Airports Slot Allocation (Alleviation of Usage Requirements) Regulations 2026

Debate between Baroness Grender and Baroness McIntosh of Pickering

Wednesday 10th June 2026 Grand Committee

[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?

Animals (Scientific Procedures) Act 1986 (Amendment) Regulations 2026

Debate between Baroness Grender and Baroness McIntosh of Pickering

Wednesday 10th June 2026 Grand Committee

[Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Con)]

My Lords, I congratulate the Minister and the department on bringing forward these regulations, which I believe reach the right balance. As the noble Viscount, Lord Stansgate, who has great expertise in the field of science, has set out, there will be certain circumstances in which we will have to continue, for a short time into the foreseeable future, with these scientific regulations.

I would like to ask some questions, if I may. Are the regulations going to impose an additional burden on the Home Office? Does the Minister feel that he and the department have the resources to deal with that?

At some point in this parliamentary Session, we will receive and consider the Brexit reset Bill. I assume, rightly or wrongly, that these regulations will not have a further review as part of the reset because we have now incorporated them into retained EU law. My understanding—perhaps this is wrong—is that, if there were to be any changes to the regulations over and above what we are discussing and adopting today, that might require primary legislation. It would be helpful to know what the vehicle for that legislation would be. Would it be the Brexit reset Bill, or can we be assured that there will be no further changes?

There is a link between the Home Office and the Department for Science, Innovation and Technology. Is the Minister confident that his department can take all the decisions they need to take? Where is the decision-making going to fall? Will it be entirely within his department, collaborating with DSIT, or are they going to have to work in collaboration? Who will actually make the final decisions?

Lastly, I understand that the target is that there will be a 35% reduction in the use of dogs and non-human primates in such experiments by 2030. Is that still the case? Are we on course to achieve that?

I put on record that I think that we have reached the right balance here on what can be perceived as a very vexatious issue. I congratulate the department and the Home Office on bringing these regulations forward.

[Baroness Grender (LD)]

My Lords, I thank the Minister for his clear explanation of this instrument and other Members of this Committee for their enlightening speeches. I welcome the return of the noble Viscount, Lord Stansgate, after a limited period away.

As we consider these regulations, it is important that the framework for scientific procedures on animals continues to minimise avoidable suffering and reflect current best practice. We support the technical purpose of these regulations, consolidating assimilated law into the Animals (Scientific Procedures) Act 1986. They provide a clearer domestic legislative framework following our exit from the European Union. I thank the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh, for making further inquiries on the detail of the reset Bill and the context in which this will operate.

Yorkshire: Sustainable Water Management Solutions

Debate between Baroness Grender and Baroness McIntosh of Pickering

Wednesday 28th January 2026 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Grender (LD)]

My Lords, does the Minister agree—

[Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Con)]

My Lords, I pay tribute—

[Captain of the Honourable Corps of Gentlemen-at-Arms and Chief Whip (Lord Kennedy of Southwark) (Lab Co-op)]

We have plenty of time. We will have the Lib Dems first, then the Conservatives.

Planning and Infrastructure Bill

Debate between Baroness Grender and Baroness McIntosh of Pickering

Report stage
Monday 27th October 2025 Lords Chamber

[Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Con)]

My Lords, I am delighted to speak briefly to this short but perfectly formed amendment. I hope to extract a commitment from the Minister and the Government on the question of making water and sewerage undertakings statutory consultees on a development consent order, as the Environment Agency currently is.

Things have changed since Committee, and there is a reason why I have tabled this amendment on Report. We have already had the report from the Cunliffe review, commissioned by Defra, which now has a new Secretary of State. Recommendation 72 of the Cunliffe report states:

“The role of water companies in the planning process in England should be strengthened to ensure they have sufficient sight and influence over upcoming developments”.


The report goes on to say that the Cunliffe review believes that water companies should have a clear ability

“to comment on planning applications above a certain threshold in England”.

The review is asking the Government to consider making water companies statutory consultees or to introduce a requirement to notify, and I am hoping that the Government will confirm this. This would ensure that water companies can deploy site-specific technical advice and avoid delays. It would also save the Government time. For example, if it was inappropriate to build a major development of, say, 300 new houses in an area of water stress, making water companies statutory consultees would expedite the planning application.

On 13 October, the Environmental Audit Committee published its report on flood resilience in England, which made a similar recommendation. Recommendation 25 of the report states:

“The Government should initiate consultation on statutory requirements for assessing the cumulative impact of development on flood risk within local and regional plans by the end of 2025”.


It goes on to say that

“water companies should be made statutory consultees on major planning applications”.

The Cunliffe review was set up at the behest of the Government, so I presume that they will follow the recommendations in its report. The Environmental Audit Committee’s report looks at how the current system is failing to prepare residents in this country for future flooding.

With those few remarks, I hope this evening to extract a commitment from the Minister that the Government will proceed on this as a matter of urgency and that we will see it as part of the Bill. If they wish to bring forward an amendment of their own, that would be ideal. I beg to move.

[Baroness Grender (LD)]

My Lords, we on these Benches support this amendment, which seeks to ensure that water and sewerage undertakers are formally consulted by applicants for a development consent order. The amendment is similar to the Environment Agency system and would help to avoid significant problems downstream.

Far too often, we have seen developments progress without any consideration of water supply, drainage or wastewater infrastructure, leading to unnecessary strain, additional cost and, of course, the human consequence of flood risk, which is worst of all. By ensuring that the relevant utilities are engaged early in the process, the amendment would promote better planning and ultimately save time, money and, above all, anguish for so many people.

The amendment aligns with some of the longstanding commitments we have worked on together in some of the APPGs. We look forward to hearing the Minister’s comments on this amendment from the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh of Pickering.