Aviation Safety (Amendment) Regulations 2026

Considered in Grand Committee

Moved by

That the Grand Committee do consider the Aviation Safety (Amendment) Regulations 2026.

My Lords, this instrument has two objectives. The first is to amend Article 71 of the assimilated basic regulation to give the Civil Aviation Authority more flexibility to grant exemptions to the basic regulation. The second is to remove a criminal sanction that has never been used. The removal of this sanction will enable further legislation later this year in order to bring the UK into line with international requirements on how far aircraft can operate from diversion airports.

This instrument was originally laid before Parliament in January this year as a negative procedure statutory instrument, in accordance with the procedures set out in the retained EU law Act 2023. Following scrutiny by both the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee and the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments during the sift, the Transport Committee recommended that this instrument be relaid as an affirmative SI. The Government accepted that recommendation, and the instrument was relaid as an affirmative SI in January.

During that sift, the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee raised concerns about how genuinely exceptional exemptions to Article 71 would be, given the suggestion that they would be used to facilitate day-to-day activities, and the JCSI raised a concern that

“the changes proposed by this instrument could represent a significant diminution of existing regulatory protections”.

Once the instrument had been relaid, the SLSC reiterated its original concerns and the JCSI had no comments. I will go into the detail of the amendments and then address those concerns.

Article 71 of the assimilated basic regulation sets out the conditions under which the Civil Aviation Authority may grant an exemption to the basic regulation for an applicant. A legacy of EU legislation, the existing wording of the law means that the CAA can grant an exception in only two possible scenarios: urgent unforeseeable circumstances, and urgent operational needs. This means that the CAA cannot issue exemptions for foreseeable circumstances with no urgent operational need, such as festivals or testing drones—consider, for example, the Formula 1 races at Silverstone, which handle around 1,000 helicopters over four days.

Under the assimilated aviation law, which is a legacy of the UK’s membership of the European Union Aviation Safety Agency—the EASA—all the basic requirements of the basic regulation would need to be met. This legislation was developed with the requirements of airports providing a permanent service in mind; such requirements are disproportionate for a short event. Currently, the CAA cannot grant exemptions for these events because they are yearly, predictable and foreseeable, even though granting an exemption would clearly enhance safety.

In addition, this amendment will allow the CAA to grant exemptions to businesses in order to enable the testing of new and innovative technologies. Today, that is difficult because many of the requirements of Article 71 do not take into account future developments in technology, such as testing “beyond visual line of sight” drone flights in airspace that is not separated from regular air traffic. The existing rules were made before current “beyond visual line of sight” developments, and it is difficult for the CAA to grant exemptions specifically for testing as testing is usually neither urgent nor unforeseeable. By enabling exemptions to be granted beyond urgent operational needs or urgent unforeseeable circumstances, the UK aviation sector will be able to trial and test new technologies more easily.

My Lords, the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee, as the Minister mentioned, has looked at this and suggested that the House may wish to seek assurances from the Minister regarding the use of exemptions. In the House of Commons Delegated Legislation Committee yesterday, the Minister said:

“I can confirm that we are confident in the capacity of the CAA to manage this process effectively. I am cognisant of the points raised by the shadow Minister and the Lib Dem spokesperson about the DFT having to exercise robust oversight over these processes and to liaise closely with the CAA to ensure that it is using these powers proportionately”.—[Official Report, Commons, Third Delegated Legislation Committee, 14/4/26; col. 6.]

The issue that I wish to question the Minister on is the capacity of the CAA to handle the various applications. Will he also address the issue of the testing by companies of new products, either aircraft or drones? We know of public events where there are a large number of helicopter flights coming in—golf tournaments, for example; I do not know whether Glastonbury has a lot of helicopter traffic—and I presume that these are covered by this sort of thing.

Without wishing to see things kept overly tight, particularly when we would like to see and encourage companies to develop new products—after all, this country has a tried and tested record of innovation in the aviation sector—the question is: who is overseeing the overseers in this case? I presume it has to be the CAA and the Department for Transport, ultimately, but is there sufficient capacity? Does the Minister expect an increase in these applications, or will it be only short term? If he does, is the capacity there and is his department sufficiently well organised to oversee that process?

The issue, I presume, comes down to the definition of “exceptional”. The Minister in the other place said:

My Lords, as we have heard, these regulations will allow the Civil Aviation Authority to exempt industry from certain safety requirements to allow for such things as greater research and development, as well as allowing increased air traffic control for one-off major events with increased air traffic. I thank the Minister for arranging a briefing with his officials, who answered my questions and provided clarity on a number of matters. I was really pleased to read the CAA exemption policy, which makes it clear that:

“When considering whether or not to issue an exemption, the CAA’s starting point will be that the requirements exist for good reasons and exemptions should therefore be exceptional. We will only issue an exemption on the basis of this Policy if to do so will maintain a high standard of safety, having regard to the safety of all aircraft, crew, passengers and persons on the ground”.

I was also pleased to hear the Minister’s assurance regarding risk assessments. Those points should assure us all.

We on these Benches support greater research and development in aviation, which these changes will allow. The regulations will allow the CAA to issue more exemptions, although within those safeguards, around trialling new aircraft and testing uncrewed aircraft or new fuel types and technology. In recent years, we have seen rapid developments in aviation technology, particularly in uncrewed aircraft. It is important that the UK is not left behind, but it will be essential that the CAA does not overuse these increased powers. Therefore, my only question for the Minister is: could he clarify what criteria have been drawn up by the department to set clear guardrails for how the CAA can use these powers and then report on their use?

My Lords, like the noble Baroness, Lady Pidgeon, I am grateful to the Minister and his officials for arranging a short briefing for me yesterday on this measure, which I found very helpful. That was a useful thing to do and I thank him.

The substance of this statutory instrument is not terribly interesting. We could go on about whether the CAA could be trusted to do its job, and exactly how you might define exemptions, but these issues have been raised in the course of debate; there is no point in my belabouring them. Generally speaking, I trust the CAA to do the job that it has done so well for so many years. I do not see any reason to think that it will go wild and start indulging in or approving unsafe practices in the near future.

I think that there are more interesting things about this statutory instrument that relate to its circumstances. The first circumstance that we want to take account of is the EU reset. The third clause of this instrument—the second operative clause in this instrument—is undoubtedly a Brexit benefit. It is a relaxation of regulation that could not be brought about had we remained a member of the European Union. The Minister has said this. I am not making a controversial point. We are doing this in a context where the Government have said, without any mandate, that they want to align our laws with the European Union, making us subject to laws that they make without any consideration of what the benefits might be for us. These advantages that we are getting today by passing this statutory instrument could be yanked away at any moment in the next year or so as the reset starts to bite.

This is not a fantastical prospect. The Minister expressed a naive innocence as to what might be contained in the gracious Speech that we are expecting on 13 May. However, anyone who reads the Financial Times today will find a very well-briefed list of the measures that are expected to be in that speech. They include a law which would allow rapid alignment of UK regulation with European Union regulation on a dynamic basis. I am not speculating wildly about it; it is in the Financial Times and has obviously been sourced from government.

My first point for the Minister is this. Is this topic area, the area of aviation regulation, part of the reset discussions that are being conducted with the European Union through a Cabinet Office Minister at the moment? Can he give an assurance that this measure which we are passing today—I am focusing on Clause 3 and will come to Clause 2 in a second—is not going to be reversed and the benefits that he has spoken of taken away so that we have more dangerous festivals at Glastonbury, more dangerous Formula 1 racing or whatever it is at Silverstone, and so forth? Can he give an assurance that these are not going to be made more dangerous because of an ideological commitment made by his own Government? Can we have an absolute guarantee today, before we agree this, that we are not wasting our time?

My second point relates to Clause 2, which is the first operative clause. It abolishes a criminal offence which has never been used. To that extent, one has no objection to it. In fact, we on the Conservative Benches also have no objection to the operative effect of Clause 3. We have no objection to the abolition of an offence that nobody has ever used, especially when there are, we are assured, other means of achieving similar control over those flying small planes an excessive distance from a reliable landing field.

The Minister referred to something that I do not have to bring up because he already did. He referred to the powers gap. The reason that we are doing this today is not that we need to do it today. We need to do it later this year. We are doing it today because we will not be able to do it after June. We will not be able to do it because the statute that gives us the power to make these regulatory changes expires in June. This is the most astonishing dereliction of duty. With only a couple of months to go, the Government have not put in place any measure which would allow the department to continue to regulate transport activities in the interests of this country and the safety of passengers and other users.

Again, the Minister does not want to say whether there is going to be something, and the Financial Times is silent on this, but we need to know. We need a debate soon about what is becoming known as the “powers gap”, because it is a scandal. I focus on transport, and I do not know if the powers gap affects other departments. Is this more widespread in Whitehall—that we are going ahead, having broken our own walking stick, so to speak? Why have the Government allowed this to go on for so long? In my view, it is a scandal, and the Minister has to stand up and explain what his department is doing. There is no point kicking it further into touch. June is just a few weeks away.

Finally, I hope that the Minister and noble Lords do not object, but I want to say something which takes me a little distance from the statutory instrument. One understands that the Department for Transport itself is in the throes of a reorganisation in which all its operational activities and expertise are being thrown out the door. All the people who know about running trains have been sent off to Waterloo to merge with Network Rail. We are now going to have no in-house expertise on aviation matters, because we will rely entirely on the Civil Aviation Authority. None of this has been discussed, but I think it is a matter of great interest to noble Lords. Although I am straying beyond the statutory instrument, I certainly think that we can be up for debating this separately in the course of the next couple of months, is the Minister willing to say today what is going on in his department about reorganisation? What change is it envisaging? What staff are leaving? How does he see the shape, role and function of the department going forward, following this transformation that apparently is in hand?

My Lords, I am grateful to noble Lords for their comments in this debate. The noble Lord, Lord Empey, quoted the Minister in the other place in two respects, and because he quoted him, I do not feel I need to add to either of the things that he said in this Committee this afternoon.

On the question about testing how the Civil Aviation Authority assures itself that operators are acting safely, I have faith in the Civil Aviation Authority. This would not have come forward, fundamentally, if the Civil Aviation Authority was not confident that it was capable of overseeing the changing regulations that are being proposed today. It oversees and audits approval holders and individuals granted privileges, as set out in the regulation. That includes monitoring the effectiveness of organisations’ quality and safety management systems. The noble Baroness, Lady Pidgeon, referred to the policy framework for assessing requests for exemptions, which she helpfully asked for during the briefing that she referred to. The Civil Aviation Authority will seek clear justification, demonstrating compliance with the new policy, supported by a robust and documented safety risk assessment, showing that high safety standards can be maintained.

The Civil Aviation Authority is overseen by the department through the State Safety Board, which is a formal body. In addition, my officials maintain a good working relationship with the UK’s independent regulator, the CAA, which is responsible for enforcing all the aviation safety regulations. As I say, I am very confident that the Civil Aviation Authority has the resources to carry out what this statutory instrument is seeking to do. Of course, it has the option of rejecting applications if it cannot resource looking at individuals.

I believe I have answered the point about policy raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Pidgeon. She also raised the question about reporting on actions that have been taken by the CAA. The CAA will publish details of general exemptions applied to defined classes, such as all operators involved in short-term events. It will not publish all exemptions due to concerns about exposing commercially sensitive information for technical developments. I can see the noble Baroness nodding, and I am sure that that is right, because it will also have a duty of protecting people’s commercial positions.

Motion agreed.