of recognition mechanisms can create duplicated compliance burdens. We are all familiar with this kind of thing: regulatory friction and delays in maintenance and staffing, all of which matter operationally and economically.

I will not take up any more of noble Lords’ time, except to say that I commend the noble Lord, Lord Holmes. We first served together in 2018 on the first Select Committee on artificial intelligence, so never let it be said that Peers are not sometimes ahead of the curve. Its report was entitled AI in the UK: Ready, Willing and Able? and he continues to pursue this issue with his usual energy. I always support and listen to him on these issues, and I look forward to hearing the Minister’s response.

[Lord Moylan (Con)]

My Lords, in the last group, I came up with a modest amendment that would have involved increasing the threshold at which strike ballots had to be passed before a strike could be undertaken—a clear consumer protection measure well in line with the purpose of the Bill. In this group, we seem to have wandered off into discussing pilot training, which I do not see as being intimately connected with consumer protection. Everyone is agreed that something should be done to interfere in the market, and that the Government or one of their agencies should take some sort of responsibility for this. It is entirely opposite to the thrust of the response I had on holding strikes. I find it remarkable.

I understand the problems identified by the noble Lords, Lord Barber and Lord Tunnicliffe, and my noble friend Lord Davies of Gower. I understand that these are indeed serious problems. I am willing to go so far as to accept that the Civil Aviation Authority might want to take cognisance of them and have a sense of how extensive the problems are. But it is surely very clearly for the industry itself to solve these problems, and that is what we must insist on. I imagine that the Minister will be as firm in rejecting these interferences with the market as he was in rejecting my modest amendment in the last group.

My noble friend Lord Holmes made points of great wisdom and vision, and the noble Baroness, Lady Grender, rightly pointed out the assiduity with which my noble friend has brought attention to bear on these important technological issues over a number of years. I do not feel competent myself to make direct comments on them, but I applaud the notion that we should be looking very carefully at the developments that technology will bring. That will include, of course, the abilities and skills required of pilots. I do not want to push it too far, but we have planes that now practically fly themselves—I do not mean that they can do without pilots, but they can practically fly themselves. Of course, in freight, we have drones appearing everywhere and great technological advances being made. That must have an impact on a training curriculum for pilots.

I was astonished to hear the noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, say that the training curriculum for pilots was several decades old. I am not sure if I heard him correctly, but if that is so, then perhaps it needs to catch up with modern technology. There are many things that an aeroplane does nowadays that it could not do 30 years ago and that the pilot ought to know about.

I want to make this point again about UK-EU alignment—

[Lord Berkeley (Lab)]

What I actually said was that the syllabus was 30 years old. I hope the noble Lord understood that correctly.

[Lord Moylan (Con)]

I am very grateful, but does the syllabus not determine the content of the training? It is a matter we can take up outside—it is not something we need to detain the Committee on at the moment—but I am very grateful to the noble Lord for making it clear what he said and putting me right to that extent. I had no wish to put words into his mouth, but I was just struck by what he said.

I wanted to come back briefly to the question of UK-EU alignment on this. It would, of course, be very good if there were mutual recognition between the UK and the EU, but it would also be very good if there were mutual recognition between the UK and the US. I am not entirely sure why there is this relentless focus on the EU. In the days when we had freedom of movement—mercifully, we do not anymore, because we voted against it—mutual recognition would mean that a pilot could move from one country to another and live there and pursue his calling in those countries. That is no longer the case, any more than it is with the United States, so the argument for a specific arrangement with the European Union seems to me to fall largely by the wayside. Apart from that, I thank my noble friend Lord Davies of Gower for his contribution, and I look forward to hearing what the Minister has to say in the four minutes remaining.

[Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill (Lab)]

My Lords, I will do my best to speak as fast as I can, subject only to clarity. I turn to the next group, which covers workforce, skills and innovation. I am grateful to noble Lords for their amendments. Across this group, the Government share the underlying aim of ensuring that aviation remains safe, secure, innovative and supported by the skilled workforce it needs.

Before addressing each amendment, I will make a point that applies to several of them. In areas such as artificial intelligence, cyber security, emerging technology and skills, the Government’s view is that regulation must remain flexible, proportionate and capable of keeping pace with fast-moving developments. Where existing legislation, CAA functions, cross-government work or established programmes already address the issue, placing detailed duties in the Bill risks duplication, inconsistency and unnecessary administrative burden. I will refer back to that common justification where relevant.

I begin with Amendment 31, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Holmes of Richmond, on artificial intelligence safeguards. As he does, I recognise the importance of ensuring that AI is used fairly, transparently and responsibly. At present, the CAA does not use AI to make regulatory decisions, and any future consideration will require board approval. However, there are protections already in place should it do so. The CAA is subject to data protection legislation and Equality Act duties, which require fairness, transparency, accountability and appropriate human oversight in decision-making. Amendment 31 would duplicate those obligations and introduce a prescriptive statutory framework in an area where guidance, assurance processes and evolving standards are more suitable. AI policy is also being developed on a cross-government basis, led by DSIT, and legislation here in isolation risks cutting across that wider work. For those reasons, and applying the common point about flexibility and avoiding duplication, I ask the noble Lord to withdraw Amendment 31.

Amendment 32, also from the noble Lord, Lord Holmes, is on cyber security and legacy systems. Robust cyber security across aviation is essential. The CAA already has deep cyber experience and robust protocols and is subject to expectations in the Government’s cyber action plan. The Network and Information Systems Regulations require regulated entities to manage risks and prevent and minimise the impact of incidents. That already includes considering risks from legacy systems, with compliance assessed and enforced by the CAA.

There is also a wider legislative context. The cyber security and resilience Bill is designed to strengthen the UK’s cyber regulatory framework on a system-wide basis and allows further security and resilience requirements to be introduced through secondary legislation, following consultation. Stand-alone requirements in this Bill would risk fragmenting that coherent approach. I therefore ask the noble Lord not to press his amendment.

I thank the noble Lord, Lord Davies of Gower, for Amendment 65A, and the noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, for his observations on this matter. Instrument approaches to airfields are subject to specific CAA approvals that ensure that pilots can safely land using their instruments when a visual approach is not possible, usually due to poor weather. These focus on ensuring that instrument landings and approaches can be undertaken safely, rather than adding an additional requirement for the airfield also to train pilots for instrument approaches.

There are also 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 also be unsuitable for larger, busier airports where the operational environment and potential disruption to commercial flights make such requirements impractical. This amendment could, therefore, decrease the number of airfields that allow instrument approaches, making it more difficult for pilots to find places to land in poor weather. We will ask the CAA to give further consideration to this issue, but we are not convinced that it is a matter for primary legislation. I therefore ask the noble Lord not to press this amendment.