---

Civil Aviation Bill

My Lords, I think that the noble Baroness will recognise that we are committed to operating a regime of enhanced control. It is on the basis of the effectiveness of these measures that I have confidence that that will occur. The argument that I am developing is about the freedom of airports to enter into commercial activities. That may have nothing at all to do with the issues she has raised; it will merely bring to the areas and regions of those airports the benefits of successful commercial activity, which may of course be carried out elsewhere. Clause 6 will revoke the role of the Secretary of State as the point of appeal in aviation route licence cases. Aviation route licensing cases concern the allocation by the Civil Aviation Authority of frequencies available to UK airlines in circumstances where restrictive bilateral aviation agreements between UK and foreign countries prevent UK airlines from mounting all the services they would like to provide. Airlines make proposals to the CAA about how they would use the available frequencies, and the CAA makes a decision on those proposals based on its assessment of which of them will bring the greatest benefit to consumers. The CAA gives effect to its decisions by conditioning airlines’ route licences. It is currently possible for an airline to appeal to the Secretary of State against a CAA decision. That is what we are proposing to remove. Our intention is to streamline and modernise the process in the interests of consumers and the industry. The CAA is the body with the greatest expertise in assessing the consumer and competition issues on which the allocation depends, and we think it right that the CAA alone should make the necessary determinations. The current possibilities of appeal to the Secretary of State add a political dimension which is no longer appropriate now that the airline industry in the UK is a mature and competitive industry. And experience suggests that airlines automatically lodge appeals against CAA decisions as there is no incentive for them not to do so. That can delay the take-up of new services considerably and disadvantage consumers to no good purpose in many cases. We considered the possibility of retaining an appeal to an alternative body such as the Competition Commission but concluded that that would make the process even more time consuming and bureaucratic—and no less expensive—than it is at present without adding any real value to the assessment which is carried out by the CAA. We want consumers to enjoy the benefits of additional services with the minimum of delay consonant with a proper assessment of the relative merits of different airlines’ proposals for services. We are confident that the CAA’s processes, including a public hearing at which evidence can be examined and questioned, provide for a full and transparent assessment of the merits of the various proposals. It may be open to a disappointed applicant to seek a review of the lawfulness of the CAA’s decision through the courts. We consider that this combination sufficient to ensure that the demands of regulatory accountability are met, and to safeguard the parties’ rights under the Human Rights Act. We have consulted the airlines, the CAA and the Air Transport Users Council, the consumer body. A majority of those who responded supported the reform. In conclusion, I consider the Bill to be positive for those who live near airports, for the traveller and for the aviation industry. I commend the Bill to the House. Moved, That the Bill be now read a second time.—(Lord Davies of Oldham.)