---

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

I understand the noble Lord’s question. I will come back to him on that.

Amendment 22, also from the noble Lord, Lord Grayling, concerns financial penalties and the circumstances in which the CAA may act. The CAA’s role is to enforce consumer rights where breaches cause collective consumer harm, rather than to resolve individual disputes. Clause 1 does not in itself create financial penalties; it enables regulations to grant such powers in future where that is justified and appropriately framed. Any regulations creating penalties would be subject to the affirmative procedure. Thus the amendment would be unduly restrictive, so I ask the noble Lord not to press it. Having listened to noble Lords on the need for better enforcement, I would not wish to constrain the CAA’s powers in this respect.

I will address Amendments 26 and 27 from the noble Lord, Lord Moylan, together. I agree that future regulations must receive appropriate parliamentary scrutiny. Clause 1 already provides a balanced approach: the affirmative procedure applies to the most significant matters, including criminal offences and financial penalties. Some amendments could be more minor or technical changes, such as updating an organisation’s name. Requiring the affirmative procedure in all cases would not be proportionate and would place unnecessary demands on parliamentary time. I ask the noble Lord not to press his amendments.

On Amendment 28, also from the noble Lord, Lord Moylan, I absolutely agree on the importance of reviewing the impact of regulations. However, post-implementation review requirements are already considered when developing secondary legislation and included where appropriate. Not every regulation will warrant a review, particularly where changes are minor or technical. For the common reason of proportionality, I ask the noble Lord not to press this amendment.

Amendment 33, also from the noble Lord, Lord Moylan, concerns the procedure for regulations on co-operation between enforcement authorities. I do not consider the affirmative procedure necessary. These regulations are administrative in nature. They may cover information sharing, notification arrangements and how direct enforcers determine which authority should act in a particular case. There are precedents for such regulations using the negative procedure, which provides proportionate scrutiny. I ask the noble Lord not to press this amendment.

Amendment 34 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Moylan, concerns the jurisdiction of the CAA and the CMA in aviation consumer protection. Paragraph 6 of Schedule 1 already enables regulations to set out how the two authorities co-ordinate, decide which is best placed to act and avoid duplication, including through joint working. The CAA will also

have regard to the CMA’s rules, supporting consistent enforcement. A fixed approach in primary legislation would reduce flexibility and risk constraining effective enforcement. I therefore ask the noble Lord not to press Amendment 34.

8 pm

Amendment 35 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Moylan, concerns appeals against CAA direct enforcement decisions. I agree that organisations must have a route to appeal. However, this amendment would create an additional preliminary review stage, leading only to a non-binding recommendation. It could add delay and complexity where parties then proceed to appeal anyway. It would also create inconsistency by applying an additional appeal process to notices issued by one regulator but not another. As the independent aviation regulator, the CAA is best placed to assess compliance, with appeal to the court as an appropriate route. I ask the noble Lord not to press Amendment 35.

I turn to Amendment 59A from the noble Lord, Lord Moylan. As he is aware, UK aviation operates in the private sector, so industrial relations are a matter for employers, their employees and trade unions. The Government have no role in mitigating industrial action. The sector is responsible for putting proactive contingency plans in place to minimise disruption for customers. I fully recognise the importance of understanding the impacts of any disruption on passengers, which is why this Government already keep the resilience of the aviation sector and the experience of passengers under close consideration through continuing engagement with the sector and the Civil Aviation Authority.

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