Committee (1st Day)
Clause 1 agreed.
Clause 2: Direction to progress airspace change proposal
1: Clause 2, page 2, line 8, leave out paragraph (c)
Member’s explanatory statement
This is a probing amendment to clarify who may be covered by “another person with functions relating to air navigation” with regard to who is able to prepare and submit airspace change proposals.
My Lords, the support on these Benches for the principles of this Bill should come as no surprise to anyone in this House or the aviation industry. Several previous attempts have been made by the Government to introduce a Bill along these lines, but they have been interrupted by general elections.
You would have thought that by the time we reached this stage, following several government consultations, the Bill would be fool-proof and that the Government would have thought through everything very clearly. That is not the case. Despite the length of time it has taken to get here, and despite all the organisations involved in aviation having been consulted and agreeing that there is a need for airspace modernisation and also agreeing about the need for the Government to have powers of direction over the process, the Government have managed to upset almost everybody involved.
Amendment 1 is a probing amendment to try to tease out exactly who the Government have in mind in their reference in Clause 2(2)(c) to
“another person with functions relating to air navigation.”
Clause 2(2) already refers to airport operators and to “air navigation service providers”, which is a pretty broad term. This is a very sweeping power for the Government to give themselves. Subsequent to the passing of the Bill, they will be able to designate some other organisation—not yet thought of, one assumes—to prepare and submit airspace change proposals. The Bill gives the Government pretty draconian powers. The Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee memo notes that there are eight uses of Henry VIII powers.
The Government have consulted widely, but there is concern, especially from the Airport Operators Association, that rather late in the day they have, for instance, introduced a new element into airspace modernisation proposals. It agrees, and I agree very strongly, that there is a need for co-operation between airports on this. Modernising airspace is a very difficult process. It is needed for environmental reasons, but at the end of it you have some local residents who are extremely happy because planes no longer fly over them, but other local residents are extremely unhappy because the planes fly over them an awful lot more. It is also a very costly process for the airports concerned, and all airports are not the size of, or have the financial prowess of, Gatwick, Heathrow and so on. Some very small airports will be involved in this process. They are now very concerned that a new element relating to the reallocation of underused airspace has now been introduced. Will the Minister say what that phrase means and why has that element been introduced?
The use of airspace is not constant, and it takes years to undertake airspace modernisation. At the moment, a piece of airspace might be underused because schedules at a particular airport are light, but after some marketing, a change in the market and consumer demand and a couple of years, that airspace will no longer be underused. I am keen to know from the Government who they have in mind in the phrase
“another person with functions relating to air navigation.”
Which body might be set up or designated in the future as part of this process? Also, how will the Government take into account the problems that I have raised in relation to cost and the dynamic nature, if I can put it that way, of airspace use? Smaller airports are particularly concerned that they might be ordered to release some airspace now, then find in a year or two’s time that they need it for their growth and development. Airspace is as vital to future growth as having a runway.
I remind noble Lords that this is not an issue only of enabling airspace to be, in some neutral manner, used to the maximum but of the convenience, comfort and environment of the people who live near airports. It is also very much an issue of safety. Oral Question 1 earlier today raised a number of loopholes and grey areas in relation to private and leisure pilots. The Minister, in her Answer, made it quite clear that the Government are looking at this whole area. Therefore, it is justifiable to ask what the Government have in mind in bringing this new, additional factor into airspace modernisation; it was not a factor when the consultation was done at the end of 2018. I beg to move.
My Lords, Amendment 1, moved by the noble Baroness, Lady Randerson, seeks to clarify the phrase in Clause 2(2)(c)
“another person with functions relating to air navigation.”
I shall start by addressing that phrase and then move on to the other parts of airspace modernisation and how the powers to which it refers might be used.
To give a little background, Clause 2 gives the Secretary of State the power to direct any person involved in airspace change, following consultation. Consultation will come up a number of times today; this is a very consultative process, as indeed it must be to work. After consultation with that person, the Secretary of State can direct them to do three things: first, to prepare or submit an airspace change proposal, an ACP, to the Civil Aviation Authority, the CAA; secondly, to take steps to obtain approval to an ACP that has already been submitted; and, thirdly, to review the operation of an ACP after it has been approved. Those are the three things that the Secretary of State can direct.
In Part 1 of the Bill, any
“person involved in airspace change”
is defined as, again, three things. First, they could be an airport operator, and one might expect that in most cases the airport operator would indeed be involved in putting forward the ACP or making sure that it progresses; secondly, they could perfectly well be an air navigation service provider; and then there is that third term to which this amendment relates—it is a probing amendment to understand what sort of person
“another person with functions relating to air navigation”
could be. For example, they could be part of an existing body such as an industry association or an airspace change consultancy brought in after the consultation, perhaps, to look at how the process of the ACP is working. Or they could be from a new body set up to deal with a specific ACP or a group of ACPs. One might imagine a circumstance in which a group of airports set up a new ACP in order to help another airport to deal with its airspace change.
The reason behind the third part of Clause 2(2) is to provide flexibility, because it may be—and one can imagine circumstances in which it would be—that the person involved who was the subject of the direction was not an airport operator or an air navigation service provider. In all this, though—and again I hope that noble Lords will recognise this today—these powers are to be used only as a last resort. We hope that the process will be collaborative and involve various elements working together in order to achieve the positive change that we need. I hope I have explained the reasons why this flexibility is needed. It is that that third person may not be one of the other two but may nevertheless be quite capable of taking forward an airspace change.
I am very interested in what the Minister said about who might be involved in seeking changes. Yes, it could be done to help a small airport to get better access to its flights or controls, but it could be done to keep someone away. In other words, it could be done to prevent competition. My worry would be how much it would cost for a small airport to oppose or indeed promote these things if those circumstances arose.
I think we will get into the detail of how airspace change proposals work in the next group of amendments. It is the case that there is a master plan that is overarching—I think hand gestures are needed to describe this—and covers the whole of the south of the country. Within that, there are then 17 airports that may need to make airspace change proposals to a greater or lesser extent in order to fit the master plan. When an airport, be it small or large, puts forward its airspace change proposals, those are considered by the CAA according to the criteria as set out in Section 66 of the Transport Act 2000.
The noble Lord has just corrected me that it is Section 70, and he is absolutely right.
Within all this, it is the CAA that will ensure that airspace change proposals are appropriate. It is not the case that one airport will be capable of coming along to try to duff up another, because both airspace change proposals will be considered as they move through the system. The CAA will look at them, and equity between the two will be one of the important considerations that it will look at.
I turn back to the reasons why this change is possibly not needed. Airspace modernisation, as the noble Baroness, Lady Randerson, mentioned in her opening remarks, is a complex and multifaceted programme. There is the master plan, which will sit over the entire new airspace design, but that makes up just two of the initiatives out of the 15 that comprise the airspace modernisation strategy that has been set out by the CAA. For example, one of the initiatives, as is rightly also set out in the Transport Act, is that the use of airspace has to be equitable for all users. The Government are looking to ensure that airspace is not controlled—I do not want to say “unnecessarily” because I do not think it would be fair, but there might be controlled airspace that could become uncontrolled and therefore allow a greater number of users to use it. I am thinking particularly about the general aviation field, and I certainly know that gliders have sometimes had difficulties because for them uncontrolled airspace is much easier to use.
However, any change in airspace will always go through a process, and that process will have safety as its absolute priority. I think noble Lords will be aware that the number one thing that we have to do when we look at airspace is ensure that planes are safe to fly. It will also take into account the airport’s particular growth plans, so an airport could not turn around and say “No, I’m really sorry—I need that back”. These are fairly long-term decisions and, as I am sure the noble Baroness is aware, the process takes a significant time. However, it is also consultative so there will be a consultation process not only with the general aviation sector but with the airport itself; it will be able to give its reasons why it would like to maintain that airspace as controlled, if indeed that is what it wants to do.
The noble Baroness, Lady Randerson, also mentioned the costs of airspace change proposals. I believe that they can be quite costly, and we will come on to them in a later group so I probably will not address them now. However, I hope that on the basis of my explanation she will agree that Clause 2(2)(c) should remain part of the Bill and feel able to withdraw her amendment.
My noble friend is right. It may well include the Ministry of Defence, although I would expect that department to fall under the airports section because if it was putting forward airspace changes, as I believe it will be doing for RAF Northolt, it will be the sponsor in that regard.
I thank the Minister for that response, and I will read her words carefully before Report. I am of course aware that this kind of phrase is a delightful catch-all, which Governments like to put in legislation in case some organisation crops up at a later stage that they have not thought of now. However, there is an important argument to be made here about ensuring that we have clarity at this point on exactly what the structure is. That is partly because it is always a welcome situation but also because there is quite a lot of interlink between the Secretary of State, the Civil Aviation Authority, the airport operators and the aviation providers. It is important that people have their tree of command and its requirements pretty clear in their minds but, having said that, I am happy to withdraw the amendment at this stage.
Amendment 1 withdrawn.
2: Clause 2, page 2, leave out line 13 and insert “master plan for airspace modernisation, as set out in Civil Aviation Publication 1711 and Civil Aviation Publication 1711b.”
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment would narrow the powers given to the Secretary of State to ensure they are being used for changes that assist in the delivery of the master plan for airspace modernisation, as directed by the co-sponsors of airspace modernisation, the Department for Transport and the Civil Aviation Authority.
This group of amendments, of which we have put forward three, relates once again to clarifying exactly what the Government seek to do. Amendment 2 relates to narrowing the powers of the Secretary of State to make sure that they are used only for
“the delivery of the master plan for airspace modernisation”
that the Minister referred to just now.
Amendment 4 relates to requiring the master plan to be the subject of consultation, as the Minister suggested earlier would be the case. Importantly, it would ensure that we had an appropriate appeals procedure because, as I said earlier, this is a very complex process. The Committee may imagine that there is airspace to be carved up between two neighbouring airports, and perhaps it cannot be carved up so that both airports are equally happy with the impact of what happens. It is important that everyone involved has the right to transparent acknowledgement of the situation and clear reasoning for why decisions are made.
Amendment 8 would narrow the powers given to the Secretary of State to ensure that they were used for the delivery of the master plan for airspace modernisation and not diverted for some aligned but not directly associated use. Concern has been expressed by the aviation industry about the breadth of the powers that we are talking about—I mentioned this earlier—which could enable the Secretary of State to make directions that were not in the wider interests of the airspace modernisation process as a whole. By narrowing the powers, we are trying to ensure that the Secretary of State is obliged to act in the interests of the master plan. Acting in the interests of the master plan might seem obvious, but I am told that discussions between officials and the industry have not produced a clear statement or clear reasoning as to how the airspace strategy and the master plan will fit together, because we are talking about different things.
Amendment 4—a similar amendment has been tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Tunnicliffe—would ensure that the master plan was consulted on with appropriate people and, as I have said, with an appropriate appeals procedure, because the wider industry is concerned that there should be answerability. I beg to move.
I should inform the Committee that if this amendment is agreed to, I cannot call Amendment 3 by reason of pre-emption.
My Lords, I disagree with Amendment 2 because narrowing the Secretary of State’s powers would not be desirable. I know that the powers under discussion relate directly to the modernisation programme, but they should be maintained permanently regarding the control of airspace. The CAA is not a good place for these matters to dwell, particularly as the Secretary of State is of course accountable to Parliament—so there is a way in which the Secretary of State can be challenged, which is rather more democratic and relevant than a narrowing of the powers. We do not want a shift in the balance of power from the Secretary of State to the CAA. That point goes for Amendments 2, 3, 8 and 9.
Amendment 4 refers to a consultation process and appeals. As we know, there was a very effective Aviation 2050 Green Paper last year, which was a mammoth consultation. The consultation here proposed might duplicate the effort that has just gone in and could be a waste of resources. Aviation interests would be consulted in any event, but I am not sure that an initial consultation, as envisaged here, would be helpful.
Some airfields are obviously commercially able to find the resources to be involved, but some are not. It is, therefore, important that smaller airfields are looked after. Amendment 6, which would ensure that smaller airports have appropriate funding, is important and should be supported. Amendment 7 would allow a system of compensation to be set up, to cover the cost of airports being compelled to make changes. That seems reasonable, as airports are commercial entities.
My Lords, for the convenience of the House, I draw attention to the penultimate line on the front page of today’s list, which states that the target for the day is to complete Amendment 23. That means that we are not going to do drones today. No Member has moved from their seat; never mind.
The essence of this group of amendments, with which I broadly agree, is to prevent mission creep. Having sat on the Front Bench opposite, I recall that whenever you create a right for the Government to do something or other, civil servants will creep up to you and say: “Make sure it is not restricted, because you might need it.” I fear that, far too often, they do.
The Minister wrote to me and several other noble Lords. On the second page of her letter, under the heading “Proportionality”, her second sentence states:
“It is the government’s intention that, at least initially, the powers to direct in clauses 2 and 3 would only be used by the Secretary of State in relation to ACPs that have been identified within the airspace change masterplan, currently being developed by NERL through the Airspace Change Organising Group (ACOG) with a view to incorporation of the masterplan into the CAA’s airspace strategy”.
I read the whole sentence for the avoidance of doubt. The words that sprung out at me are, “at least initially”. Further on in the letter, the Minister seeks to soften those words with a series of intentions. However, intentions are not law: they are the words of the Minister. If she repeats those words into Hansard they become a little more useful. Nevertheless, there is a serious issue with that part of the Bill ending up in mission creep. There are so many things for which the CAA or the Government might wish to use these powers.
I share the view that the task in front of those who are trying to deliver the programme is such that consultation—ideally on the face of the Bill, as put forward by Amendment 4—would be useful. It would certainly be useful to hear the extent to which the Minister can assure the House about consultation. On the appeals procedure, I refer again to the noble Baroness’s extremely useful letter, in which she says:
“There is no formal appeals process against an ACAA decision relating to individual ACPs. CAP1616 is a fully transparent process in which consultation and engagement exercises are run throughout.”
With the greatest respect, a consultation and engagement exercise is not an appeal. Because of the extent to which this process is entirely within the CAA’s ambit, one can see a situation where, without some hook in primary legislation, small fish in this sea could find themselves swamped. A formal appeals procedure somewhere in the Bill might usefully add to it. I hope that the Minister will be able to react to those ideas.
My Lords, I first pick up the question that the noble Lord, Lord Tunnicliffe, started with, which is whether we shall end at the target of Amendment 23. My understanding is that we shall, because that has been agreed through the usual channels. Amendment 24 is in my name, so it is important that I can be confident that we will stop, if we get that far, at Amendment 23. I take the nodding to mean that that is the case and I appreciate it.
While I am on my feet, may I ask a more general question about all these amendments? There has been a great deal of talk about the interests of the civilian side of the aviation industry and how it interacts with the Department for Transport and the CAA, but I am not clear how the Ministry of Defence’s position will be properly safeguarded. The CAA has RAF representation, but I do not feel that that is at a high enough level and I would like to be reassured that the Department for Transport and the Ministry of Defence are in continuous contact, at the right level, on these points. The Ministry of Defence, and the Royal Air Force in particular, needs aviation space not only for getting in and out of airfields; they also have training needs and other areas that have to be safeguarded if the Royal Air Force is to continue to be effective in its training.
My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Randerson, for introducing this group. I also thank my noble friend Lord Kirkhope of Harrogate. I note that he strayed into the area of costs, which is the subject of a later group, but I look forward to his later contribution. As many noble Lords have pointed out, it is important that the Secretary of State is given the powers required to deliver airspace modernisation, but also that these powers are proportionate and do not go further than needed.
Clauses 2 and 3 of Part 1 give the Secretary of State the power to direct a person involved in airspace change to progress an airspace change proposal as required, or direct a person to co-operate with somebody else who is progressing an airspace change proposal. This means that airspace change will not be held up. I think that is an established fact and all noble Lords can agree with it. Additionally, it ensures the delivery of the full range of airspace modernisation outcomes. Again, I have already mentioned that there are many important initiatives within airspace modernisation. These may be related to safety, capacity, noise, air quality, fuel efficiency, improving access to airspace for all users, military access or the introduction of new technology.
On improving access to airspace for all users, the issue of uncontrolled and controlled airspace has been rumbling along for a little while. It dates back to 2018, so airports have been aware that there was going to be a further look at airspace classification for quite some time. Initiative 10 of the airspace modernisation strategy was set out by the then Secretary of State and enhanced in October 2019, when the air navigation directives directed the CAA to progress the identification of airspace volumes. This is all about the balance between commercial aviation and general aviation. I do not believe that a single Member of your Lordships’ House believes that one necessarily has to have priority over the other. It is a question of proportionality and balance.
I want to mention military airspace at this point. We speak to the military all the time. When I was Aviation Minister, I used to chair the Airspace Strategy Board, the highest level of ministerial oversight over airspace modernisation, and somebody from the MoD was on the board. I forget what rank he was, but he made me feel quite small so he was quite senior, and he would contribute to our discussions. In my time on this Bill and in my previous life as Aviation Minister, I was not aware that people from the military had concerns about this process or the processes we oversee. We work well with them, ensuring that they have the access they need and know the processes for RAF Northolt to have the right routes to upper airspace, for example.
My noble friend asks a very interesting question. I will check with my lawyers and officials, but I believe that if a Ministry of Defence airfield was holding up airspace modernisation throughout the country by not getting its act together and progressing an airspace-change proposal, the Secretary of State would be able to direct the Ministry of Defence. What would be the alternative—the Ministry of Defence dragging its heels and not participating? Although one cannot imagine a time when the Ministry of Defence would do that, this is, as I will say many times today, a collaborative process. I have never heard of any examples where we have not collaborated well with the Ministry of Defence and all government departments.
Returning to these powers, they would be used by the Secretary of State only if it assisted delivery of the CAA’s strategy and plan. However, airspace modernisation is not just about the master plan. That is why the Government cannot accept the amendments tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Randerson, and the noble Lords, Lord Rosser and Lord Tunnicliffe. Terminal airspace redesign is the master plan. At the moment we are considering the south, but we will move on to the north; these are only two of the initiatives to be delivered through the airspace modernisation strategy. As I have said, there are many others, including the airspace classification review and so on. The powers to direct relate only to airspace change proposals. They will stand as a last resort if airspace modernisation cannot be continued because an ACP sponsor is dragging its feet.
This goes back to the question of who airspace belongs to. It does not really belong to anybody. It is right that we encourage people to act collaboratively, so that we can all get the most out of our airspace. Coming down the track are the development of a solution for electronic conspicuity, the implementation of more precise and flexible satellite navigation-based arrival and departure routes—which, as noble Lords will know, will have positive implications for noise in some areas—and various international obligations which we have to comply with relating to air traffic management. Here again, these directions may be helpful, but as a last resort.
I cannot accept the amendments that would state that we were looking particularly at the master plan rather than at airspace modernisation as a whole. It is a much broader strategy, and certainly covers a wide range of things, although I would probably say that the master plan and the airspace modernisation from that master plan is one of the key elements of it.
It is worth mentioning that the two documents named in Amendment 2 and Amendment 8—CAP 1711 and CAP 1711b—cover only the period to the end of 2024, the first phase of airspace modernisation. The entire modernisation is due to run until 2040, so it is likely that these documents will be updated and ultimately replaced. Therefore, it is possible that having these specific documents in an amendment would not help the development or deliverability of airspace modernisation.
While I am on my feet, I will clarify something on the master plan. It is being developed by ACOG, which was set up to do so. It will need to be accepted by the CAA into the airspace modernisation strategy and plan. Of course, the CAA will do so only if it is consistent with the directions that it has been given and if it has been appropriately consulted on. The CAA is quite hot on this, actually. It rejected at least one airspace change proposal submitted in 2018, I think, because not enough consultation had gone on with communities. The CAA is clear that its role is very much as an honest broker and to make sure that people have been able to have their say.
When the master plan is complete, and with providing the benefits in mind, ACOG will look at the potential conflicts, trade-offs, interdependencies and the preferred implementation plan, but it will not look at individual airspace design solutions. Clearly, in the lower airspace, that is up to the airports to figure out. It is an extraordinarily iterative process, necessarily so, and enormous engagement is already happening as the master plan goes through its stages.
I hope I have been able to reassure noble Lords, particularly on the inclusion of “master plan” rather than mentioning the airspace modernisation strategy and plan. Also, it is not really appropriate to mention particular documents if we are to give the Bill the longevity that it needs. As I explained, the master plan will already have had regulatory acceptance into the strategy by the CAA, which will assess whether stakeholders have been spoken to. That will include airports, air navigation service providers, and many more people involved in the process.
We believe that there are sufficient avenues of challenge from airport operators and ANSPs. Resolution of conflicts in airspace change proposals already happens, of course, usually through a collaborative process mediated by the CAA. If any airspace change sponsor is still not happy, they can submit an application for judicial review.
I hope that I have been able to convince noble Lords that the powers are appropriate and will enable the Government to take forward airspace modernisation over a matter of decades rather than just in the short term. I also assure them that concerns are heard at every step of the way and are usually resolved collaboratively. That is a process between Her Majesty’s Government, the CAA, the airports and all their stakeholders.
I thank the Minister for that reply. She said something very interesting early in that response, which was that she had to balance the interests of commercial and general aviation, and that she does not feel that one should have priority over the other. First, “general aviation” is a very broad term. A lot of planes with transponders that would be classed as general aviation are able to fly perfectly safely in regulated airspace. However, there are also a lot of leisure pilots with small private planes who have a great deal of fun but do not have sophisticated equipment for flying in that airspace.
With all due respect to the Minister, commercial aviation is worth many billions of pounds to this country. It carries many billions of pounds’ worth of freight and is of huge importance to our business and tourism industries. It is essential that the safety and efficiency of commercial aviation are maintained as a result of this legislation. Anything which complicates that process and makes it more difficult would strike at the importance of our aviation industry at this moment.
I will read the Minister’s words very carefully and invite her to look again at the amendments and what we have said on them to reassure people—airlines, airports and others involved with a key interest in commercial aviation—that their interests remain at the heart of this.
My Lords, I hope the noble Baroness does not want to give the impression that there is a high preponderance among those engaged in general aviation—whether for business or, as she put it, leisure—who are not using the latest technology and training in the work they do. I speak as a private pilot and others here are similarly qualified. “General aviation” is a very wide term, but in our discussion on regulated airspace the noble Baroness should be quite clear that a considerable number of people involved at the leisure end are very well-equipped, technologically and personally.
One of the key reasons behind my intervening on this point was to make it absolutely clear that “general aviation” is a very broad term. There are many people involved in it with extremely high-tech equipment, but it is not realistic to expect all smaller leisure pilots to have the latest equipment. I do not know whether the noble Lord was in the Chamber for the Question earlier today, but, if he has read the reports that came from the sad experience of that accident, he will be aware that there are many key issues associated with the regulation of smaller planes and the way in which some people—I emphasise this—use them.
There are important aspects to this, and in responding to that Question the Minister made it clear that the department was looking at it. It is important that we bear that aspect in mind in this debate, because the vast majority of the general public were, for example, completely unaware of the kind of grey charter flights referred to in that Question. It is an issue not just of equipment but of where the planes have flown. That makes it still safe to fly them, even though they have not perhaps got the latest or highest-spec equipment. That is why this discussion is ongoing and why it is important that these amendments are being tabled. I will read the record carefully and see what the Minister has said. If she wishes to write to clarify some of the things said in this debate, I would welcome that. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment 2 withdrawn.
Amendments 3 to 5 not moved.
6: Clause 2, page 2, line 23, at end insert—
“( ) If a direction given to a person under subsection (1)—(a) is predominantly or wholly to enable the airspace change proposal of a third party to be completed as part of the master plan for airspace modernisation,(b) is not given to the third party itself, and(c) would lead to an excessively high financial burden for the person under subsection (1),the Secretary of State must ensure that person receives appropriate compensation.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment seeks to ensure that smaller airports have appropriate funding if they are to be subject to directions that could have severe financial implications.
My Lords, I will speak also to Amendment 10 in this group, which in my name. Both amendments would ensure that smaller airports have appropriate funding if they are subject to directions that could have severe financial implications for them. We have referred to the cost of airspace modernisation a number of times this afternoon, and I have already said that not all airports are Gatwick or Heathrow; they are not all even Bristol, for example. Some of the smaller airports that might be subject to expensive requirements on their airspace change could find this very difficult indeed to accommodate financially.
One estimate is that the cost of airspace modernisation could reflect 15% of the annual turnover of a small airport, which would be impossible for them to deal with financially. It is one thing to deal with it financially if it will be to your commercial benefit, and another thing if it will be to the benefit of your neighbouring airport. Noble Lords can see why some airports are rather concerned about this, because it could have serious financial implications. On the order of magnitude of the money involved, I gather that it could cost hundreds of thousands or even millions of pounds for each airport, and if a charge is incurred against their will and against their commercial interests, that will be difficult for them.
In our amendments we have tried to take what I regard as a reasonable line, to set a pretty strong test. We suggest that compensation would apply only if it imposed
“an excessively high financial burden”.
They might have to shrug and accept a small financial burden, but if it becomes extremely high, compensation should be considered. Our concept was that funding would come from NATS, but there are other proposals related to that.
These two amendments are designed to protect small airports. They aim to ensure that, in parts of the country where small airports are of huge importance, both to the economy and to people who wish to travel in those parts, those small airports survive. I beg to move.
My Lords, I apologise for misreading my Order Paper and trying to head into areas of amendments before I should be allowed to: I thank my noble friend for correcting me. However, on this amendment, there is a strong case for some compensation to be allowed for smaller airports—in particular, those that are compelled to make changes. The amendment is unclear on whether this covers just the cost of making the change, however that is defined, or the negative commercial impact as a result. That is a totally different area but one that I know is of great concern to smaller airports.
Amendment 10 awards compensation for an excessively high financial burden, as the noble Baroness just said. That is also extremely difficult to assess. I think one would have to be more specific than a “high financial burden”, because there is a lot of argument there. The principle, however, seems right, because whatever we decide to do or is decided, smaller businesses should not be forced to foot large bills for airspace changes forced on them by the Government and may be forced on them through government as a result of pressures from those who can better afford the costs associated with such changes.
My Lords, the two points raised by the noble Lord, Lord Kirkhope, and the noble Baroness are well illustrated by Newquay Airport in Cornwall, where I live. I use the airport occasionally. It is subject to a public service obligation which the county council has negotiated to ensure four return flights a day between Newquay and a London airport. It has been very successful. There has been recent discussion, as noble Lords will know, to change the London location from Heathrow back to Gatwick, for reasons we do not need to go into today. The point is that Newquay has a few flights going to other places in the UK, on the continent and in Ireland. It is also the base for Richard Branson’s latest idea of getting to the moon—taking passengers there, or something—which may be the subject of a government grant. It is odd, but if it was required to make changes to its airspace because of some other reason, the airport would be in severe financial difficulties. That is why it has been given a PSO: because it is an important part of improving the transport between Cornwall and London.
One can challenge or disagree with some of the text of the amendment, but the principle is there. If, when she comes to respond, the Minister does not like the wording, perhaps she can go away, have some discussions about it and come back with more acceptable wording. We should hold on to the principle of a small airport not being put to severe financial difficulty because of something over which it has no control.
I have no particular difficulty with the idea of compensating somebody who is being adversely affected by a decision for larger national reasons, but going back to the concern about the Ministry of Defence interests, let us suppose that a Ministry of Defence interest is such that it needs to be accepted. Looking ahead, the Armed Forces will have drones as well as manned airframes. Their needs may be quite unusual compared with the normal. In those circumstances, a decision would have to be taken either in the interests of the Ministry of Defence or the commercial civilian operator concerned. I am not clear how such a decision would be arrived at. Perhaps, once again, the Minister will be able to make it clearer to us all where the Ministry of Defence fits into this type of decision.
During the discussion that the Minister held in Committee Room G, I took the opportunity to talk to the legal advisers to the department, who assured me that consideration was being given to the financial detriment that may arise. How you determine that is quite difficult because if somebody has a detriment, presumably somebody has a gain. It will be a question of offsetting one against the other. I take the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, that this applies also to remote areas of Scotland with access to the very busiest airports, such as Edinburgh—which is much prized by the small places that have one or two flights a week but is considered almost a nuisance by the large airports.
My Lords, our four amendments in this group say more or less the same thing: the master plan may involve a need for compensation.
The Bill asks the philosophical question of who owns the airspace. There is almost a reasonable argument for you owning the airspace above what you own; that does not work so we must have some other ownership of the airspace. Clearly, the only such ownership that makes sense is that it is a national asset. It must therefore be managed for the general good.
That is a complex exercise because you must try to achieve two things: efficiency and equity. There is a problem with efficiency. Take a situation where individual entities have been working largely on their own and making optimal use of, in this case, airspace: if you recognise that it is becoming a scarce resource and therefore seek to manage it for maximum efficiency, there will be winners and losers. The problem is that, if that is so, the losers will look on it as inequitable. There are probably only three solutions to that lack of equity. One is to say, “Tough. Life is like that.” The second is the situation we have now: a suboptimal situation where you are not using the airspace to its maximum efficiency. The third is that you recognise the special position of the losers and pay compensation.
This is a difficult philosophical point. However, the problem is that United Kingdom airspace is no longer a philosophical point but a practical one. Therefore, as I said, we have tabled amendments that are similar to the Liberal Democrat ones to tease out the Government’s thinking on this dilemma and how we may take the debate forward.
I thank noble Lords for tabling amendments and speaking so thoughtfully on such an important subject.
I assure noble Lords that we have considered, and will continue to consider, the potential impact of the Secretary of State directing a smaller airport to progress an ACP—airspace change proposal—when it may not have sufficient funds. At this stage, I want to assure the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Craig of Radley, that to support Ministry of Defence force development, the MoD will continue to require flexible and timely access to UK airspace. Also, the master plan will consider and include detail of the military’s future airspace requirements.
In general terms, it is a long-standing policy that air passengers should fund the cost of their travel, including the cost of changes to airspace structure, rather than this being subsidised by the taxpayer. However, the Government recognise that there may be occasions when a small airport requires financial assistance to carry out some aspects of an airspace change proposal. We expect the CAA’s oversight team to work with the airport operator or other person involved in airspace change before recommending that the Secretary of State uses the powers of direction relating to airspace change proposals.
I acknowledge the noble Lord’s point. This argument is not all about efficiency. I will finish my points.
At this early stage, if the airport operator expressed concerns that it did not have sufficient funding to proceed with a particular ACP, we would expect the oversight team to work with the operator to suggest alternative solutions. We expect that this could include an alternative sponsor paying for the changes. The CAA oversight team could help identify and seek support from another ACP sponsor—most likely to its benefit—whose own ACP plans depend on the change in question. An example of this is Heathrow Airport, which currently provides assistance to various smaller airports to bring forward their ACPs in order to ensure that its own ACP can be developed, due to the interdependence of their airspace.
As for alternative funding support, the CAA has created from its determined costs an airspace modernisation support fund of £10 million for the 2020-25 regulatory period. The airspace modernisation support fund, ASF, is intended to be utilised to address projects that are important to the success of the airspace modernisation strategy where there are no other appropriate mechanisms for the recovery of these costs. It should support AMS deployment, including activity critical to the implementation of the airspace master plan that ACOG has been commissioned to deliver under the AMS. There is therefore the potential to apply for funding support, which would need to be considered alongside other funding bids.
As a last resort the Government could consider, on a case-by-case basis only, whether grant funding under Section 34(1)(b) of the Civil Aviation Act could be provided to an airport directed to bring forward an ACP that resulted in adverse financial impacts. This funding would be subject to Treasury approval and offered only if it proved absolutely necessary. We consider that offering government funding on a wider basis would go against the “user pays” principle.
I assure noble Lords that, due to the steps I have outlined, we do not expect a situation to arise in which an airport operator would be put in financial difficulty by being directed to progress an ACP where there is no positive business case for one. In extremis, if this were to happen, under Section 34(1)(b) of the Civil Aviation Act 1982 the Government would be able to provide compensation to an airport for the losses it has incurred, but this would still be considered on a case-by-case basis.
I was interested when the Minister gave the example of Heathrow Airport being prepared to provide the funding necessary for a small airport to propose changes. Heathrow Airport does it not exactly on a charitable basis but for its own benefit. It is a commercial outfit. It tried to do this in the last year with the flight I spoke about earlier from Newquay to Heathrow. The county council said: “We don’t want that. We’d rather stay at Heathrow than be transferred to Gatwick.”
The Minister is looking a bit bemused. My point is that Heathrow offering somebody else the funding to help make these changes is not exactly independent. It will be in its commercial interests, so it should probably be ignored.
I thank the noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, for his intervention. I think he was talking about aircraft slots in that instance, which is not the subject of this debate. Also, Newquay is not subject to the ACP in the same way as other airports; it is outside the master plan.
I hope I have been able to reassure noble Lords that this amendment is unnecessary. We do not anticipate that a situation of loss will arise. Based on these points, I therefore hope that the noble Baroness feels able to withdraw the amendment.
My Lords, the responses from the noble Baroness and noble Lords who have taken part emphasise that this is a very tricky issue. I certainly would not disagree that aviation and its passengers have to pay their way, and we would not normally expect aviation to be subsidised by government—although of course, the public service obligation does allow for that.
A key point from the Government’s perspective was raised by my noble friend Lord Bradshaw, who talked about detriment versus benefit. We have been looking at big airports versus little ones. But take two airports —for example, Luton and Stansted—which are close to each other and reasonably similar in size. If an arrangement has to be made on their airspace modernisation that does not please both of them equally, how will that problem be solved financially? I am slightly surprised that the Government have got this far on this issue without having a clear answer to that. Fortunately, this debate has given us the opportunity to think about it in some detail.
I welcome further developments from the Government and am happy to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment 6 withdrawn.
Amendment 7 not moved.
Clause 2 agreed.
Clause 3: Direction to co-operate in airspace change proposal
Amendments 8 to 11 not moved.
Clause 3 agreed.
Clause 4 agreed.
Clause 5: Delegation of functions to CAA
12: Clause 5, page 4, line 29, at end insert—
“( ) The Secretary of State must prepare and publish a report on whether the CAA is sufficiently resourced to carry out its functions under this section within six months of its coming into force.” Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment would require the Secretary of State to prepare and publish a report on whether the CAA is sufficiently resourced to carry out the new functions in this Bill.
My Lords, it will emerge as the afternoon goes on that I am somewhat unbelieving that this process will work. One reason I fear it may not work is the sheer lack of resources. The complexity of the trade-offs that will be necessary to work between the various demands to produce an optimal solution will be considerable. As I shall bring out in a later amendment, I believe that it is less than clear who is responsible for making that happen. I will make that point later. The point I make now is that the burden is likely to fall back on the CAA.
The Minister was kind enough to write to me and sort of assure me that money would not be a problem—I hope she reaffirms that. In her letter, she basically said that any additional expenditure that the CAA incurred could be met by industry through an appropriate levy procedure.
The real problem is talent, as is true throughout our economy. The number of people who have the skills to work in this area is limited. Therefore, I would value in the Minister’s response an assurance to the House that the pool of talent available to the CAA, and indeed to other parties involved, is sufficient. If it is not sufficient, what are we going to do about it?
The second part of this group is essentially whether Clause 5 should stand part of the Bill. Industry has raised the issue that there will be a conflict in the CAA between its responsibilities for policy execution and for regulation. It used to be a feature of the finance sector that firms would declare that there were Chinese walls and that these walls worked. As we know from the financial crisis, they worked to the extent of a bottle of Bollinger. I hope the Minister does not frown too readily; certainly at least one wall went down for the price of a bottle of Bollinger.
We could well have conflict between parts of the CAA. I am sure that they are people of great regulatory correctness, but when the same business has two parts trying to do things that might be in conflict, it is important to know how they can assure society that no conflict takes place. It is simple things, such as whether there will be physical separation. Will the two parts be in different buildings? How will we manage to assure industry, for whom significant financial consequences rest, that the CAA parts which will both be involved in this exercise are properly separated?
My Lords, we also question whether Clause 5 should stand part of the Bill. I have often raised in this Chamber the fact that the CAA has an extraordinarily diverse range of responsibilities, which it seems to carry out very effectively. I say that with great care, because, while I support the noble Lord, Lord Tunnicliffe, in the call for there to be adequate Chinese walls, that is not a criticism of the CAA and the way it has so far done its job. However, no organisation is ever perfect. It is important that it is given the resources and set-up that enables it to carry on undertaking its various and broad roles in a fully efficient way.
The Government add to the CAA’s responsibilities all the time. They have done so on several occasions over the last two or three years. It seems always to rise to the challenge, but it is important that the Government put the right structure in place. Therefore, I support the noble Lord, Lord Tunnicliffe.
My Lords, when my noble friend comes to respond to the argument, would she accept that the Civil Aviation Authority already deals with what could be considered potential conflicts? I think in particular between the economic regulation group, which is the economic regulator for the airport sector, on the one hand and the safety regulation group on the other, which, as the name suggests, performs oversight and regulation of safety. This is not new ground for the CAA, which is a highly competent, highly professional organisation with a very difficult and, as the noble Baroness said, very broad mandate of economic and safety regulation. It is used to doing this. Of course there are new aspects in the Bill, but the principle of how the CAA operates is very well established, even down to some of the debates we had about changes in airspace policy, in which it has participated over the years. This is not new; airspace changes and it is rearranged under the current arrangements.
While I take the noble Viscount’s point, does he accept that I have raised this point because the industry has come to us and expressed its concern? This is the same industry that has lived in the environment he has just described. I cannot see a way round not having the CAA doing both these parts. I cannot see who else would have the skills set, but we may have to debate that later. There has to be some process for convincing the industry that the separation in this case is effective. My concern about Clause 5 standing part is to get that assurance out of the Government.
No one here would disagree with the noble Lord this is complex and difficult stuff. The point I was trying to make, which is entirely valid, is that the CAA, under its existing mandate, already balances these types of conflicts. There is not a great deal new here, certainly in principle.
I again thank the noble Lord, Lord Tunnicliffe, for introducing this group. I shall start with Amendment 12 and then move on to matters relating to Clause 5 stand part.
As noble Lords have already noted, airspace modernisation is complex: it is a long-term programme and will require close oversight from the CAA in its co-sponsor role and the expert capability of its regulatory teams to assess airspace change proposals. These will be submitted by sponsors under the master plan which is being produced by the Airspace Change Organising Group, ACOG. That all makes sense but it is complicated.
It is crucial that the CAA has the resources to carry out these important functions. I can reassure the Committee that the CAA already reports on its resourcing through multiple channels and these reports are in the public domain. In December 2019 the CAA published its annual report on progress against the airspace modernisation strategy. The CAA is required to produce this report every year through the directions made by the Secretary of State. This report includes an overview of CAA’s resourcing position against the strategy. The next one will be published towards the end of this year. The CAA also produces an annual report covering all of its activity, including its resourcing position and its top-level risks to the organisation. Again, this information is available publicly and is provided as part of its annual consultation on its charging scheme.
On the timing of the report specified in Amendment 12, it is unlikely that the Government, or indeed the CAA, would know within six months of the Bill coming into force whether it will be necessary to use any of powers in the Bill, when it might be necessary to do so and how many airspace change sponsors may need to be directed. Therefore, in addition to those already produced, a report on a specified day would probably not add much to what is already in the public domain. However, I will share the most recent CAA report on airspace modernisation of December 2019 after the debate.
On Clause 5 stand part—this is an important consideration which is worth time—the clause gives the Secretary of State powers to delegate the Secretary of State’s functions under Clauses 2 to 4 to the Civil Aviation Authority and for a notice in writing of this to be published by the CAA. It would provide another means for the airspace changes identified to help deliver the strategy to be delivered, but only if it appeared desirable for this to do so in the future. The CAA is the nation’s airspace regulator and has the expertise to take on this role if required. Given that both the Secretary of State and the CAA have various roles in relation to airspace change, appropriate internal governance structures would need to be put in place, an issue mentioned by a number of noble Lords, including my noble friend Lord Goschen.
This is important because the CAA carries out many different functions—it is a policymaker, a policy implementer, a regulator and a decision-maker—and, as noted by my noble friend, it is able to manage these kinds of conflicts of interest. I frowned earlier when the noble Lord, Lord Tunnicliffe, tried to liken the CAA to an investment bank, but the comparison is not a valid one.
The CAA is an entirely different sort of organisation. The incentives for going against what would be put in place are simply not the same. For example—again, it is not proposed that this would be done, but it is to provide flexibility—if the Secretary of State decided to delegate these powers to the CAA, the Secretary of State and the CAA would need to put in internal governance structures. For example, the DfT would need to make internal governance arrangements to separate the teams for discharging the new powers of direction, deciding on whether to call in an ACP and making recommendations to Ministers on that called-in ACP. This is rather like what the DfT does already on decisions on DCOs where one Minister decides and another Minister is kept well out of the process, and it works. The CAA would make similar internal governance arrangements to separate the CAA teams tracking ACPs, advising on when to use the power, deciding on an ACP and discharging any new powers to direct ACPs if delegated to the CAA. The CAA has already created the internal governance structure that separates the first and second items there because that happens already.
One of the things I wish to press home to your Lordships today is that ACPs are already being considered and are successfully reaching the other side. So when the noble Baroness, Lady Randerson, was talking on the previous group about possible challenges that will occur between airports and asking how they are going to be resolved, we are already resolving them. This process has been going on for quite some time. It is only because of the new aviation modernisation strategy and its requirement to do it on a much more complex area, according to the master plan, that we have decided to take these powers. However, in normal circumstances without these powers airports are perfectly capable of sitting down, talking to each other and coming up with an equitable agreement. In this case, a CAA team would be tracking and advising an ACP, and another team would be making the decision. I believe that the CAA is well used to making these sorts of decisions, if it were to need to do so in future, and to creating those Chinese walls between the different functions it is expected to carry out.
The assurances the Minister has just provided are clearly useful. Will they be formally published in any way, in an appropriate document—a CAP or something like that—so that the industry can see what is happening, what governance structures are being put in place and the extent to which there might be physical separation?
That is a very good suggestion from the noble Lord. I will certainly take it back to the officials and consider how that might be taken forward. I agree that it certainly would provide reassurance to all stakeholders involved in this process to know that in circumstances where the powers were delegated it was clear what was going to happen. I will be in touch with the noble Lord with more information.
Skills are very important because airspace change requires specific skills. The CAA’s annual progress report includes details specifically covering the resourcing plan for the oversight function, which is the high-level function to make sure that airspace modernisation is happening, and the technical expertise which is required to assess the airspace change proposals. I know that the CAA has a medium-term recruitment plan. Last year it was successful in recruiting the people that it needed. It is early days to speak about this year, but it has a plan in place and it knows how many people it will need as ACPs start coming down the track. Although such circumstances are not currently foreseen, we would like to have the flexibility to allow the CAA to take over these powers if deemed appropriate, or if circumstances arise in the future where the Secretary of State feels that it is the best way to go forward. I hope that, based on my explanation, the noble Lord will feel able to withdraw his amendment.
Amendment 12 withdrawn.
Clause 5 agreed.
13: After Clause 5, insert the following new Clause—
“Responsibility for CAA airspace strategy
( ) The Secretary of State is responsible for the implementation of the CAA’s airspace strategy.( ) The Secretary of State must, before the end of the period of 12 months beginning on the day this Act is passed, lay before both Houses of Parliament a statement setting out progress towards the implementation of the CAA’s airspace strategy.( ) The Secretary of State must lay before Parliament a report in similar terms covering each subsequent 12-month period, within six months of that period ending.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment would make the Secretary of State responsible for the implementation of the CAA’s airspace strategy, and require related reports.
My Lords, we come to our most important amendment. The Minister will no doubt tell me that it is unnecessary; none the less, we feel it is important. The essence of Amendment 13 is that the Secretary of State must take responsibility for this process—and it must be personal responsibility.
I have very little faith in the process. I have suffered personally from this sort of situation in delivering a large project. We set down in all the project agreements that parties must co-operate, but they did not. Technically, we had various enforcement mechanisms but these run into the courts and the courts run into delay—and you cannot afford delay. It is pretty weak. The structure requires all participants to behave benignly. Unfortunately, these organisations are in the business not of being benign but of making profits. They are large organisations owned by shareholders, and the shareholders expect profits. I am afraid that the history is not terribly good. There was a project called the London Airspace Management Programme—LAMP, the stated aim of which, according to the CAA, was
“to redesign the airspace network over the whole of London and the south-east”—
not unlike the master plan. The CAA says:
“Initial plans were to consult on a complete package of network changes and 'swathes' and follow this up with airport-specific consultations, prior to a phased implementation at single, or groups of, airports. However initial design work and programming issues meant that this plan was revised so that LAMP design and consultation was to be addressed in two main phases. The first centred around London City and Gatwick (referred to as LAMP Phase 1A) and the second around Luton, Stansted and Heathrow”.
This comes from a report by the CAA; I would like to make sure that the correct document is quoted —it is in CAP 1692, on the end phase. The rest of the programme was essentially abandoned. I have just read out paragraph 23, but this is also set out in paragraph 24 and 25 et cetera. In a sense it is a sorry tale, but not one that we should be surprised about. It requires the miracle idea that individual entities in this process are able to maximise their own position and, at the same time, that of the whole. When one thinks about it logically, that is fairly improbable.
So, one looks to how we are going to do it this time. The Minister’s answer will probably quote CAP 1711b, which is the airspace modernisation governance. I hope she had more success in understanding it than I did. I got to paragraph A7, which followed a flow diagram headed “Governance structure for airspace modernisation” that I did not understand, showing the roles for delivering airspace modernisation. I thought, “Is there something tangible here?” Paragraph A7, under the heading “Airspace Strategy Board”, says:
“The Aviation Minister-chaired Airspace Strategy Board (ASB) is the first tier of the governance structure.”
I thought, “I’m there. That is where it must happen.” But the next sentence says:
“The Airspace Strategy Board is not a decision-making board, but will engage stakeholders on the policies that will govern the strategy and will advise DfT on potential changes to the overarching policy, regulatory, legal and funding framework if these are required to address delivery issues.”
So it is not decision-making, it is just a talking shop.
Then, at the next level, there is this lovely idea of co-sponsors. The Department for Transport and the CAA are going to co-sponsor this. That is great if they agree, but what if they do not? They are coming from different points of view and they may have different objectives. The idea of co-sponsorship means that you get into the blame game, and I do not find that at all reassuring. Meanwhile the Airspace Change Organisation Group can also only ask people to bring forward their plans; it cannot make plans itself.
Will this get done? I do not think it will; it will go the same way as the previous effort. To get something of this complexity done—I have been involved in issues of similar complexity—you need a single individual you can hold accountable for its success. That individual must have the appropriate authority and, because we are talking about something in common ownership—airspace—that individual must be politically accountable. The only person who meets that test is the Secretary of State. I beg to move.
My Lords, I cannot help but feel that this is fundamentally a bad amendment. I certainly oppose the CAA being the prime adjudicator on airspace. It should really be the other way around; the Government should set the strategy, which is then implemented by the CAA. The power of the CAA in airspace strategy should not be increased; rather, it should be constrained to act in a role to advise the Government on safety matters related to airspace. Overall, I believe that the management of modernisation should firmly rest with the Government.
My Lords, as I have said and will probably say many times during the passage of this Bill, airspace modernisation is incredibly complex. A wide range of organisations are responsible for delivering it, and it will be for the benefit of the community as a whole. I understand noble Lords’ concerns about who is ultimately responsible for delivering it. I hope I may be able to add some clarity on the exact responsibilities of the Secretary of State, the Department for Transport and the CAA with regard to airspace modernisation, because it is far from straightforward.
Under Section 66 of the Transport Act, the Secretary of State may give directions to the CAA imposing duties, conferring powers or both with regard to air navigation in a managed area. That is our first stage: the Secretary of State giving instructions or directions to the CAA. In those directions given by the Secretary of State to the CAA, the Secretary of State directed it to prepare and maintain a co-ordinated strategy and plan for UK airspace up to 2040, including modernising the use of such airspace. Again, I believe that all noble Lords will be in agreement with that, which is what has happened.
The CAA is therefore responsible for preparing the strategy, as set out in Clause 8(1), by reference to the directions. If the directions change, the strategy would then change. This is consistent with the CAA’s role as a specialist aviation regulator and its broader statutory responsibilities. The CAA meets this requirement through its airspace modernisation strategy, CAP 1711, and of course the governance of that, as mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Tunnicliffe, in CAP 1711b.
It is envisaged that the master plan currently being developed to identify in more detail the sort of changes that we will look for will become part of the CAA’s airspace modernisation strategy, which it has been asked to prepare by the Secretary of State. The legislation therefore makes it clear that the CAA is required by the Secretary of State to prepare and maintain the airspace strategy and to publish a report on it, and that the Secretary of State will hold the CAA accountable for this, while Parliament will hold the Secretary of State to account.
However, although that stands in all circumstances, it is not quite so straightforward, because there are responsibilities that lie elsewhere. It is important that we recognise that so, alongside the CAA and the DfT having responsibilities to co-sponsor the framework, the actual delivery cannot take place without the active participation of the industry. This precisely makes the case for the powers that we seek to take in the Bill that the Committee is discussing. We hope for the wonderful carrot world of active participation by the industry, and we have the stick of a potential direction if that does not happen. The noble Lord mentioned the previous attempt at airspace modernisation; he is absolutely right that it did not work because there were no sticks. It was therefore difficult to focus minds on reaching an agreement without the need to use a stick. It would not be beneficial for our relationship with the industry, or indeed stakeholders, to utilise the stick too readily—but, as a last resort, we would.
On the amendment’s requirement to lay a Statement in Parliament on progress against the strategy, I think I mentioned that the CAA already provides an annual report on the progress against the modernisation strategy. I therefore feel that that is probably not warranted. I hope I have clearly explained where the current roles and responsibilities lie so that there is no confusion and that, on the basis of this explanation, the noble Lord might—no, he might not.
The Minister says that the Secretary of State now has a stick—great. It is a very blunt stick, if I may say so. Nevertheless, does that mean she accepts that if this goes wrong, and an effective airspace strategy does not emerge from the process, the Secretary of State will be responsible for that failure?
At the end of the day, in maybe a decade’s time—I do not know how long this will take but it may well be in a decade’s time—I suspect that if this is not going according to plan, there will be questions in this House and in the other House. It will then be for the Secretary of State to answer those questions; in that respect, he has responsibility for making sure that this programme proceeds. However, as in many areas of the world that we live in, there may be circumstances that are beyond his control and are the responsibilities of others. Essentially, however, the responsibility for directing the programme lies with the Secretary of State.
Amendment 13 withdrawn.
Clauses 6 and 7 agreed.
14: After Clause 7, insert the following new Clause—
(1) The Secretary of State must, before the end of the period of 12 months beginning on the day this Act is passed, lay before both Houses of Parliament a report detailing total emissions of targeted greenhouse gases as set out in section 24 of the Climate Change Act 2008 from aircraft beginning or terminating flight in UK airspace over a 12 month period ending not more than six months before the report is laid.(2) The report must meet the obligations laid out in Article 5 of the 1998 Aarhus Convention.(3) The Secretary of State must lay before both Houses of Parliament a report in similar terms covering each subsequent 12 month period, within six months of that period ending.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment would require the Secretary of State to prepare and publish a report on aviation emissions and ensure compliance with Article 5 of the 1998 Aarhus Convention.
My Lords, the amendment would require publication of a report on aviation emissions. Although this information is already available, the report would ensure that it was presented in such a way as to comply with the Aarhus convention, which considers steps to reduce emissions.
According to the Government, the Bill will enable sustainable growth in air travel. In light of climate change, there is of course a debate as to whether it is right for the Government to increase air travel—or, at least, whether they should explain how they will ensure that growth is sustainable and how they intend to offset emissions. The Government should make emissions information readily available and allow for greater accountability over their policies to reduce them.
A key section of the Aarhus convention is about access to information,
“the right of everyone to receive environmental information that is held by public authorities … This can include information on the state of the environment, but also on policies or measures taken, or on the state of human health and safety where this can be affected by the state of the environment. Applicants are entitled to obtain this information within one month of the request and without having to say why they require it. In addition, public authorities are obliged, under the Convention, to actively disseminate environmental information in their possession.”
I beg to move.
My Lords, why do the proponents of the amendment believe that this is the right legislative location for it? Perhaps I am missing something, but should it not be looked at as part of the Environment Bill that will come before us in due course or in some other capacity, rather than in the tight confines of what we are debating today? With great respect, I do not think that the noble Lord has explained precisely where it fits into these proposals.
I apologise for that. I just feel that the issue of the environment is so important that one should take every reasonable opportunity to raise it. One area where we all know that environmental information about emissions in this country is deficient is the acknowledgment of aviation and maritime impacts. This is clearly an aviation Bill, so it is reasonable to make the inquiry at this point.
My Lords, perhaps I can add to that response by saying that, when I discuss airspace modernisation with those who take part in the aviation industry, in one role or another they all raise the fact that this is a key opportunity to reduce CO2 emissions from the industry. CO2 emissions from transport are a huge source of problems, and aviation is the greatest part of them, not in percentage terms but because it is difficult to address. Solutions to many problems relating to road transport are gradually coming into general use, but no sensible time limit has been set for a solution to emissions from air travel. It is, therefore, very reasonable to suggest using this opportunity to see how much airspace modernisation has been able to contribute to reducing CO2 emissions from the aviation industry and to look at other ways in which this might be done.
Events of the last year have shown that, when you put information about the impact of CO2 emissions in the hands of the general public, they understand and start to take their own steps. However, aviation is a very large-scale industry that is difficult to crack through individual contributions—other than not flying, of course. A lot of people are taking that solution but, in the interests of the aviation industry’s future, it is surely important to take this opportunity to measure how effective airspace modernisation has been in reducing CO2 emissions.
My Lords, I support the views of my noble friend Lord Tunnicliffe and the noble Baroness, Lady Randerson, on this amendment. It is extraordinary that the air sector is the only one that does not pay any kind of fuel duty. I think that goes back to the Chicago convention a very long time ago. Air passenger duty was introduced as a way of trying to compensate. We can see how important the Government think that is, because they have given Flybe—which I keep going on about—a holiday from it, to enable it to survive. For me, the policy implications of this are all wrong. The Government do not really care about the environment. They want to keep this company alive because Virgin would not be able to save it and it would be a disaster. This might not be the right place to cover this important issue, but this is an aviation Bill and we need to see it addressed on a consistent basis, so I support the amendment.
My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Tunnicliffe, for tabling the amendment. I agree with him—and, I am sure, with all Members of your Lordships’ House—that the fight against climate change is one of the most pressing issues of our time. It is absolutely right that we continue to highlight emissions, to publish data on them and to plan for their ongoing reduction. The Government already publish emissions data for domestic and international flights. The Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy reports annually on these greenhouse gas emission statistics. The statistics cover all sectors of the economy, including transport. Those for 2018 were published just last week and are readily available online. I will happily share a link so that all noble Lords can see them.
Within the statistics, individual transport modes—including aviation—can be identified. Domestic aviation is reported on separately from international aviation, because the methodologies used are different. The data is obtained from the National Atmospheric Emissions Inventory, produced by Ricardo Energy and Environment. It is also available online. The amendment referred to the 1998 Aarhus convention, the three pillars of which are already implemented in domestic legislation. Article 5, which relates to access to information, has been implemented through a number of measures, including legislation such as the Environmental Information Regulations 2004.
Measures in the Bill, as many noble Lords have noted, can help tackle emissions by reducing the amount of fuel burn that will come from aircraft, because they will be making more efficient journeys into airports. We are also moving into circumstances now where new technologies will allow for steeper climbs and steeper descents into an airport: again, this reduces the amount of fuel needed. It will also reduce the need for holding stacks, a big user of fuel. Early analysis suggests that modernisation in the south-east could reduce the amount of fuel burn by 20%, which would be a 20% reduction in carbon.
However, I will go away and look at the data. I am as interested as anybody in making sure that the data is correct, that it is published correctly and that it is available for all to see, because only then will we be able to really see the impact of our actions. If the noble Lord has any further details of the sort of data he would like to see, I cannot guarantee to put it the Bill but I may be able to make sure that it is published by colleagues.
Amendment 14 withdrawn.
Schedules 1 and 2 agreed.
Clauses 8 and 9 agreed.
Schedule 3: Modification of licence conditions under section 11 of the Transport Act 2000: appeals
15: Schedule 3, page 21, line 32, leave out “24” and insert “12”
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment would reduce the time limit on the determination of an appeal from 24 weeks to 12 weeks.
I have some experience of the matters in this clause, although not in respect of the air transport industry. As an academic I was involved, over the period of regulation and deregulation, in the activities of the Competition and Markets Authority.
The Bill is about efficiency, and what I am proposing is an improvement in efficiency. I presume that any appeal referred to in new Section 19A should be about competition matters only—I do not see any purpose in referring it to the CMA if it is about anything else—but the Bill allows it 24 weeks to consider the appeal. As I understand it, it has a very small panel of its members that considers aviation matters. These people ought to be known and put to work quickly. The pace of work of the CMA in some cases is such that a snail would be envious that it can go so slowly. I believe there is a strong case for saying that it should come to a decision within 12 weeks of a matter being referred to it. It should have its members, of whom there are a large number, at the ready. There are usually three or four of its members that consider a case and they should give it immediate attention. These people are drawn mostly from the academic community, for which time is something that can be spent lavishly, shall I say? I think this matter demands immediate action. The Bill is about efficiency; let us impart a little efficiency to this. I beg to move.
I thank the noble Lord, Lord Bradshaw, for introducing this amendment.
Schedule 3 introduces the new process by which the Competition and Markets Authority—CMA—may consider appeals against decisions by the CAA to modify conditions in the licence to provide air traffic services. The provisions in this schedule enable the licence holder, airlines and certain airports that are materially affected by the CAA’s decision to modify a licence condition to appeal that decision. The provisions also deal with matters including who may appeal, the grounds on which appeal may be allowed, what steps the CMA may take when it determines an appeal, the time limits for determination of appeal, and the publication of the appeal determination.
These appeal rights are essential to ensure that the CAA is accountable for its decisions and to safeguard the interests of the licence holder and others whose interests are materially affected by the CAA’s decision-making. As set out in the Bill, the CMA is required to determine an appeal within 24 weeks of the day the CAA publishes a notice of the decision that is subject to the appeal. This is in line with appeals relating to licences covering the economic regulation of airports in the Civil Aviation Act 2012. That is why we selected 24 weeks as a guide. The CAA may extend the appeal period, up to a maximum of a further 12 weeks, but only if there are good reasons. The CAA may also extend the appeal if there is a parallel appeal in the Competition Appeal Tribunal which the CMA considers to be relevant. Again, this is the same as under the Civil Aviation Act 2012.
I point out that the 24 weeks is already a shorter timescale than the CMA usually operates when it is dealing with price-control appeals from other sectors. I feel that we have settled on a good middle ground with 24 weeks. The Electricity Act 1989 allows the CMA six months to determine an appeal, and that is from the date that the permission to appeal is granted, not the original publication of the decision itself.
Permission to appeal to the CMA must be given within six weeks. If it were to be made at the latter end of that six weeks, and there was then an appeal, in the worst-case scenario the CMA would have only 18 weeks to grant permission, consider and determine an appeal, and so we feel that 24 weeks is entirely appropriate. However, if, in due course, we feel that the CMA is being a bit tardy, as the noble Lord suspects it might be, the Government are able to change the time limits for appeals and for the processes within the appeals. These can be made at a later date, perhaps once some appeals have been considered under the powers in new Section 19A(1) and paragraph 25 of new Schedule A1. I hope that, based on my explanation, the noble Lord feels able to withdraw his amendment.
The Minister will be aware that one of the consequences of Brexit is a lot more work heading towards the CMA, something that our EU Internal Market Sub-Committee, chaired by my noble friend Lady Donaghy, is looking at. Is the Minister happy that the CMA will be able to recruit more people to cover the civil aviation issues as well as everything else, or will they be constrained by the usual Treasury financial limits?
We have been discussing the Bill with the CMA. We are talking about appeals to modify the conditions in the licence of the single air navigation service provider which is dealing with the upper airspace. Therefore, we do not expect to keep the CMA particularly busy and are not aware that it would have a shortage of resources.
I thank the Minister for that reply. I was suggesting simply that there were areas where economy was possible. The Government say that they are committed to economy. I suggest that they look at this very seriously. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment 15 withdrawn.
Schedule 3 agreed.
Schedule 4 agreed.
Clause 10 agreed.
Schedule 5: New Schedule B1 to the Transport Act 2000
16: Schedule 5, page 48, line 27, leave out “relevant Chapter 1 requirement” and insert “requirement that the CAA has determined is being or has been contravened”
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment clarifies that where a penalty is to be imposed for contravening a requirement in an enforcement (or urgent enforcement) order, the penalty notice given by the Civil Aviation Authority must specify that requirement.
My Lords, I come to a series of government amendments that are minor and technical, slightly improving the Bill. I hope that noble Lords will agree with them.
Schedule 5 gives the Civil Aviation Authority the tools that it needs to act in the most effective and proportionate way in response to contraventions by the licence holder of licence conditions or statutory duties. Those duties are otherwise known in the Bill as Chapter 1 requirements. The licence holder may also contravene orders, which may be enforced under these provisions.
The amendments concerning new paragraphs 11, 12 and 13 of new Schedule B1 to the Transport Act 2000, which is in Schedule 5 to the Bill, are technical and relate to the procedure associated with the giving of a notification of penalties. They will ensure that the reason for imposing a penalty on an affected licence holder is made clear, and ensure alignment with equivalent provisions in the Civil Aviation Act 2012 so far as is practicable. The Government gave notice of the amendments on Second Reading.
The first amendment clarifies that, where a penalty is imposed for contravening a requirement in an enforcement or urgent enforcement order, the penalty notice given by the CAA must specify that requirement. The next amendment, to line 29 of page 48, inserts wording at the end and provides that, where a penalty notice is given by the CAA specifying a requirement of an enforcement or urgent enforcement order, that penalty notice must specify the Chapter 1 requirement in respect of which the order was originally given.
The next amendment is to line 44 of page 49, and replaces “relevant Chapter 1 requirement” with
“requirement that the CAA has determined is being or has been contravened”.
It clarifies that, where a penalty has been imposed for contravening a requirement in an enforcement order, the penalty notice given by the CAA must specify that requirement. The amendment at line 46 of page 49 inserts wording towards the end that provides that, where a penalty notice has been given by the CAA specifying the requirement of enforcement, that penalty notice must specify the Chapter 1 requirement in respect of which the order was originally given. The amendment at line 37 of page 50 leaves out from “with” and inserts further wording. It provides that, in determining the amount of a penalty, the CAA must where relevant have regard to the steps taken by a person towards complying with both the requirement of an order and the Chapter 1 requirement in respect of which the order was originally given.
The amendment at line 40 of page 50 inserts some wording at the end and provides that, in determining the amount of the penalty, the CAA must where relevant have regard to the steps taken by a person towards remedying the consequences of both the requirement of enforcement and the Chapter 1 requirement in respect of which the order was originally given. The amendment on line 41 of page 54 provides that a reference in new Schedule B1 to the Transport Act 2000 to remedying the consequences of a contravention of a requirement of an enforcement order includes paying certain amounts to a person by way of compensation or in respect of annoyance, inconvenience or anxiety.
Overall, the amendments will enable the CAA to issue effective notices and ensure that the licence holder is treated fairly when the amount of a penalty is determined, therefore reducing the likelihood of challenge and allowing the Bill to function as intended. I beg to move.
Amendment 16 agreed.
Amendments 17 to 22
17: Schedule 5, page 48, line 29, at end insert—
“(e) where the penalty would be imposed under paragraph 10, specify the Chapter 1 requirement in respect of which the enforcement order or urgent enforcement order (as the case may be) was given.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment provides that where a penalty notice is to be given by the Civil Aviation Authority specifying a requirement of an enforcement (or urgent enforcement) order, that penalty notice must also specify the Chapter 1 requirement in respect of which the order was originally given.
18: Schedule 5, page 49, line 44, leave out “relevant Chapter 1 requirement” and insert “requirement that the CAA has determined is being or has been contravened”
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment clarifies that where a penalty has been imposed for contravening a requirement in an enforcement (or urgent enforcement) order, the penalty notice given by the Civil Aviation Authority must specify that requirement.
19: Schedule 5, page 49, line 46, at end insert—
“(da) where the penalty is imposed under paragraph 10, specify the Chapter 1 requirement in respect of which the enforcement order or urgent enforcement order (as the case may be) was given;”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment provides that where a penalty notice has been given by the Civil Aviation Authority specifying a requirement of an enforcement (or urgent enforcement) order, that penalty notice must also specify the Chapter 1 requirement in respect of which the order was originally given.
20: Schedule 5, page 50, line 37, leave out from “with” to end of line 38 and insert—
“(i) the requirement specified in the notice under paragraph 11(1) by virtue of paragraph 11(2)(c), and(ii) where the penalty is to be imposed under paragraph 10, the Chapter 1 requirement specified in the notice under paragraph 11(1) by virtue of paragraph 11(2)(e);”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment provides that in determining the amount of a penalty the Civil Aviation Authority must, where relevant, have regard to steps taken by a person towards complying with both the requirement of an enforcement (or urgent enforcement) order and the Chapter 1 requirement in respect of which the order was originally given.
21: Schedule 5, page 50, line 40, at end insert “mentioned in paragraph (b)(i) and, where relevant, paragraph (b)(ii)”
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment provides that in determining the amount of a penalty the Civil Aviation Authority must, where relevant, have regard to steps taken by a person towards remedying the consequences of both the requirement of an enforcement (or urgent enforcement) order and the Chapter 1 requirement in respect of which the order was originally given.
22: Schedule 5, page 54, line 41, after “requirement” insert “, or a requirement of an enforcement order or an urgent enforcement order,”
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment provides that a reference in Schedule B1 to the Transport Act 2000 to remedying the consequences of a contravention of a requirement of an enforcement (or urgent enforcement) order includes paying certain amounts to a person by way of compensation or in respect of annoyance, inconvenience or anxiety.
Amendments 17 to 22 agreed.
Schedule 5, as amended, agreed.
Schedule 6 agreed.
Clause 11 agreed.
23: After Clause 11, insert the following new Clause—
“Report on General Aviation
(1) The Secretary of State must, before the end of the period of 12 months beginning on the day this Act is passed, lay before each House of Parliament an assessment of the impact of Part 1 and Part 2 of this Act on general aviation.(2) In preparing the report the Secretary of State must consult bodies including but not limited to–(a) the Aircraft Owners and Pilots Association,(b) the General Aviation Safety Council,(c) the Light Aircraft Association,and summarise and respond to issues raised in that consultation.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment would require a report on the impact of Part 1 and Part 2 of this Act on general aviation.
My Lords, this amendment guarantees that general aviation is taken seriously in the process. General aviation is more important than people realise. Aviation 2050: The Future of UK Aviation, Command Paper 9714, published in December 2018, asserts that general aviation flying is worth about £1.1 billion and supports 10,000 jobs. It is a significant part of aviation and a significant employer.
There are Members in the Chamber—just about—who are part of the general aviation community. They may disagree with me, but my sense from friends in this community is that it feels unloved or left out. The short philosophical discussion I had earlier was about the fact that there is a general right to airspace—that, because it is owned by the whole community, it should be treated such that restriction of controlled airspace is balanced against general aviation’s right to use uncontrolled airspace.
It is crucial in this day and age in that it generates airline pilots for the United Kingdom. I lived in a highly privileged age when the national airlines generated their own pilots. They paid for my training—more accurately, they paid for me to have fun, but let us get back to the subject. It is very easy in these situations for these small activities to get lost in the consultation processes. The fact that this amendment calls for a report will mean that officials will have that in mind and increase their propensity to be able to show that the needs of general aviation are appropriately taken account of.
General aviation is not universally popular; it creates noise and is seen as the privilege if not of the rich—although private jets are a big chunk of it, and you have to be either rather important or rather rich to use one—then of those involved in sports flying and training. The cost of hiring an aeroplane is about 5p a second—£180 an hour upwards—so you have to be affluent, if not rich, to take part in it. It has different forces working about it in society, which is a good reason for making sure it has its own special place in the process, which this amendment would allow.
The Government set out their position in The Future of UK Aviation:
“The government aims to ensure that there are appropriate and proportionate policies in place to protect and support General Aviation (GA) and its contribution to GDP and jobs. The government recognises that the needs of GA have to be seen in the wider context of civil and military aviation. In areas such as the use of airspace and the allocation of slots it is important to balance the needs of private flying, commercial GA and scheduled aviation, so that all classes of aviation are properly and proportionately considered and the benefits of GA can be supported.”
My amendment goes towards ensuring that that objective is met. General aviation is something of an enigma, but it deserves the special attention that this amendment would require. I beg to move.
My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for moving this amendment and raising an important issue.
During an earlier part of our discussions today, I felt that one noble Lord almost suggested that by asking the question one attributes blame. The important thing for general aviation—for a start, that is a massive phrase, which incorporates many different strands of aviation—is that its position is recognised and it is given the right to make representations. I notice and particularly welcome the noble Lord’s amendment saying at proposed new subsection (2) that the report of the Secretary of State
“must consult bodies including but not limited to … the Aircraft Owners and Pilots Association”
and the General Aviation Safety Council. Many organisations involved in aviation have strong views on this, and in the modern world, it is important that the situation is properly considered and a proper, strategic approach to it is developed.
Just as I stressed earlier the importance of commercial aviation to our economy, the noble Lord, Lord Tunnicliffe, made the significant point that general aviation is also worth money to our economy—although on a much lower scale. However, the phrase includes such things as the hugely important air ambulance services, so it is important that the views of those involved across the spectrum of general aviation are taken into account. This is not all just about people going out on leisure flights on a Sunday morning.
My Lords, I repeat the declaration of my interests that I made at Second Reading; I am a private pilot and operator of an aircraft.
This House has developed a somewhat irritating habit of thanking people for things that they do not really want to thank them for just by way of rote. But I really do thank the noble Lord, Lord Tunnicliffe, for raising from his position opposite the point about the importance of general aviation in the great ecosystem of aviation in the UK and of course internationally. It is an important part of the broad system of aviation; there is a strong and measured economic benefit to the nation, and there are other benefits, such as the production of pilots—the supply of pilots who come through training systems rather than training overseas. We have all sorts of disadvantages with training in the UK, the primary one of which is weather and the secondary one is cost, and it is very easy for training to be done overseas. So I very much associate myself with the breadth of the remarks that the noble Lord, Lord Tunnicliffe, made about the importance of general aviation and the breadth of what is covered by that system.
Successive Governments of different hues have made public statements about the importance of general aviation—this is not a political matter in any respect. But there are essential freedoms to be preserved, and it is important that this debate in your Lordships’ House has given some balance to this. A noble Lord said that perhaps general aviation feels unloved. Perhaps it does and perhaps it does not, but it is certainly an important factor in our broader aviation system in the UK.
I am not generally a great believer in endless reports from the Secretary of State on every Bill. There are endless demands on the Secretary of State to produce reports, and sometimes I would be interested in the production costs for the Civil Service and the amount of time that this takes. But the fundamental point is well made; a report of the sort that the noble Lord suggested would help to emphasise that and provide a bit of backbone for the Secretary of State in considering these matters. I look forward to my noble friend’s response.
My Lords, I wonder whether the Minister can clear up something in my mind and perhaps in those of other noble Lords. We have talked about general aviation in the usual sense but, looking to the future, we will get more unmanned aircraft either working commercially in one form or another or working for the emergency services and so on. Will they get classified as general aviation? If so, should not their interests also be taken into account? I would like clarification on that particular point.
My Lords, I likewise thank the noble Baroness. I must declare an interest. The Light Aircraft Association referred to in the amendment was once the Popular Flying Association, of which I had the honour of being president for a number of years, although I have long since ceased to do that.
There is some merit in concentrating the Secretary of State’s mind on these matters from time to time. I am therefore not unsympathetic to the amendment moved by the noble Lord, Lord Tunnicliffe—although hopefully today’s exchanges will serve the same purpose.
I thank all noble Lords who have contributed to a nice, uplifting debate on the final group of amendments in today’s Committee.
This Government, and in particular the current Secretary of State, are big fans of general aviation. We recognise completely that it is a key part of the aviation sector. It is an important source of pilots, engineers and technicians who may in future, in their turn, contribute to the success of commercial aviation; of course, they may instead stay in the general aviation sector and also be successful in its growth. So the Government support general aviation and will continue to ensure that its needs are not overlooked at both the local and national level when it comes to airspace modernisation. I assure noble Lords that we have taken steps to ensure that general aviation is represented at every single level of the airspace modernisation governance structure.
CAP1711b, the Government’s annexe to the airspace modernisation strategy, lists all the organisations that must be engaged. For example, the Airspace Change Organising Group, which is charged with creating the master plan, is required to demonstrate that it has engaged with GA bodies, including Airspace4All and the General and Business Aviation Strategic Forum, which is a much broader forum consisting of lots of different stakeholders from the general aviation sector. It must have carried out that engagement for the master plan to be accepted by the CAA. There are also two general aviation representatives on ACOG’s steering committee. The Airspace Strategy Board was discussed earlier. It is chaired by the Aviation Minister and meets regularly, and it too always has at least two representatives from GA, namely the GA advocate and a representative from, again, the General and Business Aviation Strategic Forum.
Furthermore, under CAP1616, the regulatory process that governs airspace change proposals, there must be consultation with local stakeholders, including general aviation, at many stages.
We are also aware that volumes of controlled airspace are underused. This has been a focus for the Secretary of State, who recently directed the CAA to carry out an airspace classification review to identify volumes of controlled airspace where classification could be amended. This is being done because we feel that we have a good relationship with general aviation and that we understand its needs.
The Secretary of State has also directed the CAA to prioritise airspace change proposals from GA aerodromes relating to global navigation satellite systems—a satnav-type approach. The DfT has provided the CAA with funding to set up a facilitation team to advise and support these small aerodromes in progressing these critical ACPs, and has provided it with financial assistance as well. So I hope that this reassures the noble Lord that we take the contribution of GA very seriously.
Turning to the timing of the proposed report, the amendment states that the Government must assess the impact of airspace modernisation on general aviation within 12 months of the Bill becoming an Act. I am sure that noble Lords will agree—and, indeed, have heard many times today—that this is quite a complex and time-consuming undertaking. Therefore, I do not believe that much airspace change would happen in 12 months, as most of the sponsors would be in a consultation phase for their ACP, and it would certainly be wrong for the Government at that stage to prejudge the outcome of those processes, which are of course independent.
I hope that noble Lords accept my assurances about the importance that the Government attach to general aviation and the measures that we are taking to ensure that all types of aircraft in the general aviation sector are heard, not only in airspace modernisation but far beyond that and within the strategy for the aviation sector as a whole.
I have just realised that I forgot about unmanned aircraft. Of course, airspace for unmanned aircraft will be a very important consideration. At the moment, it is envisaged that they will not fly in controlled airspace, so this is not therefore a matter for consideration today, but in future we will have to consider drones and what used to be called “unmanned traffic management”; I believe that it is now called “unified traffic management”. That is a whole new world of pain that perhaps we will return to in future legislation.
I hope that, based on these assurances, the noble Lord will feel able to withdraw his amendment.
My Lords, I thank all noble Lords who have taken part in this debate; I have rarely had so much support. The noble Viscount, Lord Goschen, hit the nail on the head. Let us go back to the bigger picture. I take the point that this Government probably take general aviation more seriously than any recent Government, and that is a good thing. The problem is that it may well depend on the particular Secretary of State.
The beautiful thing about a regular reporting process is that it concentrates the mind. Anybody who has worked in a large organisation in which several work streams are going along knows that if a work stream is picked out by the chief executive, the board or whoever for regular reports, it sits there in the minds of the officials, operatives, project managers or whoever is trying to do it. They think: “We’ve got to produce this report, and because it will become public we’d better make sure that our reasons for our various actions are well explained.”
On the point about timing, as the Minister knows, it is entirely up to government to bring along amendments to suggest more appropriate timings. This is just an amendment to get the idea off the ground. I think that it is a pretty reasonable idea, and I hope the Government give it some more consideration. Of course, I will look at this debate with great care and decide whether to bring it back on Report. I think it will push things.
Amendment 23 withdrawn.
Schedule 7 agreed.