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

Baroness Grender Excerpts

3rd reading
Monday 20th July 2026 Lords Chamber

[Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill (Lab)]

I know—sorry. There is only one more like that. The Bill is focused on strengthening consumer rights and protections, reforming aviation regulation and enhancing aviation safety. Your Lordships’ contributions have ensured that the Bill leaves this place in a stronger shape. This is particularly true with regard to improving the experience of disabled people and those with reduced mobility while flying. I hope that in turn the Government have shown that we are willing to listen to and work with your Lordships.

Moving to thanks, I first give my gratitude to my noble friend Lord Katz, who supported me on the Front Bench. I also thank the noble Lord, Lord Moylan; throughout the Bill’s passage, he has consistently assured the House that he supports its objectives. Indeed, he was so supportive that he felt obliged to test, challenge and interrogate almost every mechanism for achieving them. His contributions have, however, been thoughtful and constructive, and I thank him for that.

I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Grender, and the noble Earl, Lord Russell, for the prudent and measured perspective they brought to our debates—particularly on consumer rights and the importance of ensuring that the Bill commands public confidence. Although we have not agreed on every point, their contributions have been consistently informed, probing and constructive. I am grateful for the spirit in which they have engaged with both me and my officials during our consideration of the Bill.

The noble Lords, Lord Holmes of Richmond and Lord Blencathra, the noble Baronesses, Lady Brinton and Lady Grey-Thompson, and my noble friend Lady Kennedy of Cradley all campaigned effectively to improve accessibility and highlight the importance of inclusive transport, for which I give my thanks. This has resulted in the Government tabling a package of amendments that I believe will really improve the experience of flying for those with disabilities or reduced mobility.

There have been other contributions. The noble Viscount, Lord Goschen, the noble Lords, Lord Harper, Lord Grayling, Lord Young of Cookham and Lord Empey, and the noble Baronesses, Lady Foster of Oxton and Lady Finlay of Llandaff, have provided wise words and, as ever, I am grateful for their contributions. I have enjoyed discussing the merits of general aviation with the noble Lords, Lord Kirkhope of Harrogate and Lord Davies of Gower, and my noble friends Lord Barber of Ainsdale and Lord Tunnicliffe, who raised issues of importance. Finally, I extend my personal thanks to all the officials who supported me, especially the Bill team, policy and legal colleagues, the drafting team, parliamentary counsel and others.

In conclusion, the Bill has completed its passage through your Lordships’ House. It now takes off for the other place, and I would expect any return journey to involve only limited turbulence. I beg to move.

[Baroness Grender (LD)]

My Lords, I am grateful for the opportunity to speak at Third Reading. I begin by thanking the Minister for the constructive way in which he and his officials have engaged with this House throughout its passage. I also record my gratitude to noble Lords across the House for the contributions they have made to the Bill at every stage. The scrutiny that this House has brought to bear, often from very different perspectives, has strengthened this legislation. I do not think that improvement would have happened without it.

I particularly welcome the Government’s agreement to bring forward a consultation on the experiences of disabled passengers—an addition to the Bill that I hope will make a real and lasting difference. For too long, disabled passengers have been left without the convenience or dignity that ought to be a basic expectation of air travel. I am glad that this House has secured a firm commitment embedded in the legislation to examine and address that failure properly.

I also welcome the corrective amendment the Minister has tabled for Third Reading, which addresses a technical deficiency identified by the Minister since Report. That kind of responsiveness does not always attend legislation of this kind, and it should be acknowledged.

I return to the principle that has guided my and my colleagues’ contributions throughout the passage of the Bill: that reform of aviation regulations should be directed first and foremost towards improving the passenger experience. The protections we have secured for disabled passengers and the standards the Bill now sets are what I will be watching for closely as it is implemented. Passengers do not experience aviation policy as clauses and statutes. They experience it as to whether they are treated with courtesy when a flight is delayed, whether they can travel with the support they need and whether the system as a whole is built around their interests rather than around convenience for everyone but them.

Too often in the past, passengers have been an afterthought in regulatory design. The Bill is an opportunity to correct that imbalance. I hope the Government will treat this not as the end of that work but as a foundation on which future improvements can and should be built. I close by expressing my thanks in particular to my Liberal Democrat Peer colleagues who have contributed to the Bill. My particular thanks, above all, go to Adam Bull in our Whips’ Office, for his diligence and unwavering support throughout its passage, for which I remain deeply grateful.

[Lord Empey (UUP)]

My Lords, I thought we were going to end on a positive note, but the departure gate gag has probably set us back quite a bit this afternoon.

I thank the Minister for his engagement and also thank the Bill team and the Public Bill Office. On Report, he indicated to me on the record that the Government did not have power to deal with the issue of slots. Subsequently, the Minister has indicated that he would like to clarify what he believes now is the position, and he promised he would put a letter in the Library of the House to confirm that. I thank him and all his team for their engagement. It was very nice to be dealing with a Minister who knows how to be a Minister.

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

Baroness Grender Excerpts

Report stage
Monday 13th July 2026 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Brinton (LD)]

My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Moylan, for Amendment 1, but I express concern that it and Amendment 3 are in conflict in their proposed new subsections (1)(c) and (1B)(c). The reason for that was amply explained by the noble Lord, Lord Redwood. He started by saying that this Bill is one in search of a purpose, but went on to say that we are going to improve the lot of disabled people, among other things. I am very grateful that he said that, because proposed new subsection (1B)(c) in Amendment 3 asks the Secretary of State to make it an absolute priority to consider the impact of the regulations on

“the burdens imposed on air transport service providers and airport operators in complying with the regulations”.

Part of the journey of disabled people in buying a ticket, going through various airports and actually flying is that most of the providers would say that all provision for disabled people is a burden. They try to minimise everything they can. Does the Minister agree with me on that? Perhaps the noble Lord, Lord Moylan, also might like to address that when he comments at the end.

[Baroness Grender (LD)]

My Lords, I turn to the first group of amendments, Amendments 1 and 3 tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Moylan. I thank both Front Benches for having met us over the past few days in the run-up to Report. All the insight, information and conversations have been very much appreciated. I admire the attempt of the noble Lord, Lord Moylan, to insert an overarching economic growth purpose into the heart of the Bill, which I see as a valiant attempt. I hope that he will in turn look kindly on some of my valiant attempts in further groups.

As he rightly says, the Government should be stretching every sinew to pursue growth, as we did in the wake of the economic crash of 2008 and the extremely difficult days of the coalition Government. I had the enormous privilege of being what one might describe as an unelected bureaucrat, sitting in Cabinet meetings and watching those proceedings. Not a week went by when economic growth was not discussed, and that was a good thing.

Technically, unless I have misread it or misunderstood it in Committee, this is primarily a safety and consumer protection framework, with slots and modernisation as part of it. In mandating that the Secretary of State have regard to promoting economic growth when regulating passenger rights under Clause 1, I worry about subordinating the safety and dignity of the travelling public to the commercial margins of what the noble Lord, Lord Harper, described in Committee as a low-margin industry. It is vital to reflect through this Bill, as we talked about in Committee, the low margins of ordinary passengers who must jump through hoop after hoop to get what is by rights their compensation and, in turn, bear the financial consequence and burden. That is what worries me.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Harper (Con)]

Before the noble Baroness sits down, can I reference the point that she made about disabled people? The amendment tabled by my noble friend Lord Moylan just says that the Government have to consider the burdens. If you make air travel better for disabled people, you will grow the top line. You will have more people flying and higher revenues. Secondly, the Minister has simply to consider those costs; he may still consider that they are the right thing to do. So I do not think that there is a contradiction in the way that she set out.

[Baroness Grender (LD)]

I thank the noble Lord. We think that driving for this principle cuts across the stronger consumer rights that we have been talking about all through Committee.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Baroness Grender]

2: Clause 1, page 1, line 12, at end insert—
“(1A) Regulations under this section may not reduce the standards of service and protection available to passengers and consumers of airport and air transport services compared to any provision which those regulations replace.”Member's explanatory statement
This amendment ensures that regulations made under this section do not make provision setting out lower passenger and consumer standards than current regulations.

[Baroness Grender (LD)]

My Lords, I shall speak to Amendment 2 standing in my name. Throughout the passage of this Bill, these Benches have pursued a consistent and, I hope, unwavering approach that passengers must come first. Whether we were debating information rights, delay compensation or the powers conferred on the Secretary of State, our test has always been the same: does this provision leave the passenger better protected or leave the door open to erosion of standards that they currently enjoy?

This amendment is a direct continuation of that approach. It does not seek to load new obligations on to the Government; it simply asks that, when Ministers use the powers that this Bill grants them, they cannot use them to quietly lower the bar. The principle underpinning this amendment is non-regression. Where government takes a power to make new regulations, the existing baseline of protection should not be capable of being diminished through that power.

It is not novel. Section 20 of the Environment Act 2021 already requires a Minister, before the Second Reading of any Bill touching environmental law, to confirm that it will not reduce existing environmental protection; if they cannot, they must say so and explain why. That single duty has kept the floor from moving. Air quality standards inherited from EU law were carried through undiluted and remain in force today. I see no reason why passengers travelling by air should be treated as deserving of any lesser assurance than that already extended to the air they breathe.

This amendment therefore asks nothing exceptional of the Minister. It would not fetter the Government’s ability to modernise, update or respond to changing aviation sector developments, all of which the Bill quite rightly enables. It would provide an assurance in the Bill that modernisation will not become a euphemism for dilution. Passengers who currently benefit from certain consumer protections, certain standards of information and certain rights when things go wrong should be able to trust that those protections form a floor, not a ceiling that can be quietly lowered by statutory instrument, or with little scrutiny or even less public attention. I hope the Minister recognises the modesty of what is being asked here and the strength of precedent behind it.

If the Government are confident, as I am sure they are, that these powers will be used to enhance rather than diminish passenger standards, this amendment would cost them nothing. It would simply put that confidence into the Bill in black and white, so that it rests not on ministerial assurance alone but on the statute itself.

Amendments 8, 10 and 11 in this group, also in my name, address the most basic issues of safeguarding. Amendment 8 requires that airlines and airports provide specific support for those who require assistance from a carer. In doing this, we need to acknowledge that the Minister has moved a long way on the amendments that have been tabled in this area.

Amendments 10 and 11 would ensure that families and those requiring assistance were never separated during their journey. If you book a table at a restaurant, you do not arrive to discover that your child has been put on a different table. I know that there is one bad-actor air company here, but it can get away with it at the moment because there is no restriction. We have also heard far too many heartbreaking stories of passengers with disabilities treated as the lowest priority. It is not a premium or luxury service to have your carer or child with you; it is a statutory baseline that we would like to see included in the Bill.

Amendment 36 seeks to mandate transparency during frequent and exhausting periods of flight delays. It is not enough to rely on patchy guidance. Operators must have a statutory duty to provide timely, accurate and accessible information to ensure that the silence at the gate is replaced by clear communication. I should just explain that this was written while I was waiting at a gate at an airport having witnessed someone who was on crutches being shouted at because he had not managed to take his stuff off the plane when we were all removed from the plane because of an engine failure. It was appalling, and that was two weeks ago.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill (Lab)]

The noble Lord is right: I am pretty sure I did commit to write to him, I am pretty sure I have not yet and I am pretty sure I will do shortly.

[Baroness Grender (LD)]

My Lords, I will be brief because a whole load of people have arrived for a particular purpose. I thank the noble Lord, Lord Moylan, for mentioning the ICAO and some of the international progress we need to make. I also thank the Minister for giving us a hint that we will hear a bit more about that in the next group, so I am excited to get on to the next bit of business. We have made quite a bit of progress in this group, especially on the government amendments, so I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.

Amendment 2 withdrawn.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Harper (Con)]

My Lords, I raise just one issue, which is the point that the noble Baroness, Lady Kennedy of Cradley, raised on the previous group: the interaction between specific regulations in place for the aviation sector and more wide-ranging legislation, such as the disability elements of the Equality Act. I have a specific question for the Minister to answer when he responds. We are obviously looking at Amendment 5, which the noble Baroness, Lady Grey-Thompson, introduced so well and which would set down some minimum standards. However, such standards will not achieve the outcome we want if they are not enforced. Can the Minister therefore say what the Government’s assessment is of the extent to which the gap is the legislation, standards or regulations, and to what extent it is the degree to which those existing regulations are enforced? If it is the latter, what is the Government’s plan to close that gap between the regulatory standards that are in place and the ones that take effect for passengers and to make the experience that my noble friend Lord Holmes referred to a much better one for disabled passengers?

[Baroness Grender (LD)]

My Lords, I will be extremely brief. I know that quite a lot of people say that and then do not fulfil it, but I really will. This group of amendments of course has a great deal of support from our Benches. We look forward to hearing what the Minister has to say. In particular, we look forward to hearing something about how, having raised the bar at a UK and domestic level, it is possible to further that. I thank the noble Lord, Lord Holmes, for giving some indication of what that could include, because what comes next is the question of how we can create a gold standard here in the UK and explain it elsewhere at an international level.

[Baroness Foster of Oxton (Con)]

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

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord McLoughlin (Con)]

My Lords, I add my support to the amendment in the name of my noble friend Lord Young. One of the things I find slightly worrying in the letter from the Minister to my noble friend is that he says:

“Were NATS to be made responsible for paying compensation, almost half of the cost would fall to the taxpayer”.


That is a fairly interesting line of defence from the Minister, because we are about to renationalise the railways. Therefore, any cost delays from Delay Repay will fall to the taxpayer. Will we see a policy from the Government that does away with any Delay Repay repayments to the passenger, as those faults would now impact on the taxpayer? That is a very interesting scenario. I wonder why the Government are approaching delays that are caused by an organisation that serves airlines differently from those caused by one that may well in due course serve the rail passenger.

My noble friend Lord Young of Cookham has ably put the case and shown the inconsistency in the Government’s position. Should he test the opinion of the House, I very much hope that we give the Minister that mandate to go back, renegotiate this and come forward with a proper proposal that gives the right compensation to airlines in due course.

[Baroness Grender (LD)]

I am a little hesitant to start the Front Bench responses before I triple-check that nobody else wants to speak.

I thank the noble Lords, Lord Moylan, Lord Grayling and Lord Young, for raising these important issues. On the theme of parliamentary scrutiny, we on these Benches support the spirit of Amendments 16, 17 and 29 tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Moylan. They seek to mandate the affirmative procedure for regulations, and we attempted to suggest similar amendments in Committee. The Bill delegates vast, unscrutinised powers to the Secretary of State to redefine passenger rights, so it is only right that Parliament retains the ability to debate and approve these changes before they take effect. I have previously mentioned signing a blank cheque that allows for the fundamental alteration of consumer standards via the negative procedure. However, like the noble Lord, Lord Moylan, I also acknowledge that the Minister has changed his position on that and signed one of the amendments from the noble Lord on this issue.

I will not revisit or rehearse my comments in Committee about the need to deliver on the threat of a fatal Motion, which we have got into in the past. Sometimes, the muscular possibility of delivering on that threat is the only way of dealing with these procedures. I fully recognise that both the Conservative Benches and the Labour Benches have a long-standing tradition of not doing that.

We welcome government Amendment 28, which requires the CAA to report annually on its enforcement functions. We see this as a necessary step towards the transparency that we called for in Committee. However, while we welcome the technical corrections in government Amendments 30 and 31 regarding the concurrency arrangements, we remain concerned by the potential for regulatory fragmentation. Probing Amendments 7 and 12 rightly ask why both the CAA and the CMA require overlapping powers. We believe the regulator must have teeth, but those teeth need to be clearly seen and defined. I look forward to hearing the Minister’s response on that.

On Amendment 13 from the noble Lord, Lord Grayling, while we support proportionality, we feel that confining financial penalties only to “systemic failure” risks leaving individual passengers in the lurch. We worry that it might defang the regulator in a way that prioritises industry margins over individual dignity—a common theme that I have already pursued on previous groups.

On Amendment 65 from the noble Lord, Lord Young, I read more on this issue this weekend than on almost anything else to do with the Bill. The only thing I can say is that we on these Benches still have an open mind on this issue. I look forward to hearing the Minister’s response. Normally we would follow the noble Lord through hell-fire, but I have had discussions with Commons colleagues and have read everything I can on this issue. We wait to hear the Minister’s response.

Finally, Amendment 15 would require a statement on international alignment. As we have previously argued, any divergence from EU standards must be used as a lever for enhancement, not a race to the bottom. If we are to move away from established protections, the public deserve a clear technical explanation of why that divergence is in their interest. I look forward to the debates that this has thrown up and to the Minister’s response to these amendments.

[Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill (Lab)]

My Lords, I will begin with the amendments tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Grayling, on financial penalties and powers of entry. Clause 1 does not create financial penalties or powers of entry; it simply enables such powers to be conferred by future regulations if evidence shows that they are needed. Their scope should be determined when those regulations are made, on the basis of the evidence available at that time. It would not be appropriate to fix a systematic failure test in primary legislation now, particularly as the CAA already addresses breaches causing collective harm, rather than individual disputes.

Powers of entry would require reasonable grounds to suspect a breach and would be used only where less intrusive methods had proved insufficient. Similar powers already exist for other regulators, including the Financial Conduct Authority and the Information Commissioner’s Office but not the Civil Aviation Authority. Appropriate safeguards are essential but are best considered when any regulations are laid.

To help the noble Lord, I was assured, having asked a former chief executive of the Civil Aviation Authority, whom the noble Lord knows well, that these powers will be essential to allow the CAA to effectively use the powers it is being given through the Bill to enforce consumer regulation. It has faced some difficulties with that in the past.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Hoey (Non-Afl)]

My Lords, I add my support to all those who have spoken to the amendments. If we pass one of these amendments, it will send a message and signal that what airports are doing is not right—and it will get worse unless we show that, while we understand that they need to raise money, they should not be able simply to add to the amounts charged.

At many airports now, because people know that they need to get in and out within 10 minutes if they are picking someone up, they wait on the roads outside. At Belfast International Airport, in the evening, the road is absolutely packed with cars parked right along, because, if they go in too soon or if the passenger waiting for luggage is a little late, the money goes up and up. It is just not acceptable. I hope that the Government will accept what are very reasonable amendments from both noble Lords.

[Baroness Grender (LD)]

My Lords, airport drop-off charges are a constant source of frustration to the travelling public. Although neither amendment is in my name, these Benches will support whichever amendment is taken forward.

These measures are a common-sense attempt to bring transparency to what often feels like a stealth tax at the terminal door. So far on Report, we have not talked about how people are often captured the minute they enter the door of an airport. This is not a choice; people are captured and are given these charges. They cannot instantly withdraw their custom and go to a different airport, because they are pretty much locked in both to the airline and to the airport that they have gone for. They cannot shop around, because all of them are doing it.

It seems to us that it is right to support the amendment. For too long, the rules of the game around these levies have been opaque. It feels similar to the bundling and poor practice that we have seen in ticketing, and it is only right that we shine a light on it. I see it as quite useful that we should at least look at this and try to create a bit more transparency.

[Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill (Lab)]

I thank the noble Lords, Lord Moylan and Lord Empey, for re-tabling their amendments on airport drop-off charges. I will address them together.

I understand the concerns behind these amendments. Passengers should have clear, accessible information about travel options to and from airports, including drop-off, short-stay parking and free alternatives. The Government expect airports to act transparently and fairly, and reinforces this through regular engagement with the sector. However, these amendments are neither necessary nor proportionate. Most UK airports are privately owned and responsible for managing their roads and parking. Their arrangements are already subject to consumer protection law, competition law and industry standards, with enforcement and redress where practices are misleading, unfair or non-compliant. There are also established mechanisms to review airport drop-off charges where concerns arise.

The CAA has already examined airport surface access, including competition, consumer issues and the transparency of information on options and charges, and found insufficient evidence to justify a competition or consumer law investigation. Private parking operators are expected to comply with the sector’s code of practice, including requirements on clear signage, accessibility, penalty charge notices and appeals. The Government will continue to expect airports and operators to provide clear, accurate and accessible information before passengers travel. I say to the noble Baroness, Lady O’Loan, that if the information at Belfast City Airport is as unclear as she describes, she has a valid complaint.

Drop-off and parking charges support airports’ wider commercial and operational management. They can reduce congestion, improve traffic flow, support surface access strategies and fund passenger facilities, including cleaner transport options. Restricting them in primary legislation risks shifting other costs to passengers and undermining airports’ ability to manage congestion effectively. Almost all airports that charge for terminal drop-off provide free alternatives, such as shuttles. Airports should ensure that these options are clearly communicated in advance so that passengers can make informed choices. For those reasons, while I understand the noble Lords’ concerns, I ask them not to press their amendments.

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Baroness Grender]

38: Clause 4, page 4, line 27, at end insert—
“(aa) after subsection (6) insert—“(6A) Where the Secretary of State makes a direction under this section, the Secretary of State must first—(a) consult persons likely to be affected by the direction including communities in the vicinity of any airport or airspace affected,(b) undertake an environmental impact assessment in respect of the proposed direction, and(c) undertake a noise impact assessment in respect of the proposed direction.”;”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment would require the Secretary of State to consult affected communities and complete environmental and noise impact assessments before making a direction under section 2 of the Air Traffic Management and Unmanned Aircraft Act 2021. It seeks to ensure that the exercise of the direction-making power is subject to scrutiny and community engagement.

[Baroness Grender (LD)]

My Lords, Amendment 38 is designed to install necessary statutory guardrails around the new last resort direction powers introduced by Clause 4. We must be clear about the technical shift this clause represents: it amends the Air Traffic Management and Unmanned Aircraft Act 2021 to allow the Secretary of State to compel the implementation of airspace changes, rather than merely their development.

Although we on these oh-so crowded Benches acknowledge that our ground-based navigation systems are antiquated—in effect remaining unchanged since the 1950s—we cannot allow technical modernisation to bypass community consent. For residents and communities such as Richmond, where the Minister resides, these directions are far from operational tweaks; they are powerful levers over airport capacity. A redrawn flight path or a redistributed traffic flow can fundamentally alter the noise and environmental footprint for thousands of people living below.

My amendment would mandate three specific duties before a direction is made: a requirement to consult affected persons and communities, and the completion of full environmental and noise impact assessments. We have received reassurances from the Minister that the Bill is not intended as a vehicle for airport expansion, and we take those assurances in good faith, especially from this Minister. However, as I have argued throughout Committee, good faith is no substitute for legal guarantees. My heart breaks at the thought of it, but no Minister right now can guarantee that they will be in the same post by this time next week. There is also the continuing threat of the very blunt instrument known as the first past the post system, through which a Reform Government with hugely damaging notions on environment and climate issues could come into power. Without these mandatory assessments in the Bill, the public lack a formal mechanism to distinguish between a technical modernisation and a quiet, unscrutinised increase in capacity.

Operational reform must not become a backdoor for expansion at Heathrow or elsewhere that has not been presented to Parliament as a discrete and clear policy choice. We have heard evidence that communities experience significant annoyance and sleep disturbance at lower noise levels than previously assumed. It is therefore essential that any exercise of ministerial power that has the practical effect of facilitating increased capacity is preceded by meaningful transparency. Airspace modernisation should be a resource for the entire nation, not a tool for industry margins. We must ensure that, as we redesign the skies—the principle of which we wholeheartedly support and recognise needs updating—we do not leave communities on the ground in the dark, for want of a better word. I beg to move.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill (Lab)]

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

[Baroness Grender (LD)]

My Lords, I thank noble Lords for participating in this debate. I am sure that we are all keen to move on to the next group. The Minister has been very patient in our meetings and recognises that we will not let go of this issue lightly. We will keep on referencing what we see as this critical need. However, for the moment, I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.

Amendment 38 withdrawn.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Grayling (Con)]

My Lords, I will be very brief. One thing that the Government could do for general aviation is to take steps to designate smaller airports that are for general aviation and are important to be retained for general aviation. I am very aware of the pressure to redevelop smaller airfields. There may be a case to support that for a small number of them, but the loss of those which are used extensively by general aviation will do significant damage to the aviation sector as a whole.

[Baroness Grender (LD)]

My Lords, as the noble Lord, Lord Barber, is aware, I tabled an amendment in Committee similar to his Amendment 69. However, even as I was speaking then, I recognised and understood that there was far greater expertise on this area in the Room. I have not been disappointed on that this evening.

We support Amendment 69 in principle. We cannot ensure safety in a workforce vacuum. As the BALPA briefing identifies, the sector faces a looming retirement cliff due to the mandatory retirement age of 65—House of Lords, please note. This amendment requires an authoritative annual assessment of future workforce requirements, enabling the industry to address supply issues, particularly for commercial pilots, well ahead of time. By requiring these reports on demographic trends, we would ensure that the move towards agile regulation was supported by a transparent understanding of the human capital required. This mirrors best practice elsewhere, as I think I mentioned in Committee—for instance, the Nursing and Midwifery Council has a similar operation—and it provides transparency to the House.

On Amendment 41, in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Kirkhope, we must recognise that general aviation is the front door to the industry. It underpins pilot training and contributes £4 billion to our economy, yet smaller users are too often quietly squeezed out by disproportionate charges. This amendment provides a vital tramline to that. We welcome it and look forward to hearing the Minister’s response.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Empey (UUP)]

My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Grayling, for his amendments, some of which are entirely complementary to what I want to achieve. I have been battling on this for a long number of years. I fully understand the point made by the noble Baroness, Lady Foster, about the value of an airline and how the slots are worth a lot of money—many millions of pounds, in many cases, depending on the time, and I can only see those values rising in the short term.

It is not that I would want the Minister to use hobnail boots to interfere with the slots regime, but there could be circumstances where—it is not impossible—given that we are in an international market and most of the airlines with slots at, say, Heathrow, are in effect international, the shareholdings of those could change. Let us suppose, for example, that a group such as IAG was purchased by a Middle East consortium; it might seek to maximise its profits from the use of the slots.

Let us take another example: regional airports. It is not a Northern Ireland issue. Let us suppose that that consortium decides, “We don’t need flights from Manchester to Heathrow; we could get rid of those”. Then the question would be: how would people get to the Cabinet? Would they have to take the bus? This is an extreme example, but the point is that a future shareholder could decide either to stop using a regional airport or to reduce the service to the point that it creates economic difficulties for a region. That requires a certain degree of interference by the state, because having inadequate regional connectivity is not simply a commercial matter. It is a matter that can affect regions. It can affect business. It could make regions less competitive, which has an impact on jobs and quality of life.

I got a Private Member’s Bill through this House twice, but we were then part of the European Union and the Minister said, “It’s a European competence; therefore, there is nothing I can do”, so that was that. But now we are in a different situation; we can do something. All I want the Minister to be able to say is that, in extremis, sufficient power exists—or that we will make sure that sufficient power exists—to ensure that the regions are not disadvantaged as a result of slots being removed from them and given to transatlantic or worldwide routes. This is not a difficult problem. Amendment 67 from the noble Lord, Lord Grayling, would give the Secretary of State a power to intervene, taking certain things into account. Therefore, I would have thought that it would be perfectly possible to have consensus on this, because nobody wants to see regions isolated or disadvantaged.

We have an opportunity now; it is within our own power. I accept entirely that we do not want to be messing around with the economics of a particular airline, but there could be circumstances in which the regions are put at risk. I hope the Minister will be able to satisfy me, the noble Lord, Lord Grayling, and others that this is not going to happen, and that he and the Secretary of State will have the powers to intervene if necessary.

[Baroness Grender (LD)]

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

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

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

[Lord Moylan (Con)]

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

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

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Baroness Grender]

51: Clause 7, page 8, line 16, at end insert—
“(4A) The Secretary of State may not make regulations under this section that would have the effect of facilitating airport expansion unless the Secretary of State has first—(a) consulted persons likely to be affected by the proposed expansion, including communities in the vicinity of the airport,(b) undertaken an environmental impact assessment of the proposed expansion, and(c) undertaken a noise impact assessment of the proposed expansion.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment would prevent the Secretary of State from making regulations that facilitate airport expansion unless they have first consulted affected communities, completed an environmental impact assessment, and completed a noise impact assessment. It ensures that proper scrutiny and community engagement take place before any expansion can be progressed through secondary legislation.

[Baroness Grender (LD)]

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

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

Amendment 63 provides the ultimate safety catch. It specifies:

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


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

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

[Lord Moylan (Con)]

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

[Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill (Lab)]

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Baroness Grender (LD)]

My Lords, I thank the Minister for his infinite patience on this issue and for being accessible at all times for discussions on it. I wish to associate myself with all the other comments that we have heard this evening, and I thank the Minister for some of the movement that we have had, particularly in other areas and in earlier parts of the debate. My reason for saying this now is that I do not intend to speak on the next couple of groups, so this is an opportunity for me to say thank you to the Minister and his officials for having been so accessible throughout the process.

I understand the Minister’s objections to this. It will not astonish him to hear that, as with Amendment 46, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Empey, it is possible that we will return to this. I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.

Amendment 51 withdrawn.

Maritime and Coastguard Agency

Baroness Grender Excerpts

Wednesday 8th July 2026 Lords Chamber

[Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill (Lab)]

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

[Baroness Grender (LD)]

My Lords, does the Minister agree that making it so much harder for working people on low incomes to serve as coastguard rescue officers may jeopardise this life-saving service? Therefore, in this period of reflection that he has described, will he ensure that assessment is made of the impact on the diversity of workforce in this context?

[Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill (Lab)]

I will say two things. First, the Government recognise and are fully grateful for the extraordinary service of brave and selfless volunteer coastguards. Secondly, the noble Baroness is absolutely right that, in the course of this contemplation, we need to reflect on the diversity of those volunteers. Decisions should not be made that adversely affect that.

Drink-Driving

Baroness Grender Excerpts

Wednesday 1st July 2026 Lords Chamber

[Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill (Lab)]

The first comprehensive road safety strategy for some time was published a few months ago, and part of the consultation is indeed to look at lowering the limits for drink-driving. All the statistics the noble Baroness quoted are of course correct. We need to do something about it, and one of the reasons for the publication of the road safety strategy was that the number of deaths and serious injuries on the road has plateaued and it should be going down.

[Baroness Grender (LD)]

My Lords, UK courts can disqualify drink-drivers, but they cannot currently require an alcolock as a condition of returning to the road. Will the Government consider giving courts this option, in particular for repeat and high-risk drink-driving offenders?

[Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill (Lab)]

That is precisely one of the things that the Government have consulted about, because it is important that the maximum range of penalties and actions is available to deal with drink-driving and, even worse, repeat drink-driving. That is why we have consulted. This is one of the items in the consultation and why I anticipate that we will take action when we have analysed the results of it.

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

Baroness Grender Excerpts

Committee stage
Tuesday 16th June 2026 Grand Committee

[Lord Grayling (Con)]

My Lords, I support the amendments from my noble friends Lord Moylan and Lord Davies of Gower. This is not a failing market. This is a highly competitive environment, where both domestic and international competition are working aggressively to make it a challenge to run an airline or a freight airline in today’s world.

The need for extensive government regulation, therefore, is limited and questionable. We are not trying to solve a massive problem. There are, of course, specific issues. We will hear more, for example, about disability rights, where, yes, of course we should make sure that airport operators in particular deliver the right environment for disabled people. But first and foremost, we must ensure that the Government do not interfere in this marketplace in a way that damages the competitiveness of one of the UK’s most important economic sectors. That is why my noble friend Lord Moylan is absolutely right. As we go through this debate—not simply on these amendments but on the Bill as a whole—the Minister needs constantly to have in mind the need not to cramp the style of our sector by overregulation, and, where he is regulating, to explain why, otherwise he will not have the support of this Committee.

Finally, on general aviation, the comments made so far are absolutely right. There is a genuine issue around the future of general aviation—the loss of smaller airports, for example, to planning pressures and planning opportunities, and those who own them trying to make money out of them. General aviation needs to be looked after in this country because at a time when, as we hear, there is a growing shortage of young up- and-coming pilots, general aviation is an essential way of developing the skills that we need for the future. It is not simply a way for a few rich people to have a good time.

[Baroness Grender (LD)]

My Lords, Amendment 1 and Amendments 23, 24 and 25 are in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Moylan. As we noted previously, the Bill sets out the framework but leaves a great deal of detail to be determined later, so we welcome these amendments. We have consistently argued that such an approach risks leaving both passengers and Parliament with too little certainty about how the regime will operate in practice. We see these amendments as useful in probing how that framework might be strengthened.

Amendment 1 raises an important issue around transparency and consumer protection: the case for clearer comparable information at the point of sale. In our view, it should be pursued and I look forward to discussing my noble friend Lord Russell’s amendment, which aims to strengthen the Bill in this area, in the next group.

Equally, how compensation is delivered remains a live and important concern. The current system too often places the burden on passengers to navigate complex processes to secure redress. I say to the noble Lord, Lord Harper—I am sure we will keep coming back to this issue of a low-margin industry—that a different way of viewing this is that if £1 million is not returned to a whole group of consumers by a low-budget airline over a long period, it is, in effect, using families who cannot afford it, or can ill afford it, almost as an overdraft facility with no interest. Getting the balance right on that will be important as we investigate some of the amendments and get into the detail.

On Amendments 23, 24 and 25, we find ourselves in close alignment with the noble Lord, Lord Moylan. As the Bill proposes to confer significant new functions on the Civil Aviation Authority, it is right to consider how those powers are to be exercised and scrutinised. A more centralised regulatory role must not come at the expense of transparency, or indeed parliamentary oversight. The noble Lord and I have discussed this issue, which is that unless there is a threat, with teeth, to move a fatal Motion on a piece of secondary legislation, there is a tendency for Governments to plough on regardless—also regardless of previous colours, I would just say. If we are concerned about secondary legislation—and we are concerned about this—there needs to be clarity about what we would do with it. I hope we can get into some of the detail on that.

On Amendment 24, later we propose two amendments that explore a high common denominator between UK 261 and EU 261, and we look at shadowing EU 261. I entirely hear what the noble Lord, Lord Moylan, says about there being no ownership of who has the best, so we want to pursue, on behalf of industry and customers in the UK, what is the best. That may be EU 261, as revised when it cuts, or it may not.

Overall, these amendments highlight two issues. We consider fundamental the need to embed meaningful consumer protections and the need to ensure proper accountability in the exercise of new regulatory powers as the Government move to address the post-EU powers gap. It is essential that this Committee is not asked to accept a blank cheque approach. I therefore look forward to hearing the Minister’s response as we all warm to this theme throughout the rest of today.

[Baroness Foster of Oxton (Con)]

My Lords, I will stay on group 1, on growth and competitiveness. I will just add a brief word endorsing the comments of my colleagues on this side of the Room: whatever decisions we come to on detailed changes to legislation in this Committee, we need to remember that we are part of international law. We comply with the Montreal and Chicago conventions, and we comply with all the rules covered by IATA and ICAO, so whatever we do cannot be done in isolation—whichever area we debate and come to conclusions on over the next couple of days. I just say to my noble friends and the Minister that this has to be at the back of our minds when we determine anything that we do. What we should not do is come to conclusions whereby we end up putting through regulations that are wholly anti-competitive for the UK airline industry and not compatible either to third-country carriers who come to the UK, as we do not have, in most cases, any extra territoriality rights to impose certain rules or regulations. I just say that as a thought, and I am sure we will have very interesting debates on the amendments laid down.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Foster of Oxton (Con)]

My Lords, I will briefly comment on some of the issues raised. We have to separate out the former regulation 261 on passenger rights for delays and cancellations from the very important report on the former regulation 1107, which the noble Baroness, Lady Grey-Thompson, has spent a great deal of time working on with passengers with reduced mobility. I certainly echo the points that she has raised.

Without going into detail on the late regulations 261 or 1107, one of the biggest problems is not that we need more regulations on passenger rights but that we need to enforce the regulations that are already in place. These are robust. I was involved in their conception in the European Parliament and they have been revised over the years. We need to be very careful that however they are amended in this Committee does not then cause some sort of conflict. We must have treatment of passengers abroad that would echo the treatment they would have in the UK. We cannot impose differences in regulation on third countries, so we have to persuade, through the international bodies, that we need a certain level of treatment for all passengers. As I said, on the old regulation 261, from a competition point of view, we need to ensure that a balance is struck, notwithstanding what the airlines are culpable for in terms of paying, so that the business runs accordingly and passengers are compensated appropriately.

I will comment briefly on my noble friend Lord Young’s comment on the delays caused through NATS and other providers. We looked at this some years ago when I was in the European Parliament. With the exception of force majeure—people recognise force majeure, where something happens and the airline or air traffic services have no control whatever, and they are pretty magnanimous about it—I wholly agree with my noble friend. It was something we tried to push. What we found, unfortunately, was that air traffic services and providers not just in the UK but across the EU were very reluctant to look at the third party where there was a responsibility for compensation to be paid back to the airlines where it had not been their fault. It is worth pursuing. It is a tough way forward; nevertheless, it is worth looking at.

Finally, the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay, is a great expert in these fields, with her medical background. If I recall, the initial problem with passenger air quality arose some years ago with the BAe 146 aircraft. The effects on the pilots went on for years. For reassurance—I declare an interest, having spent four years as the head of European affairs for the Aerospace, Security and Defence Industries Association of Europe—looking all these years on, the safety of and the quality of air in the aircraft that we produce today is really quite different from some of the older aircraft. Fortunately, as former crew on a lot of the older aircraft, I survived 25 years of air quality that was perhaps not great. It needs to be kept in perspective. It should be monitored, of course, but we should reassure the public that, when they fly on these aircraft these days, they are safe and extremely well maintained.

My final point concerns onboard facilities if people fall ill. Believe me, people like me have called for a doctor onboard in the past. It was not much fun when someone was lying on the floor and I, a mere first-aider, was trying to deal with them and keep them alive. It was not ideal. It is very difficult to see how you could rearrange the entire aircraft. Fortunately, a critical situation does not happen very often, but it is up to the airlines to ensure that the crew and everyone onboard are trained sufficiently, that they have the facilities, in terms of medical kits and everything else, and that, if something is extremely serious, the pilot and the captain have the ability to divert to another airfield to ensure that the passenger is looked after as quickly as possible. Those are my points.

[Baroness Grender (LD)]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Lord Moylan (Con)]

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

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

--- Later in debate ---

The sad saga I have recited is not the unique bad luck of this weary wanderer but is exactly what tens of thousands of disabled passengers complain about daily, exactly as the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, has said. I have just recited the main problems they all face. We can and we must do better for disabled passengers. The issues raised here today need to be mentioned in this clause of the Bill so that we will get action on them in due course.

[Baroness Grender (LD)]

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

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

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

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

[Lord Moylan (Con)]

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

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

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

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Berkeley (Lab)]

My Lords, very briefly, I support the amendments in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Davies of Gower. I think he will agree that much of what he said—and it was reflected as well in the comments of many of my noble friends—came from the reaction that we both had from the All-Party Group on Aviation. It is a bit of a disaster situation. That group criticised the CAA strongly, not only on training—and everything else that noble Lords have talked about—but on the exam syllabus. The incident training syllabus has apparently not been upgraded for 20 years. This is in spite of examiners and other people asking the CAA to incorporate the charges, to no avail. My plea to my noble friend the Minister tonight is for him to put a bomb under the CAA and convert it into a new, customer-friendly regulator.

[Baroness Grender (LD)]

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Lord Moylan (Con)]

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

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

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

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

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

Airports Slot Allocation (Alleviation of Usage Requirements) Regulations 2026

Baroness Grender Excerpts

Wednesday 10th June 2026 Grand Committee

[Viscount Stansgate (Lab)]

My Lords, I rise briefly to support my noble friend and the statutory instrument that he has moved. I understand entirely that it is designed to support a resilient aviation sector, and I just want to ask one question.

The Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee referred, as indeed did my noble friend, to the example of 2022, when, as I understand it, there was a 30% hand-back of slots. I just want to ask, if the information is to hand: what happened afterwards, when the temporary provision ended? Did the slots go back in precisely the same way to the airlines that had them at the time? The reason I ask is because I am curious as to whether, in the current conditions, a 10% hand-back will result in these eventually being handed back to the same airlines. It may or may not be the case, but I would be interested if the Minister has anything he might be able to add on this.

[Baroness Grender (LD)]

My Lords, I thank the Minister for introducing this draft instrument and explaining its purpose, and for the advance meeting with his officials and the briefing they sent. As with all such measures, we need to look not only at the administrative detail but at the practical impact on passengers. Other noble Lords referred to the impact on the airlines themselves; quite a bit of my comment will be about the passengers and about the impact on the wider aviation sector and its sustainability.

These regulations amend the slot usage rules so that airlines at specified UK airports can return a limited proportion of slots for the summer and winter 2026 seasons. We understand the case for flexibility during a period of considerable uncertainty, including in particular the conflict in the Middle East. We do not want airlines to be incentivised to operate empty or near-empty flights simply to preserve the historic slot rights as described by the noble Lord, Lord Kirkhope. That said, flexibility, in our view, must not come at the expense of passengers. Even where there is some notice, these changes, we fear, could still lead to cancellations with relatively little warning, causing significant disruption to travel plans. In a period when household budgets are under pressure and fares remain high, that could mean higher replacement costs for families, as well as losses on hotels, onward travel and other arrangements already paid for. I notice that train tickets is an example that is laid out in the fifth question of appendix 1 of the Department for Transport’s answers to the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee. That is a very good example of what I am talking about here.

There is, too, a broader question of balance. The airline sector is under pressure. We recognise the need to support its long-term sustainability, but we worry that the burden of adjustment should not fall unfairly on passengers, especially leisure travellers, who are less able to absorb sudden change. We feel that we need to be careful that a measure intended to provide resilience does not instead create avoidable uncertainty for customers.

I have a few questions for the Minister. First, what assessment has been made of the likely pattern of cancellations under these rules, including whether certain groups of passengers are more likely to be affected than others? Secondly, what discussions has the department had with airports about the impact of these arrangements on their income, operations and resilience—particularly given that, as I understand it, two airlines opposed this proposal and airports across the board were against it? Thirdly, what evidence led the Government to settle on this particular threshold when airlines had sought a different level of alleviation?

On a point of clarity, I note that the instrument is made under powers in the Retained EU Law (Revocation and Reform) Act 2023. Can the Minister confirm precisely how these powers interact with the timetable for these regulations?

Last but by no means least, I return to the impact on passengers. We understand why the Government are seeking to avoid unnecessary flights being operated simply in order to retain these slots, but the answer cannot be to shift the cost of uncertainty on to travellers. If an airline believes that it cannot operate a slot, there must be a clear and fair mechanism for dealing with that in a way that protects consumers as far as is possible. For that reason, although we recognise the intention behind the regulations, we have some scepticism that this is not entirely the right balance. However, I look forward to hearing more persuasive arguments from the Minister.

[Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Con)]

My Lords, I had not meant to speak; I apologise to the noble Baroness, Lady Grender, for speaking out of turn. The noble Baroness’s questions have prompted two questions from me.

Flight cancellations have been trailed in the press for the past two months. I declare an interest because I am due to fly away in August and September, and I am sure that many families will have already arranged their holidays. We have not seen these cancellations yet. Can the Minister confirm that that is because these regulations have not yet been adopted and that, once they have been adopted, cancellations will happen?

My second question flows naturally from what the noble Baroness, Lady Grender, asked about the impact on consumers. Obviously, the regulations before us give airlines the power to cancel slots for a temporary period and give passengers 14 days’ notice. Passengers used to be covered by the EU package directive, which is a different department. I do not know whether that is still the case, but it would be great if the Minister could write to me on that. He will know that, if your flight is cancelled in July, August or September, which make up peak holiday season because of the school holidays, the chance of you booking another flight for a price similar to the one that you originally booked is nil, so there are going to be huge oncosts. I do not know whether the department has an answer for that. Also, the chance of finding accommodation on an alternative date will probably be slim. Is the department aware that there will be some deeply unhappy families who might be affected in this way?

E-scooters and E-bikes

Baroness Grender Excerpts

Tuesday 9th June 2026 Lords Chamber

[Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill (Lab)]

Electric cycles are only legal provided that the user is 14 years old or older and that the cycle meets the regulatory requirements: a maximum power of 250 watts and a maximum assisted speed of 15.5 mph. Beyond that, they are classed as motor vehicles, so they cannot legally be used on the road unless they are approved and registered with the DVLA, and taxed and insured. Riders must also wear helmets and hold a driving licence. The encouraging thing is that enforcement, which has been championed by the City of London Police, is increasingly being carried out by other police forces which have realised that people who use illegal e-bikes also break other laws and create other offences.

[Baroness Grender (LD)]

My Lords, we see a wide- spread issue with gig economy on-demand delivery riders illegally operating private e-scooters on public infrastructure. Will the Government introduce robust statutory duties for delivery companies to actively audit, monitor and enforce legal compliance among their riders?

[Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill (Lab)]

The noble Baroness is quite right: many of the principal complaints about this concern riders delivering food and other items. The Minister for Local Transport has written to food delivery companies emphasising the need for appropriate training, and the department has commissioned research on the road behaviours of food delivery drivers. As part of the road safety strategy, we have announced the piloting of a voluntary national work-related road safety charter for businesses that require people to drive or ride for them. The noble Baroness is right that there are issues with the gig economy and people who are employed to ride these bikes, and this is what the Government will do about that.

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

Baroness Grender Excerpts

2nd reading
Tuesday 2nd June 2026 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Grender (LD)]

I thank the noble Lord, Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill, for introducing the Bill. In this debate many Peers have been clear about the strength of our aviation sector. Indeed, it has been great to have insight from a flight operations officer, no less, in the noble Baroness, Lady Antrobus, and from pilots in the noble Lords, Lord Tunnicliffe and Lord Kirkhope. This Bill and in particular the air passenger rights are much needed and welcome, along with the modernisation of our airspace.

In many clauses this is, as the Minister described, paving legislation, a framework designed to be filled in later through secondary powers, CAA rules and ministerial directions whose details we are yet to see. Paving legislation, as we have heard from many other Peers, by its nature raises more questions than it answers. But I personally remain hopeful that we will get all those answers either in a few minutes or certainly in Committee, especially with the work of noble Peers such as the noble Lord, Lord Tunnicliffe.

Particularly welcome was the Minister’s engagement with some of us beforehand, including my noble friend Lord Russell and the noble Lord, Lord Barber, last week. It gave me an opportunity to raise with the Minister the concerns of my noble friend Lady Brinton and others, which they will pursue in Committee, because of the lived experiences of disabled passengers. That remains a serious and unacceptable part of modern air travel. Our advance conversations went some way to providing reassurance, in particular that the Bill is not intended as a vehicle for airport expansion. We take that in good faith, but good faith is rarely the same as an absolute guarantee, so we welcome the reassurances already given from the Dispatch Box. It will come as no surprise to the Minister that we will be seeking more, and he will understand why. As a long-standing resident of Richmond, he will be only too well aware of the demands and needs, as set out by the noble Baroness, Lady Bray, of local communities who are under flight paths.

The Minister mentioned the airports national policy statement and said it would be the opportunity for MPs and Peers to scrutinise any changes, but he will also understand that we will seek to embed that within some kind of statutory status. He will be aware that scrutiny of a statement does not sound like a strong opportunity for scrutiny.

I ask the Minister directly whether he can confirm on the record, when he sums up, that the powers in the Bill, including those relating to slot allocation and airspace direction, will not be used in any way to facilitate expansion at Heathrow or Gatwick. If airport expansion is on the agenda, this House deserves, frankly, a very different piece of legislation—one with substantive provisions on the face of the Bill, full environmental impact requirements written into statutes and meaningful parliamentary scrutiny at every stage.

That points to a broader concern about the Bill’s reliance on secondary legislation. The Government are asking this House to endorse a framework before we have sight of the regulations that will give it substance. It is a bit like being asked to buy a house without seeing any of the rooms in it. It is a regular practice that the Conservative and Labour parties in this House do not vote down statutory instruments or support fatal Motions. But without the heft and suggestion of that, we will not achieve what we want to achieve, which is having the potential for detailed scrutiny within the Bill.

Sometimes I miss the noble Lord, Lord Rooker, on these occasions, because he will say, “Just vote for the fatal Motion, and then the civil servants will have to work the detail out”. It is a bit of a brutal instrument, but it is sometimes the only place we are left—and, of course, it is entirely academic because the Conservatives will never, or rarely, support a fatal Motion. That is the only way, if secondary legislation is the only direction.

On the face of the Bill, the consumer protection provisions, the new CAA rule-making powers, the reforms to slot allocation and the Secretary of State’s direction over airspace change all carry significant implications. Yet again, we will need more clarity on those.

On what I consider to be one of the most consequential provisions—that relating to slot allocation and airspace change—the Bill will allow the Secretary of State to make directions about the implementation of airspace changes. Slot and airspace decisions are not merely technical: they are levers over airport capacity. A reallocation of slots at a level 3 co-ordinated airport, combined with changes to airspace design and air traffic redistribution, can have the practical effect of facilitating expansion, even when the expansion has not been presented to Parliament or to communities as a discrete, clear policy choice. Communities living under flight paths, enduring the noise and breathing the emissions, deserve better than to find that outcome enabled quietly through delegated legislation. Any exercise of these powers that has the practical effect of facilitating increased capacity must be preceded by meaningful community consultation and a proper environmental impact assessment. My second question to the Minister is this: what environmental and noise tests will apply before the Secretary of State exercises directions under this Bill?

Like the noble Lord, Lord Harper, I am intrigued to learn what happened to the consultation, which was in 2023, I believe. I noticed that, in the notes we had when we met with the Minister, there was an assurance that no decisions on specific changes to the airport slots regime have been made yet. It says that industry views will be sought, including through formal consultation. It does not reference the consultation of communities on that. I wonder whether the Minister can elaborate on that, along with the very useful consultation of pilots as set out by the noble Lord, Lord Barber.

I turn to the part of the Bill that we hope is at its heart: consumer and passenger protection. The Bill will grant powers to the UK to diverge from retained EU law as it relates to the aviation industry. It is critical that, where this is done, it does not come at the expense of passengers. UK 261 gives passengers rights to compensation for delays and cancellations, but, as we have heard from noble Lords, it has been patchy. Last year, the CAA had to pursue enforcement action to recover over £1 million in refunds owed to passengers for just one budget airline. It should not require a regulator to chase each airline individually for compliance with basic rights.

The EU is currently reforming EU 261, as we know, including maintaining the right to compensation after a three-hour delay and banning fees for basic check-in and child seating. I would be intrigued to know whether the Government intend to keep pace with that. I do not want us to follow that if it is a low common denominator; let us pursue the highest common denominator, whether it is EU 261 or UK 261. We also believe that there is a compelling case for a passenger charter embedded in this legislation: a clear, accessible statement of a passenger-first approach, with statutory weight, not buried guidance. No one could have made a more eloquent case for something along those lines than the noble Baroness, Lady Gill, so I hope she will support it, but I suspect not, given the Bench she sits on. She gave a very eloquent argument about what I think should be a passenger charter.

On accessibility, the new regulatory framework must ensure the CAA has robust enforcement powers over accessibility rights, not just in guidance. My noble friend Lady Brinton shares similar experiences to those outlined by the noble Baroness, Lady Grey-Thompson; the mum of the noble Baroness, Lady Ramsey; the noble Lord, Lord Holmes; and the noble Baroness, Lady Griffin. The noble Baroness, Lady Grey-Thompson, has shared in the past with this House her appalling experience at the hands of WhizzGo, which insisted on the impossible task of her removing from her wheelchair and carrying two large batteries, bigger than bus batteries. She was evicted from a flight, stuck in Bucharest for seven hours, and then had to pay an additional £900 to get home. We will work with others to ensure that measures such as a wheelchair passport, which the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, is suggesting, are included in the Bill.

On Clause 8 and the new powers relating to CAA rules, we will want to understand the scope of those powers, when they can be exercised and what parliamentary procedures apply. We look forward to guidance from the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee’s report—we have not seen that as yet. The accumulation of wide delegated powers in the Bill deserves this House’s sustained and skilled scrutiny. It is no surprise that so many noble Peers raise this and rightly reference it as an issue, among those the noble Baronesses, Lady Dacres, Lady Foster and Lady Bray, and the noble Lords, Lord Kirkhope and Lord Tunnicliffe.

Finally, where high-quality rail alternatives exist or can be developed, they should be promoted, as described by my noble friend Lord Russell. Eurostar’s potential to connect more of Britain to more of Europe is one such opportunity, not as a substitute for all aviation but as part of an intelligent and integrated transport framework that the Bill should sit within. The climate emergency means we cannot ignore this issue, as the noble Lord, Lord Empey, made clear. I very gently refer the noble Baroness, Lady Jones, to recent research by Climate Outreach which suggested that her own party dramatically reduced its own references to the climate emergency in the local May elections. I am very happy to send the research on. The Liberal Democrats were much more explicit on that issue.

[Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb (GP)]

What a pointless jibe.

[Baroness Grender (LD)]

We will engage with the Bill at every stage, welcome its stated consumer protection goals, test its environmental safeguards, scrutinise its delegated powers and ensure that communities and passengers sit at the centre of whatever framework emerges. I look forward to the Minister’s response and a thorough Committee stage.

Planning and Infrastructure Bill

Baroness Grender Excerpts

Committee stage
Thursday 24th July 2025 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP)]

My Lords, there are 100 million animals killed for meat in the UK every month, which is quite a statistic. There are 75,000 people who work in abattoirs and associated institutions. The amendment from the noble Lord, Lord, Lucas, raises an important issue. Whether this is the right way to address it I am not quite sure because, as other speakers have said, we are talking about a systemic issue here. I often speak about our broken food system. At the heart of that broken food system is factory farming and the giant chicken and pig institutions which are associated with giant abattoirs, logically enough. We are approaching a land use framework, to be coming from the Government. Many noble Lords think that this does not get mentioned enough. If we think about land use and abattoirs, this all needs to fit together in a systemic way, whatever model you think should apply. Obviously, I have views on that.

I want to cross-reference what I was doing in your Lordships’ House about 12 hours ago. I was talking about the climate emergency and the impact of rising temperatures. I note that in 2022, the Government produced guidance that animals should not be transported except in temperature-controlled environments when the temperature—or the perceived temperature, taking account of humidity—is higher than 30 degrees Celsius. That might not historically have been much of an issue in the UK, but it is only going to continue and become a larger issue if you are moving animals. The longer the distance, the more you are unable to do it in the cool hours of the day.

We need a much more localised food system, which means small independent farmers and small independent abattoirs. Five small abattoirs closed in 2024 alone, and the figure is down to 49 from 64 in 2019. There is a real issue here, but it must be looked at systemically in the round, not just as abattoirs on their own. We have a huge animal welfare issue here. We also need to think about workforce. I found some statistics suggesting that the average age of a slaughterer is 63.

[Baroness Grender (LD)]

My Lords, these Benches support the amendment moved by the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, and thank him for raising this. We also thank him for tabling this amendment in good time so that this Committee could consider it.

This amendment seeks to designate livestock markets and abattoirs as critical national infrastructure. This is not merely a technical adjustment but a vital step towards securing the future of our rural communities, ensuring robust food security and upholding the highest standards of animal welfare across our nation. The Liberal Democrats have been consistent about the critical importance of maintaining and investing in small abattoirs and local livestock markets. We see them not just as commercial facilities but as essential pillars for rural economies, fundamental to animal welfare and crucial for food traceability. They are the very backbone of our local food systems and they in turn enable ethical meat production, allowing for shorter supply chains and reduced food miles, about which we have heard something already.

We have heard from the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, about the closure of small abattoirs: operations in England fell from 64 in 2019 to 49 in 2023. This has exacerbated pressures on our rural communities, leading to significant challenges—including thousands of farm animals being culled, with the meat unable to be sold due to a lack of workforce. I will not get into the Brexit legacy, but this is clearly part of that too. According to a 2022 Food Standards Agency report, small abattoirs are closing at the alarming rate of 10% per year and within a decade may disappear altogether. This is not just an economic loss but a profound waste and a blow to animal welfare, as animals often face longer and more stressful journeys to distant facilities.

In the House of Commons during the passage of this Bill, my honourable friend Sarah Dyke MP, whose family are sixth-generation farmers in Somerset, highlighted the impact of regulatory and cost pressures, such as the 20% rise in meat inspection fees, which disproportionately affect these vital facilities. We have consistently called for the replacement of the small abattoir fund, which was removed in November 2024, and have proposed a £1 billion addition to the farming budget to sustain and enhance these networks. Yes, it was all fully costed when we made this proposal, with revenue-raising measures. We even advocate for innovative solutions, such as authorising mobile slaughter units to improve access in remote areas.

The inclusion of abattoirs and livestock markets as critical infrastructure would provide them with the protection and longevity that they desperately need within future planning and development strategies. Our 2024 manifesto explicitly committed to:

“Investing in rural and coastal infrastructure and services, including local abattoirs”


and livestock markets, to bolster community resilience and food security and to support younger workers in rural areas. This underpins our commitment to a comprehensive new animal welfare Bill, which we would love to see, ensuring high animal welfare standards throughout the food supply chain.

This is about providing the stability and recognition that these essential facilities deserve. It is about more than just buildings. It is about safeguarding the livelihoods of our farmers, ensuring humane treatment for animals, and building a more resilient, transparent food system for all. Think of it as a circulatory system of our rural economy. The abattoirs and livestock markets are the vital arteries and veins. Without protecting this core infrastructure, the entire body of our farming sector, and local food supply, will struggle to thrive—or worse, begin to fail. By acting now, we can revitalise and safeguard our rural heartlands for the generations to come. I look forward to hearing the Minister’s response.

[Lord Roborough (Con)]

My Lords, I also support Amendment 50 in the name of my noble friend Lord Lucas, which would recognise livestock markets and abattoirs as critical national infrastructure. I draw the Committee’s attention to my register of interests, in particular as a dairy and livestock farmer. This amendment, if passed, would lay the foundation for a new, modernised network of these vital rural services—positions with proper transport links, outside of town centres, and designed to ensure that animals are dealt with humanely, locally and profitably.

As others have pointed out, the abattoir sector is in crisis. In 2023, just 60 small abattoirs remained operational in the UK. That number is falling at 10% per annum, as the noble Baroness, Lady Grender, mentions. At that rate, these essential businesses could vanish entirely. This would be disastrous for rural communities, food security and animal welfare.

Over 90% of abattoirs have closed in the past 50 years. Family farms face round trips of over 100 miles to slaughter just a handful of animals. It is inefficient and undermines the very animal welfare standards that we seek to uphold. However, it is more than just a logistical problem; it is a threat to the viability of local farming and the vitality of our regional food systems. A resilient, shorter and more farmer-focused supply chain demands a well-distributed network of small abattoirs, local butchers and livestock markets. These businesses form the bedrock of local food infrastructure. They offer private kill services for farmers who wish to add value, by marketing directly to consumers, and they provide an essential lifeline to farmers breeding rare or native breeds that larger processors often cannot or will not accommodate.

Two-thirds of livestock farmers report difficulty accessing appropriate abattoir services and one-third say that their nearest abattoir has already closed. Small abattoirs in particular are struggling to survive: they face rising energy costs, increased national insurance contributions and a regulatory system that is disproportionately burdensome. The rules are designed with large-scale processors in mind, not the nuance of a local operation handling a few thousand livestock units a year.

Our previous Conservative Government introduced the small abattoir fund to help these small businesses modernise and alleviate costs. Disappointingly, the current Labour Government chose to cancel it, sending entirely the wrong message to the rural economy after the family farms death tax and the abrupt cancellation of sustainable farming incentive applications.

Livestock markets are also disappearing from market towns. These are an essential part of rural life, where farmers and other rural inhabitants can come together, generating real social cohesion and a shared sense of community. If this Government are serious about rural resilience, food security and animal welfare, they should look to support the amendment in the name of my noble friend Lord Lucas. It would provide abattoirs with the planning status that they need to invest, modernise and survive. It would allow new facilities to be built with appropriate infrastructure and make it clear that local food systems matter just as much as energy or transport. Livestock markets will ensure that communities can continue to bond on market days.

This amendment speaks to a wider issue in our national life, where traditional social infrastructure is made uneconomic through burdensome regulation. Large, impersonal businesses are able to cope with this far better than small ones. I urge the Government to consider, in all legislation and regulation, how they can encourage and empower these community businesses to thrive.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Lucas (Con)]

My Lords, I have Amendment 61 in this group. Its purpose follows on from what my noble friend Lord Gascoigne said: namely, that we have not built a new reservoir for a long time. The intention of the amendment is to give the Government the power to change that—to make things happen.

I would hope that the existence of such a power would mean that things happen anyway, but we need the ability to shift things onwards and to get out of the situation we are building ourselves into. We want to put in another 1.5 million houses but have no way of supplying them with water, particularly in some bits of the country that would actually welcome additional houses. It is important to get over whatever the blockage is and it would be a good idea to give the Government a bit of dynamite to do this.

I am delighted that Tideway has come in on budget. Perhaps the noble Lord could introduce whoever is responsible for that to whoever is responsible for the doors here.

[Baroness Grender (LD)]

My Lords, as we consider the challenge of water security, we all feel the urgency. Demand is rising, our climate is changing and not a single new major reservoir has been completed in over three decades, as we have already heard. Yet pursuing a one-size-fits-all solution rarely serves us well, especially regarding water storage and distribution. I particularly thank the noble Lords, Lord Gascoigne and Lord Lucas, for inspiring this discussion and debate.

There is consensus on building new reservoirs, but this cannot be done in isolation. Proper investment from water companies is essential, particularly in tackling leaks and improving demand management so that we use water more wisely, even as we boost supply. This is not either/or; it must be both. Yesterday, in the Statement regarding the Independent Water Commission, the full implication of the broken infrastructure that has led to so much water going to waste was laid down very clearly.

It is tempting to focus on grand, large-scale projects, but we should make space for smaller, locally led interventions that reflect the needs and fabric of our communities. Alongside ambitious infrastructure, a programme of carefully sited small and medium reservoirs, delivered in partnership with farmers, landowners and councils, can speed up progress, reduce environmental barriers and, most importantly, engage local people. We have heard not just from experts but from communities themselves that local schemes such as Slow the Flow projects, natural dams and catchment-based storage bring added benefit for flood mitigation and biodiversity, not just water supply. These nature-friendly solutions must be championed alongside larger reservoirs.

However local schemes alone are not enough. We must pair them with strategic national thinking. Regions with water surpluses should be able to support those facing deficit—a modern, integrated network for water transfer. I ask noble Lords to bear with me, because this is a little complicated. The National Infrastructure Commission, which was replaced by the National Infrastructure and Service Transformation Authority in April 2025, was praised by the National Audit Office for its proposals, which constituted a positive cost-benefit case for establishing a network of strategic transfers of water—a transfer system that enables us to balance supply across the country, smoothing out regional disparities and providing resilience against drought and flooding. The recent Commons Library briefing, Future Water Resources, highlights several proposed intercompany transfers, such as Thames Water to Southern Water—120 megalitres a day—demonstrating that active steps can be and are already being undertaken. Alongside large and small reservoirs, these transfer schemes are truly integral to future-proofing our water supply and reducing the risk of shortages.

Turning to the amendments before us, Amendment 59, in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Coffey, proposes removing the size and complexity test for new water infrastructure to focus solely on the value for money test. But, as Ofwat’s current regulations set out, that test ensures that projects do not threaten a water company’s fundamental service to customers. Given the sector’s current state, we should tread carefully before removing this safeguard. A more prudent path may be to consider government co-funding models, such as that now being used for nuclear, if projects exceed what companies can realistically deliver and are in jeopardy of providing a poor or totally broken service—or further broken, should I say—to consumers.

Amendment 61, in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, would hand powers to the Secretary of State to dictate timelines and, crucially, permit bypassing planning controls. While there is much in the amendment that we read with interest, I worry in particular about proposed new subsection (3)(b), which is a significant centralisation of power. Yes, there has been an unacceptable delay in reservoir construction, but concentrating such powers is unlikely to foster better outcomes. Proper local engagement, as we all made very clear in our Second Reading speeches, and scrutiny need to be balanced and are vital partners to each other.

Amendment 62, tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh of Pickering, aligns more closely with the objectives on these Benches. I look forward to hearing the Minister’s response to the compelling arguments that were made on the noble Baroness’s behalf.

Above all, we must ensure that interventions, whether mighty reservoirs or smaller, community-scale schemes, work for people and for nature, and are delivered with transparency, accountability and genuine urgency. I hope the Minister will clarify the Government’s support for small reservoirs and for a robust water transfer network, so that every region and every customer in every region can feel protected, valued and heard.

[Lord Lansley (Con)]

My Lords, I intervene in this group to flag up a couple of points. I thank my noble friend Lord Gascoigne for introducing Amendment 59, which makes an interesting point.

In response to the noble Baroness, Lady Grender, the size and complexity threshold test is about assessing whether an infrastructure project is of such size or complexity that the water undertaking cannot manage it or, if it attempts to manage it, it might prejudice its financial ability to meet its obligations to customers. Actually, under current circumstances, we have reached the point where many water undertakers may not have the capacity to undertake infrastructure projects in the way we expected in the past. We know that there was a substantial period when they did manage investment and they increased investment in the water industry, but in more recent years they have not done so and there is considerable risk to their ability to undertake the infrastructure projects we are looking for.

We should not be surprised that that is the case. Take Anglian Water, which is not among the most prejudiced of the water companies at the moment. I was very interested to attend a presentation about Anglian Water’s proposals for the Fens reservoir. It was fascinating, positive and optimistic. Then, in response to a question, Anglian Water mentioned that it is not going to own it. Somebody else will own it, and we do not know who.

So we have to be aware that there is substantial uncertainty about how we will fund much of this infrastructure, but the most important thing was mentioned by my noble friend Lord Gascoigne in moving Amendment 59. The amendment is about which projects should go out to competitive tender. That is all it really tells us. The answer ought to be: if it will secure value for money—indeed, if there is potential for independent financing which, as he said, can be more cost-effectively delivered, and we know that the risk premium on the water undertakings themselves is making their borrowing more expensive than what may well be available through other sources of financing —then we should go down that path. The size and complexity threshold test is unhelpful, gets in the way and creates serious impediments to getting on with infrastructure projects.

Of course, the amendment is not deliverable. It does not deliver the objective in its own right. One would have to substantially change Section 36 and other sections of the Water Act 1991 to achieve the objective, because the regulation derives its power from the primary legislation. We need to look at the Water Act 1991 in substance to achieve that on Report.

What my noble friend Lord Lucas’s amendment says is helpful. When one looks at what it is that governs the delivery of reservoirs, as far as I can tell the Reservoirs Act 1975 basically says that it ought to be done by an appropriately approved construction engineer. That is pretty much it. There is a great deal that should be added to what is required in order to secure reservoir development.

I have two other points to make. The first is that Amendment 62 from the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh, raises a more significant point than the amendment itself says. We are aiming to secure what we need in terms of water supply. I remind noble Lords of my interests in the Cambridgeshire Development Forum and the Oxfordshire Development Forum, which of course means that two reservoirs—the Fens reservoir and the Lincolnshire reservoir—are relevant, as well as the Grand Union Canal project and related activity to try to supply the east of England. We are in a position at the moment where, by 2050, we will have a deficit in water supply equivalent to a third of our present use. That is the degree of stress that we are looking at and therefore need demand management to be substantially improved and the supply to be improved.