West Midlands Combined Authority (Key Route Network) (Amendment) Order 2026

Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill Excerpts

Monday 6th July 2026 Lords Chamber

Moved by

[Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill]

That the draft Order laid before the House on 19 May be approved. Considered in Grand Committee on 30 June.

Motion agreed.

Drink-Driving

Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill Excerpts

Wednesday 1st July 2026 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Hayter of Kentish Town]

To ask His Majesty’s Government what assessment they have made of the potential role of innovation and technology in reducing drink-driving, particularly repeat offending.

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

My Lords, the Government recognise the role that innovation and technology can play in reducing drink-driving and repeat offending, alongside effective enforcement, education and penalties. Through the road safety strategy, we consulted on measures to tackle drink-driving and drug-driving, including the potential use of alcohol interlocks for offenders. Responses are now being analysed. Our approach will remain evidence-led, proportionate and focused on reducing deaths and serious injuries on Britain’s roads.

[Baroness Hayter of Kentish Town (Lab)]

I thank my noble friend for his response. He will know that unless an alcolock—which is, in effect, a breathalyser in a car—gets a negative response, the engine will not start. Alcolocks have been introduced in many counties, where they have halved repeat offending and therefore reduced deaths. Might the Government move just a little bit faster than awaiting the outcome of the consultation and take action to either introduce or pilot these as a potential sanction for a drink-drive conviction? Might the Government follow the EU in requiring all new cars to be fitted with a basic kit so that, if this was introduced, it would be very simple to implement?

[Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill (Lab)]

My noble friend is a great advocate for better policing of drink-driving. I understand the sad reasons why, and our hearts go out to everybody who has suffered bereavement or injury through drink-driving. Alcolocks are widely used internationally, and the evidence shows that they reduce reoffending while installed, but reoffending returns to a similar level once they are removed. That is not a reason for not doing it, but it is a reason for being careful. The Government have published the first comprehensive road safety strategy for many years, and it is right that we consult on that and that, when we have consulted, what we do about it is proportionate and thought-through, so that the measures actually work.

My noble friend also mentioned installation facilitation, and we are thinking about that carefully. Meanwhile, we are carrying on with a package of advanced safety technologies that are ready now.

[Lord McLoughlin (Con)]

My Lords, the number of drink-driving convictions is falling, which is very welcome news. But the number of drug-related driving offences is on the increase, which is very concerning indeed. In 2015, the law was changed to make it easier to get prosecutions. I think there is still a lack of understanding in the general public of the danger of drug-driving. Will the Government look at whether they are doing sufficient to highlight this as a very serious crime?

[Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill (Lab)]

The noble Lord is absolutely right: drug-driving is, as he said, on the increase. We are consulting on better detection of drug-driving, because it is a complex issue: there are many different sorts of drugs and not all the methods of testing will currently stand up in court. But he is absolutely right and we are on the case for this. We publicise the huge dangers of doing it, but we need to get through the operational and forensic challenges of detecting different sorts of drugs through alternative forensic testing procedures, including oral fluids, saliva and sweat.

[Baroness Finlay of Llandaff (CB)]

My Lords, given that somebody with a blood level of 50 to 80 milligrams of alcohol has a six times greater chance of dying in a road accident and, on top of that, of killing other people, when will the Government finally implement a lowering of the limit? They are aiming to have an overall decrease in road deaths of 35%, and this would significantly contribute to it.

[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.

[Lord Forbes of Newcastle (Lab)]

My Lords, when I was 18, my parents’ car was hit head-on by a drunk driver. Both my parents survived, but my mother was left with life-changing injuries. I therefore warmly welcome the Government’s road safety strategy, especially the consultation under way on lowering the drink-drive limit and expanding the use of alcohol interlock technology. Can my noble friend the Minister give assurances to the House that any new enforcement powers, particularly immediate licence suspensions and alcolock technologies, will be applied consistently by the courts and consistently across all police forces, so that public confidence in the drink-drive reduction measures we are seeking to introduce are strengthened rather than undermined?

[Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill (Lab)]

I am sure that our hearts go out to my noble friend and to many other people like him who have suffered this sort of terrible family or close relationship catastrophe. Of course, the enforcement of the law is a matter for chief police officers. However, I have no doubt that, if we improve both the techniques that can be used to detect drink-driving and drug-driving and the range of penalties that are available for enforcement, chief police officers will treat this seriously, as will the courts.

[Lord Moylan (Con)]

My Lords, I too welcome the fact that the Government are consulting on how to improve road safety, and I am sure that the noble Lord would agree that any response to that consultation needs to be evidence-based. In that light, how does he take account of the fact that it appears from Scotland, where the limit has been reduced, that there has been no discernible effect on accidents as a result of that measure?

[Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill (Lab)]

The noble Lord is right that we should respect the evidence. Scotland’s experience is relevant, but it is not the only evidence. The Government recognise that Scotland did not see a significant casualty reduction, but we also cite wider evidence that alcohol impairs driving ability below the current England and Wales limit. Evidence cited in the consultation found that drivers with a blood alcohol concentration of 20 milligrams to 50 milligrams per 100 millilitres have at least a three-times greater risk of dying, and we will certainly take that into account when we decide what to do as a result of the consultation.

[Lord Hampton (CB)]

My Lords, alcolocks take an hour to fit, they cost £200 to fit, paid for by the user and, as the noble Lord said, they work while they are being used. Why are we not using them to save lives?

[Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill (Lab)]

I said that we are consulting on the first comprehensive road safety strategy for many years. It is right to consult, because a number of things in the road safety strategy—not just this one—affect many people, we need to hear from everybody, and we have heard from many people what they think of the proposals in the road safety strategy. I would say to him that it is worth waiting for, because it is not right to legislate before you understand what all the evidence is.

[Lord Harper (Con)]

My Lords, perhaps I might ask the Minister, given that there have been questions both about reducing the threshold for drink driving but also about enforcement from the noble Baroness, Lady Hayter, what is the Government’s assessment, because it was not clear from the road safety plan, of the biggest contributor to deaths and injuries on the roads? Is it people who do not obey the existing limit, or is it people who obey the existing limit but are none the less not safe to drive?

[Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill (Lab)]

I have to say there is a whole range of factors that go into it. The reason for the road safety strategy is that the death and serious injury rate has plateaued, rather than going down. The strategy has made it clear that there are a number of reasons for that. If there were only one issue in the strategy, with one consultation, that would be different, but there is a wide range in there intended to make all road users, including pedestrians and cyclists, safer. I think it is right, if the noble Lord reads the whole thing, to look at a number of solutions to this.

West Midlands Combined Authority (Key Route Network) (Amendment) Order 2026

Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill Excerpts

Tuesday 30th June 2026 Grand Committee

Moved by

[Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill]

That the Grand Committee do consider the West Midlands Combined Authority (Key Route Network) (Amendment) Order 2026.

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

My Lords, I am pleased to say that this draft order was considered by the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments and the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee without any concerns raised. It relates to the key route network of the West Midlands Combined Authority, which, sadly, I will hereafter refer to as the KRN and the WMCA.

It might help noble Lords if I explain what a KRN is. It is a set of the most important locally managed roads in a strategic authority’s area. Under the English Devolution and Community Empowerment Act 2026, mayors are required to designate a KRN, but most strategic authorities, including the WMCA, already have one. It allows the most important local roads to be managed in a strategic way across the whole strategic authority area.

Statutory guidance on how to decide the composition of a KRN was published by the Government in April this year, as part of wider guidance on producing local transport plans. In short, the KRN roads should be those that are the most important locally for the delivery of policies in the local transport plan. Authorities should consider things such as traffic levels, public transport use, active travel and freight movement. In mayoral strategic authorities such as the WMCA, the KRN is agreed by a resolution of the authority following a proposal by the mayor. The KRN in the WMCA area constitutes 605 kilometres of roads, accounting for 7% of the total road network and carrying 50% of its traffic.

The constituent councils of the WMCA are Birmingham, Coventry, Dudley, Sandwell, Solihull, Walsall and Wolverhampton. The WMCA is responsible for the strategic oversight, but the councils are the local highways authorities and remain responsible for the management, maintenance and safety of the roads in the KRN. The WMCA does, however, have some powers over these roads, which it shares with its constituent councils. These include powers relating to making agreements with National Highways, promoting road safety and street works permit schemes.

In addition, the English Devolution and Community Empowerment Act 2026 gave all mayors of strategic authorities a power of direction over the roads in the key route network. The power of direction allows the mayor to direct the local highway authority to exercise its powers over a KRN road that it manages. The power of direction is a limited power, designed to be used only when necessary for the delivery of a measure that has been set out in at least one agreed plan or strategy of the strategic authority, such as a local transport plan.

In summary, the KRN allows for roads to be managed in a strategic way across an area. It enables improved traffic flow and reduces congestion. It also allows for the introduction of traffic management measures to improve infrastructure and bus journey times. I hope that I have set out clearly why a KRN is a useful tool. I am sure that it will have occurred to noble Lords that, due to the changing nature of travel patterns, in particular during the years following the pandemic, it would be prudent for a strategic authority such as the WMCA to keep its KRN under review and update it when it no longer reflects the most important locally managed roads.

For most strategic authorities, updating the KRN is logistically straightforward. It usually requires simply updating the list of roads on its website following a resolution of the authority. For the WMCA, however, making changes is not as straightforward because the roads in that key route network are set out in legislation, in the West Midlands Combined Authority (Functions and Amendment) Order 2017, where they are described as “combined authority roads”.

The WMCA was an early adopter of a key route network. In 2017, under the previous Government, listing the roads in the KRN in legislation provided certainty at a time when the combined authority was new and the key route network had not yet been used. Nine years have now passed and the WMCA would like to update its KRN as part of its work to publish a new local transport plan. The inflexibility of having the KRN roads set out in legislation is a barrier to this. I am sure that noble Lords will agree that a process whereby the combined authority must write to the Department for Transport to ask us to legislate every time it wants to amend its KRN is far from optimal. This is especially true when we consider that other authorities simply need to update their website to do the same thing.

After discussions with officials in my department, the combined authority has therefore written to the Secretary of State to ask that we draft and lay this instrument. This follows a public consultation in which 69% of respondents supported the proposal. Subject to its approval by Parliament, this instrument will remove the KRN roads from the 2017 order. Following this, the combined authority will be able to update its KRN roads in the same way as other strategic authorities, allowing it to respond as flexibly as possible to changing travel patterns and deliver better outcomes for road users in the area. I beg to move.

[Lord Moylan (Con)]

My Lords, we do not oppose this instrument.

DVLA: Staffing Levels

Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill Excerpts

Tuesday 23rd June 2026 Lords Chamber

[Lord Hamilton of Epsom]

To ask His Majesty’s Government what assessment they have made of the adequacy of staffing levels at the Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency.

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

My Lords, the Driver & Vehicle Licensing Agency regularly monitors staffing levels against demand for its services and changes staffing levels where necessary within agreed limits. For example, the DVLA has recently taken on more staff to meet increased demand for its drivers, medical and contact centre services. Improvements are already taking effect: the average decision times fell from 68 working days in February to 56 at the end of May.

[Lord Hamilton of Epsom (Con)]

The fact that it is taking 66 days to answer would explain my problem, as I met all the DVLA’s criteria when I replied in an email on 27 March. If my Question were to have come up next month, we would have been commemorating three months of me waiting to get a driving licence. Does the Minister accept that the DVLA is in a crisis? It is desperately short of manpower and it is not fit for purpose for what it is supposed to do: issuing driving licences to the public of this country, who pay its wages. Is the Minister considering technology to meet this problem, such as putting in place a computer programme to get on with issuing licences, thereby reducing the problem of DVLA not having enough manpower to meet the difficulties it has today?

[Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill (Lab)]

I hope that the noble Lord received my letter of 12 June, in reply to his email to me on 14 May. If he took the simple action outlined in my letter, he should now have his licence and be driving again. There are 53 million driving licence holders in Great Britain. In 2024-25, the DVLA received 837,591 medical licence notifications, a figure which increased to 922,123 in 2025-26. As I said, the average decision time fell from 68 to 56 working days. It recently recruited 60 extra full-time equivalent caseworkers and 100 additional FTE contact centre staff, to cut call waiting times. The noble Lord is right that, if he were to apply now, he would be able to use the newly launched digital medical services platform, which enables far more customers with medical conditions to notify, apply for and renew their driving licences online.

[Lord Pack (LD)]

My Lords, it was recently stated in the House of Commons that 34,000 suppliers of number plates are registered with the DVLA. Given the widespread problems with illegal number plates helping people dodge the law, can the Minister tell us how many DVLA staff are allocated to policing compliance by those 34,000 suppliers and whether that number is sufficient?

[Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill (Lab)]

The noble Lord is right that this is a serious problem on a significant scale. The Government acknowledge that more needs to be done. A recent consultation closed on 11 May and the actions that we propose to take following the review of the consultation will include legislative change, if needed. I cannot tell him how many people currently do that job but I will write to him with the figure.

[Lord Moore of Etchingham (Non-Afl)]

My Lords, I will back up what the noble Lord, Lord Hamilton, said and ask the Minister to consider the following. It is one thing to get a driving licence when you pass your test, because you know that you have passed your test. However, when you apply for a renewal at 70, you do not know what will happen. Therefore, you are left in limbo. My wife is a leap year baby, so I believe she is 17 and a half, but the cruel public authorities say that she is 70. Naturally, she sent in her application in January—because 29 February was the cut-off point in question—but she still has not heard a single thing. She has no idea what has happened with the process. That has knock-on effects in practical terms and is a considerable source of anxiety. I believe this to be a widespread problem.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill (Lab)]

If the noble Lord drops me a line with a few more details, I will look into that case. The rules demand more attention to medical conditions from the age of 70 onwards, and rightly so. There have been some terrible examples of older drivers who are unfit to drive but have still driven and have caused serious accidents, including death, so we are right to worry about this. The process ought to be efficient. I know better than most that I have to renew my vocational licence annually, and I start it on the first day that I can. I am pleased to say that it always comes back, but that may be because my name is on the licence.

[Noble Lords]

Oh!

[Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill (Lab)]

I just thought I should say that so that nobody thought it was in somebody else’s name. It is important that, as people get older, they consider whether they are capable to continue driving and have the right medical history to do so. I realise that it is a real issue for their mobility, particularly in rural areas. That is why the digital medical services platform, to which I referred, enables much more of this to be done online. If the noble Lord would like to give me some further details of his very young wife’s licence application, I will look into it.

[Lord Moylan (Con)]

My Lords, I imagine that my noble friend Lord Hamilton of Epsom put his name on his licence application as well, though with slightly different results. The DVLA used to be, not so long ago, one of the more highly regarded agencies, rather like the Passport Office. It was pretty efficient and reliable, but it seems to have gone downhill. Taking another example, the Government committed last year to reduce the wait for driving tests to seven weeks by summer 2026. Here we are in the height of summer 2026 and the waiting time is still 23 weeks. What are the Government going to do about this? What date can they now give for saying that they will bring these waiting lists within bounds?

[Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill (Lab)]

Some issues of government are more intractable than others. Given the statistics I quoted earlier about a 10% rise in medical licence notifications yet a reduction in the timescale dealing with them, I think that the DVLA is not an example of an organisation in crisis but one that is seeking, together with technology, to address the issues it faces on a real-time basis. However, the noble Lord is right that the Government anticipated reducing the waiting time for a driving test to seven weeks; the Secretary of State recently said that it was taking a long time to sort it out and that it will not be sorted out until autumn next year.

That is not to say that nothing has been done. The number of examiners has gone up by 147. In the period between June 2025 and May 2026, the DVSA conducted 242,000 more tests than in the same period. Pass rates are going up, which is very satisfactory. The noble Lord ought to know the effects that the actions to make the booking system fairer—limiting learners to two changes to their driving tests, restricting bookings so that only learners can book and amend tests, and limiting the area a learner driver can move a test to once booked—are already producing. Those actions were taken at the end of March, in the middle of May and in early June, and they are already clearly increasing the availability of test slots. He is right that it is taking longer but we will solve it.

[Lord Spellar (Lab)]

My Lords, I will take the Minister back to the question about cloning plates, which is increasingly facilitating a whole range of crime, including, with the increase in petrol prices, drive-off from petrol stations. From my experience of 30-odd years being a Member of Parliament in the other place, the DVLA and the police were remarkably uncurious and unwilling to look at genuine grievances from individuals whose plates had been cloned and who were regularly getting traffic violation notices and parking fines. Would it not be for the good of those individuals, and for law and order and the reputation of the authorities, if the police and the DVLA work together to crack down and start to eliminate this menace?

[Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill (Lab)]

My noble friend is absolutely right: it is not acceptable. There are clearly more number plates that cannot be read by ANPR and more cloned number plates on the road these days than there ought to be. I believe that actions are being taken, because it is a particularly unpleasant experience to discover that you are the victim of fines and other costs generated by somebody pretending to have your index number. The Government are concerned about it. As I say, the consultation about eradicating vehicle plate cloning closed on 11 May. If legislative change is necessary then we are committed to making those changes.

HS2 Ltd: Consultants

Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill Excerpts

Monday 22nd June 2026 Lords Chamber

[Lord Berkeley]

To ask His Majesty’s Government how much HS2 Limited paid consultants in the last year; and on which aspects of the project they worked.

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

My Lords, HS2 Ltd spent £77.8 million on consultancy in 2025-2026. This targeted advice was used to support the fundamental reset and its scope and cost. This is a significant undertaking in terms of complexity, pace and scale, and could not all be done in-house. Under new leadership, HS2 Ltd is being transformed into a simplified, more cost-effective company, with more than 300 back-office roles already removed and an absolute focus on delivery.

[Lord Berkeley (Lab)]

My Lords, first, I express my condolences to the family of the train driver who died in the accident last Friday, and, of course, to the relatives of those who were injured. I am not going to say any more, because that is for another day.

I am grateful to my noble friend for his Answer, but my figure for how much the Government have spent on consultants is £22 million, with a further £18 million to £19 million over the next 12 months. I have to ask my noble friend, what are they doing for their money? They are on a cost-plus contract, and the design has long since been since been finalised. What are they getting for their money apart from wasting taxpayers’ money?

[Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill (Lab)]

I should say from this Dispatch Box that the Government, too, are immensely saddened by the events in Bedford last Friday. Our sympathies are wholly with the relatives of the deceased driver and all those affected by the accident. The Secretary of State for Transport will be making a Statement later in the other place.

In respect of the spend on consultants, the spend in the 2025-26 financial year is for a fundamentally different purpose than any money previously spent on consultancy for HS2. The company was not in control of the contracts it had let or of what work had been done. The effort to find out what work had been done for the money that has been spent—roughly two-thirds of the original budget has been spent and only one-third of the work has been done—is testimony to the way in which the project was managed. Getting control of it means finding out what was done, and that is what this money has been spent on.

[Lord Redwood (Con)]

When will we have a realistic timetable and budget to complete the works on this much-delayed railway line?

[Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill (Lab)]

The recent Statement by the Secretary of State for Transport in the other place said that the project—with Mark Wild as the new chief executive and Mike Brown as the new chair of the new board—is now expected to cost between £87.7 billion and £102.7 billion. The first trains are now expected to run between Old Oak Common and Birmingham Curzon Street sometime between May 2036 and October 2039, and the full scheme, including Euston Station and the connection to the west coast main line at Handsacre Junction, is expected to open between May 2040 and December 2043.

[Lord Shamash (Lab)]

My Lords, may I invite my noble friend the Minister and everyone else in the House to join me in 2037—I repeat: 2037—at the opening of HS2 to save 30 minutes getting to Birmingham? At the moment, that has cost us, as we have heard from the Minister, £102 billion. To cancel it would be £58 billion. To save further money, they are reducing the top speed by 25 miles per hour. Frankly, you could not make this up. It seems that the potential saving of some £50 billion could be better spent, not least on a few submarines. I invite my noble friend the Minister to think very seriously about cancelling this white elephant.

[Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill (Lab)]

Right. My noble friend has come into this long-running play hopefully after the intermission but certainly after the first act. The point of HS2—you could say it is badly named—is to produce a serial improvement in train capacity between London, the West Midlands, the north of England and Scotland. That is the purpose of the scheme, and the result will be far more capacity, both on the new line and released on the old line in places such as Milton Keynes, to allow the economy of Britain outside London to reach its full potential in Birmingham, the north of England and stretching as far as Scotland. It is not just a high-speed line. You cannot judge the value of the expenditure merely on the elapsed journey time, though it is handy that the line is faster. Having started it, in whatever position it is in—we inherited it in a very bad position—the best thing to do is to finish it.

[Lord Wallace of Saltaire (LD)]

My Lords, as someone who has spent most of my life living in the north of England, I strongly agree with the Minister that we need very considerably to improve the capacity of railway lines to the whole of the north of England, north-west Yorkshire and the north-east. That clearly justifies completing the line, to Yorkshire as well as Manchester. The Minister has explained that the circumstance in which these consultants were brought in was entirely exceptional. May I tempt him, however, to talk about the Government’s use of consultants, which has expanded over the last 15 years? Does there not come a point, in dealing with outsourcing contractors and public procurement, when the Government should be insourcing some its capacity to examine what outside contractors provide, and not so often outsource it to consultants, who charge a good deal more than civil servants do?

[Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill (Lab)]

I certainly thank the noble Lord for his clarity about the purpose of HS2. I am not the best person to stand here and talk about consultancy expenditure in government in general, but I sympathise with him about getting long-term work done, because the cheapest way of getting it done is to get people to do it on an employment basis. However, if we look at what has had to be done by Mark Wild, under the supervision of Mike Brown and the new board, we see that a company that does not know how it spent its own money and what work was done for it, in circumstances where there are currently cost-plus contracts, is in need of serious help. That serious help, frankly, can be established in the short term only with the use of consultants.

[Lord Moylan (Con)]

My Lords, on behalf of these Benches, I also express my condolences to the family of the driver who lost his life in the tragedy on Friday—happily, a very rare event on Britain’s railways. On HS2, one of its principal contractors has warned that the Government’s steel tariffs are “ill-timed and unhelpful” and will “exacerbate” existing challenges facing HS2. Why have the Government chosen to make HS2 even more expensive by putting these tariffs on imported steel?

[Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill (Lab)]

Fortunately, nearly all the steel for HS2 has already been purchased so, although it suffers from many things, it will not suffer from changes in steel prices going forward. If the noble Lord looks at either social media or at pictures, or even goes to see the route, he will see that a vast amount of steel has already been erected on the route to Birmingham.

[Lord Hope of Craighead (CB)]

My Lords, given the purpose of HS2, why was phase 2a, running to Crewe, cancelled? It was a very short section—some 30 miles or so—and would have provided a very valuable link to the west coast main line.

[Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill (Lab)]

The noble and learned Lord needs to look at the Benches across from me, because phase 2a of HS2, which would have run from Handsacre to Crewe and then on to Manchester, was cancelled peremptorily by one of the previous Conservative Prime Ministers at virtually no notice and without some of the consequences being either foreseen or requested afterwards. This Government are keeping the land that has already been purchased, and we are thinking carefully about what needs to be done north of Birmingham to Crewe and to Manchester.

[Lord McLoughlin (Con)]

My Lords, first and foremost, as some who uses the railway line from St Pancras to Derby, I say to the Minister that everyone shares the thoughts of the Government, and I am sure the Minister will come to the House as soon as he has any interim information on what the Rail Accident Investigation Branch reveals.

As far as HS2 is concerned, the Minister is absolutely right to say that it is more about capacity than speed, as has always been the case. However, there is no doubt that there is a huge number of lessons to be learned about how these contracts are dealt with, from some of the things that have gone terribly wrong. Bearing in mind reports in the Times last week about how much more infrastructure costs in this country than in the rest of Europe, will the Government look at those reports in detail and see what lessons can be learned?

[Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill (Lab)]

I have the greatest respect for the noble Lord and his knowledge, and I know that he travels regularly on the Midland Main Line. I am sure that I will be standing here as soon as there are some concrete facts on the accident.

The noble Lord is right: the reports suggest that we certainly do not build major projects very cheaply. I say to him—I hope he is familiar with this anyway—that we can do large projects. The Transpennine Route Upgrade—which nobody talks about, which will cost at least £13 billion to £14 billion and is in hand now on a railway that is operating every day—is on time and on budget. It is worth reflecting that the claims that this country can no longer do these things are not correct. We can do them, but they need to be thought about and planned properly—you do not start the job until you know what you are buying—and then managed cleverly by people who know what they are doing, in partnership with contractors. The result will be that we will show that we can do a big project on the railway in the north of England.

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

Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill Excerpts

Committee stage
Thursday 18th June 2026 Grand Committee

[Lord Moylan (Con)]

My Lords, I am impressed by the enormous experience of aviation and ministerial responsibility for aviation present in the Committee. I do not claim either, but I will do my best to respond to this group. First, I say that we support the principle of airspace modernisation. If we have a complaint about it, it is that it is taking so long. If it needs legislation, why is that legislation is arriving only now, seven years after it started? The Minister might explain that and what sort of timetable he is expecting to pursue with airspace modernisation.

The Bill gives the Minister new powers of direction that are extremely broad, and that is the basis for most of the complaints and concerns—I think concerns rather than complaints—expressed in the Committee so far. They are very broad powers of direction and are almost unconstrained. I think it fair to say that no part of the Committee believes that those powers should be unconstrained. We believe that there should be processes that allow for consultation and accountability. Indeed, one could even argue that it would be more appropriate than giving directions for the Secretary of State to have to have recourse to a statutory instrument. That is not an amendment that has been proposed today, but it would be one way of addressing the Committee’s concerns.

I will briefly deal with the amendments. Both Amendment 60, in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Grender, and Amendment 61, in the name of my noble friend Lord Grayling, seek to impose a consultation requirement of a general character on the Minister. I do not think that that can be gainsaid; the Minister will have to agree it in one form or another. If he cannot give us assurances today that he will bring forward an appropriate amendment on Report, I very much hope that the noble Baroness and my noble friend will work together to draft an amendment that we can all rally behind.

Amendment 62 is in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Tunnicliffe. As at Second Reading, I found his speech most enlightening and interesting. I will make a small diversion to comment on it in a moment. However, the general principle is whether pilots—either through their trade union or in some other forum, as he said—should be consulted, and consulted specifically and early, about airspace changes. The answer is surely that they must be, since, as he explained—I do not need to repeat it—their stake in the business and activity is so high and so responsible that they should of course be involved in consultation at an early stage.

I will comment briefly on the broader question raised by the noble Lord of how this system works. We are seeing automated systems very much on the railways and certainly on London Underground—I know the noble Lord has great experience in rail and not just as a pilot—and in the motorcars with gubbins on the top that one now sees around the streets, driving themselves but with a driver present. The essential point of all these systems is to get them to drive closer together. They will drive closer together more safely under these automated systems. Take the example of the Victoria line, where the trains come practically every 90 seconds: that would not be possible if there was a human driver responsible for stopping and starting, because they would need to make judgments about how to do that.

The crucial difference—here I support the noble Lord—with ground-based systems such as railways, and, I assume, cars, is that the fail-safe if something goes wrong is to bring the system to a total stop. You can do that on a railway; you can just stop it, so that no train moves until you work out what has gone wrong and how to put it right. That is the safety mechanism. You cannot do that in the air, so our approach to aviation safety has to be very different. The input of pilots must be crucial to all of this. If, in the absence of an amendment from the Minister, one were to come forward from the noble Lord that expressed that—although not necessarily in these words, but if he could show himself open to adaptation—we would be very happy to support it.

My noble friends Lord Kirkhope and Lord Goschen spoke about the importance of general aviation. I am happy to second that for all the reasons they gave on both its economic contribution and its role in being a feeder to the skills necessary in the larger commercial aviation sector.

I will focus particularly on what my noble friend Lord Kirkhope said about charging and turn to my own Amendment 64, which is on just that point. There is a striking new subsection in Clause 6. It says:

“Persons may be specified (or of a description specified) if the services concerned are available for their use or benefit, and it is immaterial whether or not the services are actually used or could be used by, or actually benefit or could benefit, them”.


There is something of a contradiction written into that, because they would have to meet both limbs of the test. The first limb says that they

“are available for their use or benefit”.

The second limbs says, “Well, they could not be used by them and could not benefit them”. How can they be available for their use or benefit on the one hand and it still be the case that they could not be used by or benefit them and are still chargeable? I hope that I have expressed that correctly but, if noble Lords read the clause carefully, they will see that that is what it says. It says that they have to be available for their use or benefit but that it is immaterial whether they could use them or benefit from them. That seems like an obvious contradiction.

Introducing the word “persons” obviously requires some explanation. I am sure that the Minister is going to give it. I suspect that the explanation might be along the lines of the fact that there are drones and other things in the skies now, not simply aircraft. If that is the explanation, it has to deal with the clear point made by my noble friend Lord Kirkhope of Harrogate, but I am a little more relaxed about that. What I am not relaxed about is being asked to give the Minister the power to levy charges on people who could not use or benefit from the services in question. As it stands, this clause shows every sign of being hastily and poorly drafted. One would hope that the Minister would come forward on Report with improved drafting, but, if not, I suspect that there will be an amendment to deal with it.

It is fair to say, in these happy circumstances that have arisen, that the whole of the Committee is united on nearly all of the points we have debated in this group. I very much hope that the Minister will be able to join that circle and not disrupt the unanimity that the Committee has so fortunately achieved.

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

My Lords, I am grateful to noble Lords for their thoughtful contributions on this group of amendments. Although I rarely seem to agree with the noble Lord, Lord Moylan, I do so now in admiring the depth of aviation knowledge in this Committee today.

I will respond to the points that have been made and set out how the Bill enables progress on essential airspace reforms while maintaining the appropriate safeguards. I will start with Amendment 60, which was introduced by the noble Earl, Lord Russell, and the comments from the noble Baroness, Lady Pidgeon. It will be convenient for me to address Amendments 61 and 62, in the names of the noble Lords, Lord Grayling and Lord Tunnicliffe, respectively, and to note the comments from the noble Baroness, Lady Bray of Coln.

I assure all of them that environmental assessments and consultation are, and will remain, a fundamental part of the airspace change process. Let me be clear at the outset that nothing in these powers removes or weakens the existing requirements for thorough consultation and robust assessment of environmental and noise impacts. The Bill will extend the Secretary of State’s existing powers under the Air Traffic Management and Unmanned Aircraft Act 2021. It allows her, if needed, to require the implementation of an approved airspace change. For the avoidance of doubt, that means an airspace change proposal that has already been properly developed, consulted on and approved.

The powers introduced by the Bill do not circumvent the existing requirements built into the airspace change process, and any proposal must first go through the Civil Aviation Authority’s CAP1616 process. This requires the sponsor of an airspace change to undertake detailed assessments of the potential impacts of flight paths, including noise exposure and greenhouse gas emissions. Sponsors must hold meaningful consultations on the proposals with affected communities and other stakeholders, including airspace users or groups representing them, and, where appropriate, with pilots and those who represent them. These assessments must be rigorously scrutinised by the Civil Aviation Authority before any proposal can be approved. Where a change is taken forward by the UK Airspace Design Service, it will work closely with airports, in line with the bespoke partnership agreements.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Grayling (Con)]

May I just ask a specific question? If we countenance the situation where, for example, a plan coming from Heathrow to amend the routes into that airport clash with the routes into Farnborough and it has been through extensive process and, effectively, there is a logjam where one says one thing and the other says another, my understanding is that the Government, using their direction power, can say, “Right, we vote for Farnborough, not Heathrow”, or vice versa. In that situation, where the Government say they are voting for Farnborough, is there still a duty to consult on that decision before it is implemented?

[Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill (Lab)]

I will take some advice and respond further. But I note in response to the comments from the noble Lord, Lord Grayling, that both proposals will have been consulted on and agreed, so it is not the case that consultation would not have applied to either of them. I will write to him with the precise answer to his very reasonable question and copy it to other noble Lords.

Amendment 63 is from the noble Lord, Lord Holmes of Richmond, and he is right that information about airspace changes should be secure and transparent. I take the noble Lord’s point about the choice of technology. The Civil Aviation Authority’s CAP1616 airspace change process is designed to ensure transparency throughout. There is already a legal requirement for directions related to airspace change to be published, as well as any steps the CAA takes to enforce them. In addition, both the sponsor of an airspace change and the CAA are required to publish relevant documentation throughout the process, which is held on the CAA’s airspace change portal—a secure platform which acts as a single source of truth. When an approved design is implemented, it is published in the UK Aeronautical Information Publication, as required by international law.

This is not an area where there is a lack of trust or accountability requiring a more complex or novel audit mechanism. The CAA operates within a well-established statutory framework with clear oversight and requirements for publication and traceability. Introducing a requirement to store this information in a prescriptive or novel format risks adding complexity without corresponding benefit, given that the core objectives of transparency, accessibility, and auditability are already being met. It would also apply irrespective of any identified gap, creating additional cost and rigidity on how information is managed, so I respectfully ask the noble Lord not to press his amendment.

Amendment 64 from the noble Lord, Lord Moylan, relates to a technical change arising from the proposed expansion of who can pay charges for air traffic services, which will ensure that the “user pays” principle can continue to be fairly applied in future. Air traffic services are provided for all users within a block of airspace. Even when an airspace user does not use a service directly, they may still benefit from it. For example, if two aircraft avoid a collision because one is directed away from the other, both benefit even though one did not directly receive the service.

It is right that the charging framework reflects this. The Bill does not say that charges may be imposed on persons who cannot use or benefit from them. We reassure noble Lords that charges are not set without safeguards and that the Bill maintains them. The Civil Aviation Authority accounts for factors such as efficiency and proportionality and follows an established process, including extensive engagement, statutory consultation and rights of appeal.

A requirement to prove the precise level of use or benefit for every airspace user would be disproportionate and unworkable, particularly as an increasing number of emerging uses, especially drones and other unmanned aircraft systems, are integrated into shared airspace and require air traffic services in future. That issue is what the existing provision is designed to avoid and what the changes in the Bill seek to maintain. For that reason, I ask the noble Lord to withdraw his amendment.

[Lord Moylan (Con)]

The Minister says that the Bill does not say that you can be charged if you cannot use the service, but that is precisely what it says. It says that

“it is immaterial whether or not the services are actually used or could be used by, or actually benefit or could benefit, them”.

I do not think it is logically coherent, because they have to be available to them to qualify on the first limb of the clause.

It may well be that the noble Lord has the intention he expressed at the Dispatch Box. However, I ask him whether he considers this clause to be drafted to articulate that intention. As it stands, it seems internally self-contradictory. But if it is not internally self-contradictory and he can prove that it is not, I would still object to people being charged for services that they could not use or benefit from.

[Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill (Lab)]

In those circumstances, I will take away the noble Lord’s very detailed point and attempt to either explain why it does what I said, or alter it so that it does what I said.

Finally, I will address Amendment 65 from the noble Lord, Lord Kirkhope of Harrogate. I also listened carefully to the noble Viscount, Lord Goschen, on this subject. As experienced pilots themselves, they know better than most that general aviation is an important part of the UK’s aviation industry, covering a wide range of public service, commercial and recreational activities.

Clause 6 seeks to provide the Civil Aviation Authority with greater flexibility as to who can be charged for air traffic services provided under a licence. This will ensure that, as the UK’s airspace evolves, the cost of providing those services can continue to be recovered fairly and proportionately, in line with the user pays principle. I note the replication of the IATA view on this from the noble Lord, Lord Harper, and I will take that away.

As noble Lords will be aware, these costs are currently recovered primarily from commercial airlines as they are the main users of the relevant services. General aviation is largely exempt. The noble Lord is right that we do have in mind drone operations on operators and other unmanned aircraft. Ahead of any changes in future, the CAA has a statutory duty to consult on its proposals. Those whose interests are materially affected by its decision could appeal if they considered they had grounds to do so.

The CAA already has an obligation under the Transport Act 2000 to further the interests of operators and owners of aircraft, including in relation to the availability and cost of licensed air traffic services. This includes any that might be classed as general aviation to the extent that they are affected. Given this duty, the thorough and well-established processes for setting charges and the fact that there is currently no plan to create a new charge for general aviation users, I ask the noble Lord not to press his amendment.

[Earl Russell (LD)]

My Lords, this has been a really interesting and informative group. I know that we have spent a bit of time of it, but it has been time well spent in understanding the Bill. Four key points have come up. There is the whole issue of the need for modernisation, and the fact that it can provide environmental as well as safety benefits, but also the sheer complexity of doing that. Obviously, the powers given to the Minister under Clause 4 and the need for guardrails have come up as well and, as the noble Lord, Lord Moylan, said, there is consensus in Committee on the concern around those issues. There is the need for consultation, where I thought the noble Baroness, Lady Bray, put it really well; that needs to be meaningful. Finally, there is the issue of general inclusion and the Bill’s impacts on general aviation.

I am forever thankful to the Minister for his care and attention to these matters. We welcome his response on Amendments 60, 61 and 62. It is fair to say that we will reflect on his exact words and have a look at Hansard. These matters are complex and I welcome the words he has given. I am not certain, as I speak here, whether they will be enough or whether we will need to look at drafting a joint amendment on those matters. In any case, I am sure that we can have further conversations prior to Report on those issues.

I also note the Minister’s comments in relation to Amendment 63 and welcome the response from the noble Lord, Lord Holmes, about having the purpose rather than the technology as the vehicle. Again, we need to reflect on some of the Minister’s response around the risks. I note the reassurance that he gave about the CAA as a single source of truth and the systems already in play. With that, I beg to withdraw my amendment and thank noble Lords for the debate we have had.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Moylan (Con)]

My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, has brought before the Committee some interesting and valuable amendments. I look forward to hearing what the Minister has to say about them.

On EGNOS, I never quite understand why everyone wants to crawl back to Europe. The problem with that is that, every time you ask the Europeans for something, they want to exact a very large price, simply because they are still very cross with us for voting to restore our representative democracy in this country and for taking advantage of Brexit.

It is worth asking the Minister if he has discussed whether this service might be available, with a bit of expenditure, from Mr Elon Musk. As I understand it, Elon Musk is now in command of around two-thirds of the satellites going around the earth. I am sure that a man of such ingenuity and enterprise could easily develop a navigation system that depended on these satellites. Would that not be a sensible alternative? It might keep the Europeans on their toes, should we want to use their system, if they thought of taking advantage of us. Otherwise, I look forward to hearing what the Minister has to say. There is a bigger world out there—it is not just Europe—and we should all take advantage of it.

[Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill (Lab)]

My Lords, this grouping covers resilience, infrastructure and connectivity. I begin by addressing my noble friend Lord Berkeley’s Amendment 65B. I listened carefully to the noble Viscount, Lord Goschen, and the noble Baroness, Lady Pidgeon, on this subject. The Government support the life-saving work of air ambulances and the department, alongside the Civil Aviation Authority, regularly engages with air ambulance charities to understand their unique needs. Air ambulances already operate under a special regime from the Civil Aviation Authority that allows them privileged access to airspace and ensures that they can land wherever they need to in order to carry out their life-saving work. If my noble friend or the operators have any concerns about how this is working, the Minister for Aviation in the other place would be more than happy to hear them and deal with them. I hope that reassures my noble friend that his amendment is not needed.

On my noble friend’s Amendment 65B, the Government recognise the importance of satellite navigation services to support operations in all weather conditions. As my noble friend notes from his observation of the Answer to a Written Question in the other place, the Government are actively reviewing the viability of these services, including our access to the European geostationary navigation overlay service, or EGNOS, and the output from that is expected later this year, as he said. I will not pre-empt that review by accepting this amendment. I have not personally spoken to Elon Musk on this, or indeed any other subject, but I am sure that the Government are considering the full range of possibilities to do what EGNOS delivered in the past. I hope my noble friend understands that I cannot pre-empt the outcome of that review.

Finally, I thank my noble friend Lord Berkeley for his amendment relating to an airfield advisory team. The CAA carries out extensive engagement with aerodrome operators and values the insights and feedback that they provide, which play an important part in informing policy development in this area. At present, there is no clearly established rationale for creating a statutory panel for this group of stakeholders, particularly when similar arrangements are not in place for other stakeholder groups. Introducing such a panel could risk creating an imbalance by conferring a status on one group over others. But, having noted the concerns of the noble Lord, Lord Harper, I will take the issue away and inquire further about this team and the reasons for its disbandment. I hope that my noble friend will not press his amendment.

I should add clarity to my comments in Committee on Tuesday, to which my noble friend referred. I said this in my speech:

“Requiring training would not be appropriate for all airfields”.—[Official Report, 16/6/26; col. GC 114.]


I then gave some different reasons, which my noble friend quoted, for why training might not be possible at some airports. It was certainly not intended to suggest that no airfields would be suitable for training, as that would be unacceptable. I hope that that makes things clear.

[Lord Berkeley (Lab)]

My Lords, I am grateful to all noble Lords who have taken part in this short debate. I am very grateful to my noble friend the Minister for his answers, which I shall read carefully. I still think that it would be useful if we could have a quick meeting with him before the next stage, particularly to be told a bit more about what is happening on EGNOS and whether Mr Musk’s alternative is a sensible one. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Moylan (Con)]

My Lords, I will briefly introduce my own amendments and then comment on others. I have Amendments 70, 71 and 72. Amendment 72 is consequential on Amendment 71 so, in effect, I have two amendments, and the first is to do with consultation.

I can see no requirement in the Bill for the Government to undertake any consultation prior to exercising the powers they seek under this legislation. We recently debated the Airports Slot Allocation (Alleviation of Usage Requirements) Regulations 2026, and the industry told us that the consultation on those was extremely short. That was partly to do with getting the regulations done before the powers gap closes or opens, but the consultation was extremely short.

The result of it, according to the Government’s own statement, was that the airlines supported what the Government were doing but the airports were adamantly opposed. They were opposed principally because, as my noble friend Lady Foster said, the slots allocator already has the powers to respond in emergencies; there is no need for this action to take place. I come back to the point about consultation. That was a good example of consultation done badly and not listened to. Here, we have no consultation promised at all. My amendment would require it.

My second amendment concerns the fact that statutory instruments will be used here. The significant ones will be done by the affirmative process, but there is an exemption for those that have temporary effect, which will be done by the negative process. This is a direct downgrading because the airport slots regulations we considered in Grand Committee only last week were temporary in their character; they last only for the coming summer and winter seasons. It is precisely that type of statutory instrument—that type of government action—that will now be moved to be taken under the negative process. This is definitely a downgrade of parliamentary scrutiny and my amendment would eliminate it. Amendment 72 is, as I say, consequential on that.

To come to the other contributions in this debate, it is fair to say that, between them, my noble friends Lord Grayling and Lady Foster of Oxton have driven an entire coach and horses through this section of the Bill. They ask the crucial question: what is the necessity for this? Not only that, but what is the benefit to the public of the Government intervening in something that is, in essence, first, a private market activity and, secondly, working perfectly well at the moment, with no reason to think that that is likely to change? Although I am sure that the Minister will want to defend these proposals when he gets to his feet, the tenor of debate in Committee is that they should be done away with wholesale. My amendments, which would simply require consultation and better processes, are inadequate to the task. When we come back on Report, we will have to challenge clearly why the Government are involved in this at all, with what purpose and to what effect—unless, of course, the Minister can satisfy us today.

[Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill (Lab)]

My Lords, as we have heard, this group concerns the airport slots regime. I am grateful to noble Lords for their amendments. I will address each one in turn but first note two common points that apply across this group.

The UK slots regime depends on independent, fair, transparent and non-discriminatory allocation by the slot co-ordinator. It also operates within international frameworks, such as the Worldwide Airport Slot Guidelines, the global standard for managing airport capacity at congested level 3 and capacity-constrained level 2 airports. The regime already recognises commercial expectations that require clarity, consistency and timely decision-making. Where I refer to independence, proportionality, flexibility or international alignment, these are the common justifications I have in mind. I also say to the noble Baroness, Lady Pidgeon, that the processes in this Bill do not in themselves allow airport expansion; they are about the efficient allocation of capacity created by expansion, which is a different issue.

I begin with Amendment 66, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Grayling. I understand the concern that the Government should not interfere in a liberalised and well-functioning sector, and our policy intent is not to interfere in this. These provisions, however, largely replicate provisions previously available through EU legislation. All the Government are doing is replicating the powers we think we appropriately need to continue. I refer the noble Lord to paragraphs 20 to 24 of the Explanatory Notes to the Bill.

Neither the Government nor airlines have a role in the day-to-day allocation of slots. As noble Lords have noted, that is undertaken by an independent slot co-ordinator who must allocate slots openly, fairly, transparently and without discrimination. The amendment would therefore not have the intended effect and would create uncertainty. The temporary reallocation or suspension of unused slots during an international crisis is already addressed by Clause 7. In our view, Amendment 66 is therefore unnecessary and duplicative.

I turn to Amendment 67, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Empey, which would require sufficient slots at hub airports such as Heathrow to be allocated to flights from UK regional airports. The Government recognise the importance of strong regional connectivity and effective access to hub airports for people and businesses across the United Kingdom.

However, I cannot support the amendment because requiring hub airports to prioritise domestic regional services over international routes could conflict with non-discrimination and fair competition obligations in the UK’s bilateral air services agreements. It could also require the reallocation of slots from incumbent operators that have historic rights where usage requirements are met, raising legal and practical issues. I therefore ask the noble Lord not to press his amendment.

The next amendment, from the noble Lord, Lord Grayling, seeks to remove the ability to create regulations on enforcement of the slots regime through criminal and civil sanctions. Existing assimilated law already contains criminal and civil enforcement provisions, which the Government believe are necessary. Removing this power would freeze the current enforcement regime, meaning that even proportionate updates could be made only through further primary legislation. I do not believe that that is the noble Lord’s intention.

[Lord Grayling (Con)]

Can the Minister illustrate to me the kind of circumstance in which a criminal sanction is required?

[Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill (Lab)]

I will respond to the noble Lord after today.

Clause 7 already reduces the severity of sanctions by removing the possibility of imprisonment for breaches of slots regulations. Any exercise of the power to amend enforcement provisions would be subject to the affirmative procedure, ensuring scrutiny and debate in both Houses. For those reasons, I ask the noble Lord not to press his amendment.

I turn to Amendment 70, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Moylan, which would place a statutory duty on the Secretary of State to consult airlines, airport operators and others before making any slots regulations under Clause 7. The Government recognise the importance of proper engagement and, where new policy is developed under this power, will carry out appropriate consultation, including with industry and, where relevant, communities. However, an inflexible statutory consultation duty would not be appropriate. The power may need to be used urgently in response to significant disruption, as was necessary during the pandemic. In those circumstances, government must be able to act swiftly and proportionately. I therefore ask the noble Lord not to press Amendment 70.

I will take Amendments 71 and 72, also tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Moylan, together. They would require all regulations relating to slots to be subject to the affirmative procedure. I recognise the desire for parliamentary scrutiny, but the Bill already draws a proportionate distinction. The negative procedure is available only where there is a significant threat to public health, or another substantial reason, and only for temporary changes to slot-usage requirements. Requiring the affirmative procedure in every case could delay necessary action during disruption, where speed may be essential. I therefore ask the noble Lord not to press Amendments 71 and 72.

Amendment 73, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Harper, would—

[Lord Moylan (Con)]

The point that the Minister makes about emergencies and so forth is not reflected in the text of the Bill, which says on page eight:

“Regulations are excluded regulations if the Secretary of State considers that their only substantive effect is temporarily to disapply or modify a requirement as to regularity of use of slots”.


That would cover the airport slots regulations that we debated last week. Those would move from being affirmative procedure SIs to negative procedure SIs. The additional stipulations that the Minister mentioned are not reflected in the clause that defines an excluded regulation.

[Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill (Lab)]

I thank the noble Lord for that observation. I will of course take it away and consider what he has said.

Amendment 73, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Harper, would place the slot co-ordinator under the oversight of the Civil Aviation Authority. I understand the intention to strengthen oversight, but the amendment would cut across a fundamental principle of the slots regime: that the co-ordinator must remain functionally and financially independent of all interested parties, including government. The noble Lord asked whether we are content with the current system, and we are. That principle is reflected in the Worldwide Airport Slot Guidelines, which align these matters across all level 2 and level 3 airports across the globe and are essential to ensuring that scarce airport capacity is allocated fairly, neutrally and without bias towards any airline, airport or Government. They protect new entrants and maintain confidence in the global system. Creating a statutory CAA oversight role would risk putting the UK at odds with established international practice and creating legal and operational uncertainty. I therefore ask the noble Lord not to press Amendment 73.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Empey (UUP)]

In the Minister’s response to my Amendment 67, he responded to a point that I had not made. I had not asked for domestic slots to replace international slots. Mine is a probing amendment, but it is a very simple proposition: in extremis, does the Secretary of State have the power to ensure regional connectivity, or does he not? It is not a complicated issue in essence, even though the operational issues are. He anticipated something that I had not actually proposed, and I assure him that on this issue, while I shall not move my amendment today, I do not intend to go away. Perhaps his team could engage with me before Report.

[Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill (Lab)]

If I may, I shall respond to the noble Lord by saying that, if I have not understood his point clearly, I shall indeed go away and have a further discussion with him.

[Lord Grayling (Con)]

My Lords, we have had an interesting debate. Again, some important issues were raised. The noble Lord, Lord Empey, makes an important point. In fact, when reflecting on my own amendment at the start, I thought that what he was saying might be an element missing from mine. I have a lot of sympathy with what he has said.

I want to be frank with the Minister. He knows that I have the highest regard for him; he knows that I regard him as knowing more about much of the transport system than anyone I know, so I do not direct this comment at him, but at the Government. I am really quite unimpressed by the Government’s inability to explain what are relatively simple things, or should be relatively simple, if they had thought this through properly, in the measures that they are taking in this Bill and those in the debate that we had last week over the slot regime. If the Government want to take powers or continue powers to enforce criminal sanctions, they should at least be able to say what kind of issues those criminal sanctions are designed to address, because I do not think that this is simply a replication of existing EU law—and were it so, I would be asking what we can we do less of, rather than more of, outside the European Union.

However, if the Government’s intention is purely to replicate what is there already, they do not need new Section 34A(4), which says:

“The regulations may make different provision for different purposes”.


What does that mean? What it does is create a blank cheque for the Government to expand their remit in the slots regime beyond where it is at the moment. They are also seeking, as I say, to continue with criminal sanctions. That does not feel to me like a Government who are trying to maintain a light touch in what the Minister rightly says is a commercial marketplace with established processes that are part of international agreements that go beyond the European Union. So some of this should not be necessary, and it should not be necessary to continue some of it on from what we had before. Where it is continuing, there needs to be a good explanation for it. I am sorry, but I do not think that the Minister has been able to give that good explanation. The Government need to do a better job on what should be pretty basic questions about what they are proposing.

I will of course seek to withdraw this amendment today, but I give notice to the Minister that these questions need to be answered properly before we get to Report, because I can see no justification for having what are clear Henry VIII powers in the slots regime. There is not even a provision for the affirmative resolution so, frankly, in six or 12 months’ time, another Minister—I am sure that it would not be this Minister—could simply come back and take a much more interventionist approach to the slots regime, which would be absolutely out of kilter with anything that we have done either inside or outside the European Union. For now, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment, but I will not leave this issue untouched when we come back on Report.

--- Later in debate ---

The other question is simply more general. Do the Government believe that this is a credibly financeable project, even on a regulated asset base basis? Do they believe that it is fair that the airlines and their passengers will be paying so far in advance and over so many years for a facility that they cannot use? Answers to those three questions in clear, crisp terms that leave no room for ambiguity or doubt would be greatly appreciated.

[Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill (Lab)]

My Lords, this group concerns airport expansion capacity. I am grateful to noble Lords for their amendments.

I will address Amendments 69, 105, 110 and 114 in turn. Before doing so, I will make two points that apply across the group. First, as I made clear at Second Reading, the Bill is not a route to airport expansion. It does not grant planning consent, remove environmental safeguards or predetermine the outcome of any expansion proposal. Secondly, where airport expansion is proposed, the relevant issues, including noise, carbon emissions, air quality, economic benefits and local impacts, are considered through national policy statements and the development consent order processes, with consultation, assessment, scrutiny and independent examination. Those are the common justifications, which I will refer back to. Expansion decisions sit within the planning regime, while this Bill concerns aviation consumer protection and regulatory reform.

I turn first to Amendment 69 spoken to by the noble Baroness, Lady Pidgeon. This amendment would require the Secretary of State to undertake consultation impact assessments before laying slot regulations that facilitate airport expansion. I reassure the noble Baroness that the Government are fully committed to meaningful consultation with communities and to thorough environmental and noise assessment before airport expansion proceeds. However, slot regulations do not grant planning for physical expansion, nor do they increase the legally permitted cap on aircraft movements. They determine how capacity at co-ordinated airports is allocated between airlines. The slots measure in the Bill would allow regulations to be updated if needed so that any capacity already approved through the planning process can be used effectively. Amendment 69 would therefore duplicate consultation and assessment processes that already take place before slot allocation becomes relevant, and for that reason I ask the noble Baroness to withdraw the amendment.

I turn next to Amendment 105, also tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Grender. This amendment would prohibit the powers in the Bill being used for the purposes of airport expansion. The Bill and the question of airport expansion are distinct. The Bill is focused, as I said, on consumer protection reform of the aviation regulatory framework. The Government would take forward these measures, irrespective of any expansion decision. The Government support Heathrow expansion, but any decision on the third runway is subject to the national policy statement and the development consent order processes, both of which include consultation and scrutiny. Airspace modernisation is also needed, whether or not a third runway is proceeded with. Its purpose is to make UK airspace more efficient, resilient, quieter and cleaner, not to provide a shortcut to expansion. Similarly, slots regulation does not create airport capacity; it manages capacity after it has been approved through the planning process.

Amendment 105 would undermine the workability of the Bill’s regulatory framework. For example, it could prevent reforms to slot regulation where those reforms are needed to manage new capacity that has already been approved. I therefore ask the noble Baroness not to press it.

I turn next to Amendment 110, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Harper, on a third runway at Heathrow. The Government agree that decisions on airport expansion should be evidence-based and subject to transparency, consultation and scrutiny. However, Amendment 110 is not necessary to achieve that, because decisions on Heathrow expansion will be taken through the national policy statement and development consent order processes.

As noble Lords have noted, the department has today published the revised airports national policy statement, which has been renamed the draft Heathrow expansion national policy statement, to clarify that it applies only to Heathrow expansion and its associated infrastructure for consultation.

In response to the noble Lord, Lord Harper, and others, I am not going to be in a position to respond to the detail of what has literally just been published, which I am sure he and others will understand. However, I have no doubt that the points he and others raise will be discussed both in your Lordships’ House and in the other place. I have also heard the noble Earl, Lord Russell, the noble Baroness, Lady Foster of Oxton, and the noble Lord, Lord Moylan, but as I say, this is for discussion at another time.

I have also written today to all noble Lords with further details. I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Moylan, will accept that I am not going to answer his questions now, because the Written Statement was laid less than two hours ago.

[Lord Moylan (Con)]

Would the noble Lord be so good as to answer them by letter before we reach Report?

[Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill (Lab)]

I will certainly consider what I can say to the noble Lord before Report.

The Heathrow expansion national policy statement includes the full suite of appraisal and supporting analytical documents. Alongside the public consultation, that draft policy statement will be laid before Parliament and subject to parliamentary scrutiny by a nominated parliamentary Select Committee. Following the consultation, the Government will carefully consider all responses received, alongside the report of the parliamentary Select Committee, before deciding whether to designate an amended national policy statement. If the Government decide to proceed, the amended policy statement will be published and laid before Parliament, in accordance with the requirements set out in the Planning Act 2008, and be subject to a vote in the other place before it can take legal effect. Any development consent application for expansion at Heathrow must include detailed, project-specific assessments, including operational and system-wide impacts, and will be published and examined through the Planning Inspectorate process.

Not all the matters covered by Amendment 110 can be determined at a single point. Airspace design, in particular, is developed iteratively and requires sufficient certainty about an expansion scheme before it can be finalised, approved and implemented. Airspace change proposals are also subject to their own oversight processes, including detailed assessment and public consultation, and do not pre-empt planning decisions. It would not be appropriate to include requirements for a specific infrastructure project in this Bill, which is concerned, as I have said, with consumer protection and regulatory reform. Given the extensive information and scrutiny that will already apply to Heathrow expansion, I ask the noble Lord not to press his amendment.

Finally, I turn to Amendment 114, tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, but spoken to by the noble Earl, Lord Russell. I agree that tackling climate change and reducing aviation emissions must remain central to aviation policy. However, I cannot accept this amendment. Elements of Amendment 114 would duplicate existing duties under the Climate Change Act 2008, but the provisions on airport capacity go significantly further. This Government support airport expansion where it is justified. The UK needs sufficient airport capacity to support economic growth, trade, freight and connectivity across the country. Proposals are, and will continue to be, assessed case by case against strict climate, environmental and economic tests.

Amendment 114 would prevent the Secretary of State using powers under the Bill to support any expansion of airport capacity and go further, by requiring a reduction in capacity. That would remove the Government’s ability to respond to real capacity constraints, even where a scheme could meet the rigorous tests I have described. This Bill is not the vehicle for making those determinations. I therefore ask for Amendment 114 not to be pressed.

[Baroness Pidgeon (LD)]

My Lords, I thank the Minister for his detailed response. It has been an interesting debate, and I think that how noble Lords view these amendments and powers may reflect which side of the debate one sits on in terms of airport expansion. On these Benches, we are clear that we oppose expansion of Heathrow and Gatwick. I am grateful for the half support from the noble Lord, Lord Harper, for our amendments, though we clearly have different views on Heathrow expansion. We will now need to reflect on the Minister’s words—and, of course, the draft Heathrow expansion national policy statement that, as has been discussed, has been published while we have been sitting—ahead of Report in any amendments that we may wish to table then. But on that basis, I agree to withdraw the amendment at this stage.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill (Lab)]

My Lords, this group concerns Civil Aviation Authority rule-making. I begin with the amendment from the noble Lord, Lord Moylan, which would require aviation safety regulations to continue to be made by the Secretary of State, and on which the noble Lord, Lord Harper, also spoke. That would prevent the delegation of technical rule-making to the Civil Aviation Authority, which is a central purpose of the Bill. As I said at Second Reading, the current process risks the UK falling behind its international safety obligations. Delegating technical rule-making to that authority will allow the regime to keep pace with international standards and industry change, while retaining robust safeguards, ministerial oversight and parliamentary accountability. As I will say on a number of amendments in this group, the Bill is designed to create a quicker, more responsive regulator-led system, without removing proper democratic controls.

The words of my noble friend Lord Tunnicliffe at Second Reading strongly resonated with me then, as they do now, but I note that the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee clearly recognised a case for such an approach. The noble Lord, Lord Moylan, referred to the letter from the chair of the Constitution Committee, which as yet I have not seen but will obviously fully consider when I do. I will reply to it as soon as I can and take on board all those matters that need to be considered in the Bill before Report.

[Lord Moylan (Con)]

The argument is that these rules have to be made by the CAA because parliamentary scrutiny slows things down and there is a risk that we fall behind meeting our international obligations. That is the case for change, but how often in the past have we fallen behind our international obligations using the existing system?

[Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill (Lab)]

I will certainly consider what the noble Lord says and respond to him. I am sure that what I have said is correct, but I will produce an answer for him as soon as I can.

Amendment 102 from the noble Baroness, Lady Grender, and Amendment 77 from the noble Lord, Lord Moylan, respond to the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee’s recommendations. Amendment 102 would move the relevant regulation-making power to the affirmative procedure, while Amendment 77 would require the Secretary of State to publish principles explaining how the power to prevent CAA rule-making in certain areas would be used.

I am grateful to both noble Lords for seeking to address the committee’s concern. The power is important because it helps to define the boundary between the Civil Aviation Authority and the Secretary of State. We are considering these points carefully, and, as I said at the previous Committee hearing, I fully intend to return before Report. I strongly note the advice of the noble Viscount, Lord Goshen, to be careful about what we wish for, given the possibly hundreds of technical amendments. On that basis, I hope the Committee notes that I will fully answer the points of the Constitution Committee and the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee, and that noble Lords will not press those amendments at this stage.

My noble friend Lord Tunnicliffe’s amendment, which is supported by the noble Lord, Lord Empey, would require the CAA to consult the British Airline Pilots Association. The Bill already requires the CAA to consult. The Secretary of State will expect it to consult appropriately with all relevant stakeholders, and the British Airline Pilots Association will of course be able to respond to consultations. However, a specific duty to consult that organisation in all cases would not be appropriate, because, as the noble Lord, Lord Empey, pointed out, the British Airline Pilots Association is not the only trade union representing pilots, and pilots are not the only people affected by CAA rules. Nor would it be proportionate to require that trade union to be consulted on every rule, including matters unlikely to affect pilots. I hope that reassures my noble friend. I will, of course, be happy to meet him to discuss how consultation will work in practice.

The next amendment from the noble Lord, Lord Moylan, would give the Secretary of State a power to direct the Civil Aviation Authority to consult specific persons. As with the previous amendment, I recognise the importance of appropriate consultation. However, new Section 61G, inserted by Clause 8, already enables the Secretary of State to direct the CAA in how it uses its rule-making functions, including by requiring consultation with specific parties. The amendment is therefore unnecessary and I ask the noble Lord not to press it.

Amendment 80 from the noble Baroness, Lady Grey-Thompson, would require the Civil Aviation Authority to prepare a disability impact assessment for significant rule changes. Accessibility is a priority for the Government, and we are committed to ensuring that anyone who wants to fly can do so without barriers. The Civil Aviation Authority is already subject to the public sector equality duty and must have due regard to equality impacts when making rules. As the noble Baroness, Lady Pidgeon, remarked, that should be considered automatically where appropriate. It includes careful consideration of the impact on disabled people and people with reduced mobility. I hope that reassures the noble Baroness and that she will not press her amendment, but, as I said on Tuesday, I am considering the many powerful points raised about disabled travellers and what we can and should do further in this Bill.

I will deal next with the 10 amendments from the noble Lord, Lord Moylan, which would replace references to a document setting out the Secretary of State’s priorities and objectives with references to guidance. As he notes, the distinction matters. This is not statutory guidance; it is intended to be an agreed administrative framework and work programme for the CAA’s functions. That approach allows Ministers to set clear expectations, maintain appropriate oversight and secure visibility of future rules, while respecting the CAA’s statutory independence. Labelling the document as guidance would weaken that intended effect. I therefore ask the noble Lord not to press those amendments.

Amendment 83, also from the noble Lord, Lord Moylan, would require the Secretary of State to explain how the CAA’s new rule-making function supports regional connectivity. The Government fully recognise the importance of strong air connectivity across the United Kingdom. However, most technical safety rules will have no direct bearing on that policy. Those wider objectives are more properly addressed through aviation strategy and policy, rather than through technical safety and operational rules. I therefore ask the noble Lord not to press this amendment.

I will speak to Amendments 89 and 91 together, as both concern the governance of the priorities and objectives document. Amendment 89, from the noble Lord, Lord Kirkhope of Harrogate, and my noble friend Lord Barber of Ainsdale, would replace the requirement for agreement with the CAA with a broader duty to consult stakeholders. Amendment 91, from the noble Lord, Lord Moylan, would similarly remove the CAA’s role in agreeing the document.

Here, I return to a common point in this group: the Bill seeks to create a streamlined, effective system with clear roles, while preserving regulatory independence. Replacing agreement with broad consultation would duplicate consultation that already takes place on individual rule changes and would slow the process. Removing agreement would also undermine the CAA’s ability to stand behind the programme it is asked to deliver. Agreement is not a veto; it ensures the programme is credible, deliverable and consistent with the Civil Aviation Authority’s statutory duties. If agreement cannot be reached, the Secretary of State retains existing powers, including the ability to make regulations directly. I will further explore the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Harper, on this. I therefore ask noble Lords not to press Amendments 89 and 91.

The next amendment, also from the noble Lord, Lord Kirkhope of Harrogate, and my noble friend Lord Barber of Ainsdale, concerns parliamentary oversight of the priorities and objectives document. I recognise the importance of transparency. However, Ministers must retain clear backstop powers to direct or intervene quickly where appropriate. Where directions are issued, they will be published, and the Secretary of State will remain accountable, including through the Transport Select Committee. In that context, laying the document before Parliament may not add significant transparency. We will continue to reflect on the points raised but, meanwhile, I ask the noble Lord and my noble friend not to press the amendment.

I turn to Amendment 96 from the noble Lord, Lord Holmes of Richmond, on AI technical standards. Artificial intelligence and automation are already important to aviation safety, and automation has contributed significantly to the high levels of safety achieved over recent decades. The Civil Aviation Authority takes developments in AI seriously and has a developed AI strategy, which it will continue to review as technology evolves. The Civil Aviation Authority already scrutinises technology used in safety-critical systems, including AI, through expert, system-specific certification and oversight. A single framework for all AI use would not be workable, and mandatory human intervention in every decision could undermine safety by introducing avoidable human error. I therefore ask the noble Lord not to press his amendment.

I will take Amendments 97 and 98, from the noble Lord, Lord Moylan, together. They would require the Civil Aviation Authority to republish the entire rulebook whenever a new rule is made, or an existing rule is updated. The CAA rulebook runs to many thousands of provisions. Republishing it in full for even minor changes would be disproportionate, costly and time-consuming, and would frustrate the aim of an agile, consolidated rulebook. The Civil Aviation Authority will publish new rules and updates to existing rules in a timely way. I therefore ask the noble Lord not to press Amendments 97 and 98.

[Lord Moylan (Con)]

Can the Minister give a commitment that the Civil Aviation Authority will maintain an up-to-date rulebook on its website at all times? Any changes made could simply be inserted on the website. That is what I am asking for; I am not asking for a book. The amendment says “publish”; it does say “publish a book”. At the moment, the Bill does not require the CAA to do that; it specifically exempts it from doing so.

[Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill (Lab)]

The noble Lord makes a reasonable point; I will take it away.

Amendments 99 and 100, also from the noble Lord, Lord Moylan, would require the Civil Aviation Authority to provide a free paper copy of the rulebook to anyone who asks. As I have just noted, the rulebook is extremely large, so requiring free paper copies would create a significant cost and administrative burden and, frankly, could be open to abuse. It is right that the CAA may charge for that expense, while ensuring that rules remain available to view for free on its website. I ask the noble Lord not to press Amendments 99 and 100.

I am grateful to the noble Lord for Amendment 101. The provision he seeks to remove is needed to ensure that the transition to CAA-led rule-making works coherently, including by enabling necessary consequential changes to existing legislation and enforcement provisions. Without it, gaps could arise that would require further primary legislation, which would not be proportionate or efficient. This is not an unfettered power. It is limited to what the Secretary of State considers necessary to facilitate or give effect to CAA rules, and it is subject to parliamentary procedure—affirmative where it amends primary legislation and negative in other cases. That provides proper oversight while allowing the new regime to operate effectively. Therefore, I ask the noble Lord not to press Amendment 101.

Finally, Amendment 118 from the noble Lord, Lord Empey, concerns flight time limitations. The CAA is responsible for ensuring that operators comply with those regulations. It already has powers to audit and enforce compliance, and is currently reviewing flight time limitations and enforcement. That review will be published later this year and will inform the CAA’s future approach. I will write to the noble Lord on the points he raised. I hope that that reassures him, and I ask him not to press Amendment 118.

[Lord Moylan (Con)]

My Lords, I note and am grateful for the assurance from the Minister that he will return on Report with an amendment—or amendments—that will address the points raised by the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee. I am sure that the noble Baroness, Lady Grender, and I will study that carefully, to see whether it will allow us not to press our own amendments. Beyond that, I am afraid to say that the Minister has, I think, disappointed the Committee with his response.

I will briefly comment on the relationship between the Secretary of State and the CAA. In normal circumstances—we might take Great British Railways as an example, as it is being created at the moment—we expect the Secretary of State to issue a document setting out the Government’s priorities and to impose them on the body being regulated. However, in this case, the Minister seems to envisage a partnership arrangement—a contract of some sort—between the Department for Transport and the Civil Aviation Authority, in which the CAA can say, “No, we don’t accept that part of the contract. We want something else”.

That seems to be unprecedented, although it is possible that the Minister can find precedence for it elsewhere in the regulatory environment in which we exist. It seems unprecedented, but it also seems to requires its own supervisory structure. In the end, if the Civil Aviation Authority can decide what it is willing to do, and the Secretary of State does not have the power to issue guidance requiring it to do those things, then we have created a monster that is totally outside of our control. I hear the Minister’s justification, but, as far as I understand it, it seems to raise more questions than it answers. I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill (Lab)]

My Lords, this group concerns environment and climate impacts. I am grateful to noble Lords for their amendments. I will address each in turn, but first I will make two common points that apply across the group. The Government recognise the need to reduce aviation emissions and to ensure that environmental impacts are properly considered. At the same time, many of the amendments would duplicate existing statutory duties, reporting arrangements or wider decarbonisation policies. Where I refer to duplication, proportionality or the need to treat aviation as a whole sector, these are the common justifications I have in mind.

I begin with Amendment 84, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Harper. This amendment would require the Secretary of State to set out how the CAA should consider the seventh carbon budget when exercising the new powers in the Bill. I agree that aviation’s climate impacts must be properly considered, but the CAA already has statutory responsibilities in this area, including a legal duty independently to monitor, assess and report on the environmental protection performance of the UK civil aviation sector through the UK Aviation Environmental Review. Domestic aviation emissions have been within legally binding carbon budgets since the first carbon budget, and the Government have laid legislation to include international aviation emissions from the sixth carbon budget, beginning in 2033.

The Government are also supporting greener aviation through the sustainable aviation fuel mandate, the Sustainable Aviation Fuel Act, airspace modernisation and funding for low and zero-emission aircraft technologies. Most safety and operational rules are technical and have limited environmental impact. Where environmental effects are relevant, the CAA will consider them as part of rule-making. A blanket requirement would be disproportionate, add red tape and risk slowing the benefits of delegated rule-making. However, I hear the noble Lord’s question about a political decision on whether demand management might be required. This Government support the ability of ordinary people to fly, so I will consider this point further. In the meantime, I ask the noble Lord to withdraw Amendment 84.

Amendment 106, on supporting low-carbon travel choices, was tabled by the noble Earl, Lord Russell, and spoken to by the noble Baroness, Lady Pidgeon. The Government agree that passengers should have clear information and that aviation policy should support environmental objectives. However, a further statutory review is unnecessary. The Civil Aviation Act 2012 already requires the Civil Aviation Authority to publish information and advice on the environmental effects of civil aviation, including measures to reduce, control or mitigate adverse effects. This is again through the annual UK Aviation Environmental Review. The CAA also works to improve consumer information so that passengers can make informed choices. The Government keep aviation policy impacts under review, informed by CAA reporting and wider climate work. I am afraid that Amendment 106 would add process without improving the evidence base, so I ask the noble Earl not to press it.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Moylan (Con)]

My Lords, I wholly support the amendments proposed by my noble friend Lord Harper. I keep coming back—I must—to the absolutely cruel imposition of increased business rates on airports. They are a smash and grab of deliberate design; they can have no effect other than to make aviation less accessible to ordinary people, despite what the Minister has just said is the Government’s policy. Equally, if the CAA is to have these very substantial new powers, it is reasonable to ask why it should not also have a clear duty to promote competition. For that reason, I strongly support the amendments in this group.

[Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill (Lab)]

I thank your Lordships for the debate on this group regarding economic impacts and competition, and I thank the noble Lord, Lord Harper, in particular for his amendments. I turn first to his amendment on the impact of business rates revaluation. At the Budget, the Valuation Office Agency announced updated property values from the 2026 revaluation. This revaluation is the first since the pandemic to result in significant increases in rateable value for some property, which includes some airports. The Government recognise the impact that these changes can have. We have considered this carefully and have put in place measures to ensure that the effects are manageable. We are delivering a support package worth £4.3 billion over the next three years, including a £3.2 billion transitional relief scheme. That provides more generous support to the largest ratepayers, including airports. It caps increases in airport bills arising from revaluations to just over double by 2028-29, before any supplements and reliefs are applied, preventing the much larger increases they otherwise would have seen.

The Government believe these arrangements strike the right balance, reflecting updated property values while ensuring a smooth and manageable adjustment for airports. Looking ahead, however, the Government recognise that businesses with decades-long capital cycles need stability and predictability to deliver capital investment plans. To provide this, the Government published a call for evidence around the receipts and expenditure valuation methodology and its impacts on long-term, high-value investments. This will allow the Government to work constructively with airports and other ratepayers ahead of the 2029 revaluation. I should also note that if an airport, or indeed any business, disagrees with their business rates valuation, they may challenge it with the Valuation Office Agency and, if that fails to produce a satisfactory outcome, the affected party may escalate the case to the independent Valuation Tribunal. As a result, I hope the noble Lord feels able to withdraw this amendment.

I turn to Amendment 116. The Government agree that effective competition, where it can be delivered, plays an important role in improving outcomes for passengers, airlines and the wider sector. The CAA already has a clear statutory role in economic regulation and a duty to further the interests of air passengers, both of which it actively applies. The Civil Aviation Act 2012 provides a well-established framework designed to give the Civil Aviation Authority clear focus on furthering the interests of passengers. The framework ensures that competition is properly considered as a means of furthering those interests, while allowing the regulator to take a balanced and proportionate approach in markets where competition may not always be effective. It is important that the CAA continues to have discretion in how it regulates airports, including by balancing the promotion of competition with other ways to further the interests of consumers where those are more appropriate. Although the CAA’s competition remit is targeted, the Competition and Markets Authority is able to intervene when wider competition issues arise.

We recognise that there are arguments for looking more broadly at the CAA’s role in relation to competition, but so far we have seen no evidence that the current framework is not working effectively, although we will continue to keep it under review. If we consider it necessary, we will, indeed, as the noble Lord, Lord Harper, suggested, add competition to the next letter to the Civil Aviation Authority chair.

Changes in this space could have wide-ranging implications for investment, passenger costs and regulatory independence, so it is important that those impacts are fully considered before any changes are made. Amendment 116 does not address those broader questions, and it risks cutting across a more considered approach. The proposed reporting requirement is unlikely to add significant value, given the CAA’s existing transparency and reporting obligations. For those reasons, I hope the noble Lord feels able not to press his amendment.

Finally, Amendment 117 seeks to enable the CAA to impose pro-competition remedies at Heathrow. As noted, the CAA already has a well-established framework of powers relating to economic competition. These enable it to act where competition is not working effectively. It can impose and enforce licence conditions on dominant airports and has concurrent competition powers alongside the CMA. In short, the tools to act are already in place, and competition consideration is already embedded in the statutory duties.

We note, as the noble Lord did, that the CAA is currently consulting on aspects of the future regulatory framework at Heathrow, including options, as he mentioned, that relate to competition and the delivery of airport infrastructure. In answer to his question, the CAA does not believe it needs further powers if it chooses a more radical option. On his second question, about whether the Government will take a view on the CAA’s choices, I cannot say at the moment, but since the Heathrow expansion national policy statement has been launched, we will no doubt be able to in due course. I have no doubt that the noble Lord is engaging with those processes and, for that reason, we do not believe that this amendment is necessary.

The noble Lord asked on Tuesday about the department’s role in reducing the administrative burden of regulation on business by 25% in this Parliament. I can confirm that the department is working closely with regulators and with the Department for Business and Trade to identify legislative and practical changes to deliver that. We have already made progress: for example, changes to rules for large vehicle licence holders with diabetes, which reduce costs by several million pounds a year; and there are some examples of Civil Aviation Authority initiatives that contribute to a reduction in the administrative burden incurred by businesses, including investment in systems modernisation, the recent update to the Airspace Coordination and Obstacle Management Service, and the general aviation licensing and training simplification programme. I am very happy to write to him further, and I will do so.

[Lord Harper (Con)]

My Lords, I am grateful. On Amendment 108, I am very pleased that the Government are consulting on the process by which business rates revaluations are done for airports, given the necessity for capital expenditure over a significant period. I will look carefully at the results of that consultation. I am sure airports will have been, and are, responding to that consultation to make the arguments that they need to, so that is welcome.

On the extent to which competition should be one of the CAA’s objectives, I accept that the CAA has to balance objectives, and that is very sensible. If it were added to the Secretary of State’s letter, which sets out a range of objectives for the CAA, then the CAA would be able to balance those objectives as it is taking its decisions. I think that that is perfectly appropriate. As I said, all I would ask is that, when Ministers are formulating the next letter, they think about whether an explicit mention of competition is set out as part of one of the economic sections of that letter.

Finally, the Minister has confirmed more explicitly than he was able to at Second Reading that the CAA has all the powers it needs to do any of the options, including the more radical ones. I am sure that, when we no doubt get the opportunity in the House to ask questions about the Heathrow document, whatever it will now be called—

[Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill (Lab)]

It is the Heathrow expansion national policy statement.

[Lord Harper (Con)]

I thank the Minister for that prompt. When we get that opportunity, we can no doubt ask whether the Government will take a view. For very sensible reasons—and I am not trying to be mischievous—I was always very careful to let the CAA get on with their economic regulations, and there is a very strong argument; it is simply that, if the Government are very wedded to delivering the Heathrow third runway, they have to make sure that they are confident that the economic model will finance it. We will no doubt come back to that. With that, I beg leave to withdraw Amendment 108.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Pidgeon (LD)]

My Lords, the Clause 10 stand part notice tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Moylan, raises a point of constitutional principle that the Committee will wish to consider carefully. I draw attention to subsection (6), which enables regulations to be implemented using the negative procedure. Have the Government considered whether the affirmative procedure should apply to all regulations made under this clause, rather than only to those presently specified? Given that the power extends to modifying primary legislation, there is a reasonable case that every exercise of it should require the active approval of both Houses, rather than passing on the nod. Can the Minister confirm whether he is prepared to reflect further on that question before Report?

[Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill (Lab)]

My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Moylan, opposes the inclusion of Clause 10 in the Bill. I recognise the importance of proper parliamentary scrutiny where powers are taken to make consequential provision, particularly where those powers may be used to amend primary legislation. However, I reassure the noble Lord that this clause is both limited and appropriate. I note that the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee did not draw this clause to the attention of your Lordships’ House.

Clause 10 gives the Secretary of State a power to make consequential regulations so that the statute book properly reflects the changes made by the Bill. It is not a power to make substantive policy changes. The clause allows regulations to amend, appeal or revoke provision made by or under an Act passed before this Bill or later in the parliamentary Session, but only when that is consequential on the Bill. Importantly, where regulations made under this power amend or repeal primary legislation, they must be laid before Parliament and approved by both Houses under the affirmative procedure.

Such consequential powers are a common and practical feature of legislation used to ensure that the wider statute book works coherently once a Bill is enacted. In this case, the power is appropriately constrained and subject to the necessary parliamentary safeguards. Removing this clause would mean that the Government may need to rely on primary legislation to make minor changes and that, if there were delays, this could create inconsistencies in legislation and legal uncertainty.

I note the suggestion made by the noble Baroness, Lady Pidgeon, to reflect on Clause 6. I will, of course, consider that further. For those reasons, the Government consider it necessary to retain this power, and I hope the noble Lord will withdraw his opposition to Clause 10 standing part of the Bill.

[Lord Moylan (Con)]

My Lords, the fact is that the job has been done. The Minister did not address the point that all the relevant Acts have already been identified and that no further amendments are required. He did not explain—perhaps he cannot explain—what legislation this power should be used for. It is not constrained and, as the noble Baroness, Lady Pidgeon, said, some of its provisions, although not those that allow the alteration of primary legislation, can be processed using the negative procedure. It is not appropriate.

I will conclude very briefly. We started by identifying this Bill as a massive power grab. Our last discussion in Committee is yet more about massive power grabs. This is not the way to treat Parliament. I think many of these issues are going to come back on Report and there will be widespread opposition to the way the Government are conducting themselves. For now, however, I withdraw my opposition to Clause 10.

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

Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill Excerpts

Committee stage
Tuesday 16th June 2026 Grand Committee

[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.

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

My Lords, I am grateful to have the opportunity to discuss growth in the aviation sector and I thank the noble Lords, Lord Moylan and Lord Davies of Gower, for their amendments.

This Government’s primary mission is to deliver the highest sustained growth in the G7. Aviation has a vital role to play in achieving that ambition as a key enabler of international trade, investment and job creation across the United Kingdom. As the noble Lord, Lord Harper, said, that includes freight traffic as well as passenger traffic. Aviation is a dynamic, primarily private sector industry. Our regulatory framework must strike the right balance, supporting the sector to grow and innovate, while ensuring strong protections for consumers.

In addition to this Bill, we are taking forward a wide range of work to deliver this. We are modernising our airspace to improve efficiency and to ensure that it can meet the demands of the future. We are embedding a pro-growth approach across our regulatory system. Through the future of flight programme, we are creating the right conditions for innovation, unlocking the economic benefits of new technologies such as drones. Alongside that, airport expansion is an enabler of growth, subject of course to the relevant planning processes. As I set out at Second Reading, this Bill is separate from those processes. This approach will support a thriving aviation sector, strengthen our economy and deliver for passengers.

I turn now to the specifics of the amendments in this group, beginning with the amendment seeking a purpose clause. While I support the intention to drive growth, I do not consider this amendment necessary. Economic growth, investment and competitiveness, which we confirm will be delivered in relation to both passengers and freight traffic, are core to how we approach reforms in this sector. The Secretary of State already takes these matters into account as part of wider government policy and decision-making. She communicates such priorities, including the vital importance of economic growth, to the CAA annually. In practice, this amendment would place a statutory duty on the Secretary of State to have regard to these specified objectives when exercising the powers in the Act. While that might appear helpful, it risks narrowing the focus to a defined list of considerations.

These objectives, though important, cannot be exhaustive. Notably, they do not include safety, which is a fundamental objective of both the aviation sector and this Bill. Setting out only a limited set of considerations would prevent flexibility to balance a broader range of factors as circumstances require. I also note that the noble Lord’s explanatory statement suggests that this duty would extend to the Civil Aviation Authority. That authority is already subject to the statutory growth duty, which requires it to have regard to economic growth in a proportionate way. Ultimately, we believe that it is right that decisions taken under the Bill remain flexible, proportionate and responsive to the evidence, rather than being constrained by specific duties set out in primary legislation. I hope that the noble Lord will withdraw his amendment.

I turn next to the amendment on the promotion of economic growth under Clause 1. Any regulations laid under this power would be subject to growth assessments. These are a central part of policy development and ensure that full consideration is given to growth throughout policy development. Officials will also undertake an options and impact assessment, which requires careful consideration of the impact on business, as well as the impact on trade and investment, the ease of doing business in the UK and further economic growth. As this amendment would duplicate existing government obligations and processes, I cannot support putting it in primary legislation.

I turn to the amendment on alignment with international legislation and air passenger rights. The policy process for developing secondary legislation already includes a full assessment of the potential impacts on business, passengers and government, as well as justification for why government intervention is required. Supporting documentation for secondary legislation would set out the reasons for regulations being made. We will come to other amendments on this subject later, as the noble Baroness, Lady Grender, referred to. This amendment would duplicate existing processes and thus I hope that the noble Lord will not press it.

Finally, I turn to the amendment on regulatory burdens on business. I emphasise that the Government are already committed, across the whole of government, to reducing the cost of regulation to business. That is being taken forward in a co-ordinated and systematic way, including through regular reporting on changes to the administrative burden of regulation, which is collated and published across government. Indeed, as the published impact assessment makes clear, the overall effect of the Bill’s measures on an industry with the margins noted by the noble Lords, Lord Moylan and Lord Harper, is expected to reduce costs to business over time, particularly through improvements to the safety rule-making framework, which will provide greater clarity, consistency and efficiency.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Harper (Con)]

I want to press the Minister on my noble friend Lord Moylan’s Amendment 25. I completely understand why the Minister has taken the view that he has about not wanting it in the Bill. I do not expect him to be able to set this out today, but would he be able, perhaps when we come back for the second day of debate on Thursday, to set out for the Committee how the department is doing on its bit of hitting the Government’s target of reducing the administrative burdens on business by 25%? It would be helpful to know how the department is doing. I am sure that it is being tracked, because to hit that target there would have to be some metrics, and it would be helpful if the Minister could provide those to the Committee on Thursday.

[Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill (Lab)]

I will certainly see what information I have, and whatever I have I will tell him about on Thursday.

[Lord Moylan (Con)]

My Lords, I note that the Minister quotes the Delegated Powers Committee favourably. I hope, therefore, that he will be willing to accept, when we come to it, my later amendment, which gives effect to the recommendation of the Delegated Powers Committee that certain powers in the Bill be constrained. We will debate that, as I say, at a later stage.

I am grateful to noble Lords who have spoken on these amendments. I say a particular word of thanks to my noble friends Lord Davies of Gower and Lord Goschen for their contributions on the general aviation sector, which, as they say, is not always remembered with the prominence due to it. I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Grender, for the support that she found able to give to my amendments in general and to raising a case that we will pursue. I thought that the Minister might have been able to agree with my amendments in the same way, but he was not. He found somewhat footling reasons for saying that they were unnecessary. That only makes it more likely, I am afraid, that we will return to them on Report.

I am persuaded that when the Minister says that he is committed to a competitive and successful aviation sector, he is right. But he is not the only voice in Whitehall. That is why these amendments are so important. I do not imagine that the Minister was consulted when the Chancellor of the Exchequer decided to impose bone-crunching increases in business rates on the aviation sector that he wants to see remaining internationally competitive. I do not know the extent to which the Minister is consulted when DEZNZ—I hate that expression —is pushing for ever-increasing drop-off charges at airports. This is something that we will discuss again in considering further amendments, which clearly imposes a cost on flying for ordinary families, and is intended to do so, and which can only damage the aviation sector and make it less competitive. I was disappointed by what the Minister had to say. None the less, at this stage I beg leave to withdraw my amendment, although I expect to return to the matters on Report.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord in Waiting/Government Whip (Lord Katz) (Lab)]

Respectfully, before my noble friend responds for the Government, I point out to the Committee that it is a convention—I will put it no more strongly than that—that we let Back-Benchers come in before Front-Benchers. It rather dulls the flow of the argument if we go back from Front-Benchers to Back-Benchers. I urge all colleagues who want to make a contribution to do so before we get to Front-Benchers, because that generally aids the flow of debate.

[Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill (Lab)]

My Lords, these amendments raise important questions about how we strengthen air passenger rights. As I said at Second Reading, the strong intention of the Bill is to increase protections. The Government’s approach is to build on a strong existing framework while preserving the flexibility to act where it is most needed and avoiding unintended or overly prescriptive requirements. Taking each amendment in turn, I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Grey-Thompson, for her excellent work on the Aviation Accessibility Task and Finish Group report and for her amendments seeking to ensure that regulations are made in relation to the areas listed in Clause 1. I am very pleased to see the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, in her place supporting that.

I confirm that the Government intend to make a serious change in the experience of disabled people when flying. The intention of this clause is to provide a non-exhaustive list of areas that can be addressed through regulations. While regulations exist in many of these areas, requiring regulations in all these areas may have unintended consequences. The list of areas currently included could be considered an exhaustive list and therefore prevent amendments on other areas of air passenger rights. Equally, it could require amendments where they may not be required.

This amendment would also require that any regulation made under this clause to address all the areas listed, which would not be necessary for every regulation made under the clause. I reassure the noble Baroness that many of the areas listed are already covered by existing regulations. The Bill allows us to strengthen and update those protections over time, while retaining the flexibility to act where it is most needed. I will discuss with her and others what the next steps will be, to give confidence that action will be taken in secondary legislation, because that is firmly the Government’s intent. That is a commitment to the noble Baroness and others, including the noble Baroness, Lady Grender, and the noble Earl, Lord Russell. I hope that the noble Baroness, Lady Grey-Thompson, feels able to withdraw her amendment.

I thank the noble Lord, Lord Moylan, for his amendment on price transparency. I reassure him that there is already legislation in place to ensure this. All mandatory fees, taxes, charges and surcharges must be included and broken down in the final price paid by the passenger. In addition, any non-mandatory costs, such as baggage or seat selection fees, should be clearly displayed during booking and should be on an opt-in basis, meaning that passengers select which options they want for their trip. The Civil Aviation Authority is already responsible for ensuring that airlines meet those requirements. In response to the noble Lord’s question, I note that the CAA publishes comparison tables for passengers on the charges and fees of different airlines and airports. Clause 2 will strengthen the CAA’s enforcement toolkit, enabling it to deal more efficiently with non-compliance.

I note the point from the noble Earl, Lord Russell, on the current issues with Ryanair charging parents to sit with their children. He will appreciate that I cannot comment since it is currently under investigation by the Competition and Markets Authority. For the reasons I have set out, I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Moylan, will not press his amendment.

I turn to the amendments from the noble Lord, Lord Moylan, on travel intermediaries. Consumers should be able to rely on fair and transparent information and functionality wherever they book air travel. I reassure the noble Lord that existing regulations already set out a code of conduct on computerised reservation systems. This seeks to ensure transparent, fair and non-discriminatory approaches for airlines and intermediaries. Should future reforms be necessary on this issue, they would be possible under Clause 1.

The noble Lord’s proposal for the CAA to produce a code on access to airline fares and booking systems for travel intermediaries concerns commercial arrangements between airlines and intermediaries, rather than air passenger rights. These are business-to-business matters for industry, with competition concerns best addressed through the existing body of competition law. It is also not clear that there is sufficient evidence of consumer harm to justify this level of government intervention. Although intermediaries play a role in providing choice to customers, it is not established that this is currently being undermined by a lack of transparency from airlines. Established transparency requirements are already in place, as I have mentioned. If evidence showed that further intervention was needed, Clause 1 powers could be used to consider that properly. For those reasons, I ask the noble Lord not to press his amendment.

I thank the noble Earl, Lord Russell, for his amendment seeking to expand Clause 1 to require upfront information at the time of ticket sales, as well as minimum standards and automated payments for compensation. In addition to requirements for transparency around pricing, there are also clear rules about the rights of passengers during disruption, including when compensation is payable. Clause 1, as drafted, can be used to strengthen these rights further, and we can discuss the Government’s intentions around this.

The noble Lord, Lord Holmes, asked about Delay Repay, which the previous Government considered under a past consultation. It was clear that there were both benefits and risks inherent in this approach, and several respondents noted that aviation is not comparable to rail due to the operational complexities in aviation. However, this could be considered through Clause 1 powers if necessary.

Work is already happening—I will not use the word “ongoing”—to increase transparency around the environmental impact of journeys. The CAA published a framework on implementing consumer environmental information for UK flights earlier this year. Airlines and other relevant organisations are expected to take adequate steps towards implementing this by April 2027. As a result, I hope that the noble Earl feels able not to press his amendment.

I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Grender, for her amendment, which would make regulations on consistent hand baggage sizing. Although I appreciate that this would give consumers consistency, it could have unforeseen consequences for passengers. I cannot, therefore, support this amendment. Aircraft have different overhead and under-seat storage capacities. Setting a standard size would necessitate using the smallest aircraft capacity, resulting in many passengers needing to use a smaller case or bag. Many passengers appreciate the flexibility of choosing add-ons, such as baggage, in order to be able to make decisions about how they travel in a way that works for them. This amendment could force more passengers to use checked baggage, which often comes with an additional fee and time inconvenience due to the need to drop off and collect bags. Moreover, there could be unintended consequences for passengers. I hope that this enables the noble Baroness not to press her amendment.

I now move on to the amendments relating to cabin air quality in the names of the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay of Llandaff, and the noble Lord, Lord Empey. All of us will of course be grateful to the noble Baroness and others for responding to medical incidents aboard aircraft; I am especially grateful to the noble Baroness for her knowledge of this subject, which is far more detailed than my own.

The safety of passengers and crew is vital. The department recognises and takes seriously the concerns raised around cabin air quality. The Government have commissioned independent studies and evidence reviews relating to cabin air. The most recent evidence review by the Committee on Toxicity concluded that

“the concentrations of the chemical contaminants … reported in aircraft cabin air are unlikely to cause adverse health effects in aircrew following acute or long-term exposures”.

Commercial aircraft are already required to meet and maintain a number of design requirements for certification, which include ventilation and cabin air flow. The Government are committed to keeping this area—in particular, the technological innovations described by the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay—under review. Operators are also required to report and investigate any incidents involving toxic cabin air. The CAA’s expert medical team regularly reviews every suspected cabin air incident and takes action if it identifies a concerning trend. I hope that this provides reassurance that there is a continuous mechanism to identify and investigate any cabin air issues; and that noble Lords will therefore feel able not to press their amendments.

I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Grey-Thompson, for her amendment relating to the enforcement of regulations. The Government will ensure that any regulations made under Clause 1 can be properly enforced. This will be enhanced by the CAA’s direct enforcement powers, which are being introduced via Clause 2. The purpose of Clause 1(3) is to outline the types of enforcement provision that can be made in regulations under Clause 1. Amending the wording from “may” to “must” would mean that any regulations made under this clause would have to contain all the enforcement provisions listed. This would not be necessary for all regulations made under this clause. Consideration of any enforcement provisions will be given during the policy development and secondary legislation process. This will be subject to appropriate and full assessment of the available evidence. For these reasons, I hope that the noble Baroness will not press her amendment.

On alignment with the EU, I agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Grender, that we must maintain a high level of consumer protections in aviation. Since leaving the European Union, the UK has had the flexibility to set its own approach. The power in Clause 1 enables the UK to keep pace with the EU and, where we choose to do so, to go further. As I have said, the intention of Clause 1 is to strengthen and enhance air passenger rights through secondary legislation. This is in line with the shared UK-EU objective, under the trade and co-operation agreement, to achieve a high level of consumer protections; it also gives us flexibility to improve on these standards over time. However, requiring all future reforms to be “equal or superior” to the current standards is subjective and could have unintended consequences.

Similarly, on the noble Baroness’s further amendment on automatic alignment with Regulation 261/2004, requiring the UK to mirror both the current EU framework and any future changes to that regulation, including those currently in course in the EU, would place a statutory obligation to follow EU reforms without discretion. Although we continue to monitor developments closely, it is important that the UK retains the flexibility to design a complex compensation regime based on the evidence, consultation and what works best for UK passengers and the aviation sector. Therefore, although I agree with the intent that the Bill is used to strengthen rather than reduce protections—and I believe that Clause 1 would allow for this—I would welcome further discussion on this. Meanwhile, I ask the noble Baroness not to press her amendment.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Moylan (Con)]

My Lords, there is the case of airports such as Heathrow—admittedly few in number—that are economically regulated on the basis of a regulated asset base. Assuming that it was approved by the CAA acting as economic regulator, a Heathrow investment in infrastructure would be added to the regulated asset base, and it would earn its return that way. It does not defray those returns on the grounds that it has income from shops, drop-off charges and so on; they are pure bonus to the shareholders.

[Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill (Lab)]

I note the noble Lord’s point on Heathrow and other airports that have a regulated asset base. Airports must retain the ability to manage their own infrastructure. The Government’s role is to ensure that competition and consumer laws are protected and upheld. Ultimately, each airport operator must justify the charges they levy and show that they are fair, transparent and carried out with proper accountability. For those reasons, I hope noble Lords will feel able not to press their amendments.

I thank the noble Lord, Lord Young of Cookham, for his amendment relating to reimbursement for airlines if delays are caused by air traffic management, and I note the support from the noble Baroness, Lady Foster of Oxton, and others. Long delays and cancellations that are caused by air traffic management decisions are considered extraordinary circumstances under the current law, and therefore compensation is not due to passengers in those cases. None the less, the airlines are responsible for providing refunds, or care to passengers, such as meals and refreshments, when there are such delays and cancellations, provided certain qualifying conditions are met.

I note that National Air Traffic Services is subject to a robust regulatory regime overseen by the Civil Aviation Authority, and it includes performance targets linked to delays and a financial penalty mechanism when these targets are not met, meaning that NATS must reduce what it charges airlines in the following period. This is at least currently the effective penalty on NATS for poor performance.

I recognise that the noble Lord has diligently pursued this issue across the previous Government and this one. With relative joy, I have discovered how many previous Secretaries of State there are not only on the opposition Benches but in this Room. I am very grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Harper, for his explanation of what happened in the case that the noble Lord, Lord Young of Cookham, referred to. He supposes that I have some sympathy with the proposition that, somehow, the charges levied on Network Rail did not act as the incentive that they were supposed to. He is right, which is why the Railways Bill does not go in that direction. I am grateful to him—seriously—for explaining what decision he came to in that particular case, because he is right that the shareholding of NATS is very far from a conventional commercial company with a range of shareholders.

I hope I have never been grudging. I may—as the noble Lord, Lord Moylan, probably thinks frequently—be unpersuasive, but I think I owe the noble Lord, Lord Young, at least the courtesy of a meeting on this subject to understand better what he has said and to see whether the current Government’s position ought to be the same as what the noble Lord, Lord Harper, described in his Government’s case, or whether there is a persuasive case for change.

[Lord Empey (UUP)]

I thank the Minister for his response on Amendment 41 regarding drop-off charges. I understand the argument that an airport operator can manage its own property, but we have to distinguish between parking and dropping off. The dropping-off charge is almost a penalty for not parking. We also have to take into account the fact that these airports, by and large, are monopolies because of where they are: people perhaps do not have an option of going to another airport.

It is becoming a growing revenue stream and it can affect regional connectivity but also the economic model. It can put another charge on business, if that is what it is, or on tourism. I will look at Hansard and see exactly what the Minister said, but it is not a simple matter and I do not think it is an issue that will go away, because it is growing and growing. It started off at £1 and, as I said, in Edinburgh it is now £8.50. But what is the alternative for somebody going to drop someone off at Edinburgh Airport? Do they go to Glasgow Airport? It is a monopoly.

[Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill (Lab)]

I should just say that of course I respect the views of the noble Lord, Lord Empey, and if he looks at Hansard and considers what I said, I will similarly consider further what he said.

[Baroness Grey-Thompson (CB)]

My Lords, I thank everyone who has taken part in the debate this afternoon. I would just like to pick up on a couple of points relating to my amendments, and I will try not to run into the next group.

The noble Lord, Lord Empey, makes some valuable points about the drop-off charges. Although I have not had emails on that specifically to do with airports, disabled people have issues in terms of access and technology and might find physically paying some of these charges quite hard to do. Although we should be trying to get disabled people and everybody to travel to airports by public transport, that highlights a bigger set of problems that we have with wheelchair-accessible transport in this country.

An amendment was not passed on wheelchair-accessible taxis outside London. It might be quite hard, if you have a specially designed WAV with hand controls, to take it to off-site parking. So, if you then use transport around the airport, there is a whole issue with not being tied down in the buses to get from the parking to the airport. My husband is not a permanent wheelchair user, but if we are going on holiday, he will quite often take his wheelchair with him because he struggles to walk long distances. We would not be able to travel on the same bus together because of the current rules.

The noble Baroness, Lady Grender, raised hand luggage and made me think of a different aspect not raised today: travelling with medical aids. I have had some emails about that. Some airlines are great, do not charge and are very accommodating, and some are not. It might be a piece of equipment such as a hoist that needs to go into the hold, or something like a CPAP machine, which absolutely needs to be on board with an individual and which is safe to fly with. I think some of that might come into the training in the next group.

I bow to my noble friend Lady Finlay’s greater knowledge on air quality, but the Task and Finish Group looked extensively at toilets. That is outside our jurisdiction in terms of the design, but we could do so much better at the design of toilets. There are some really good examples. The airline crew should help disabled people to the toilet, but not in the toilet—absolutely not. However, because of the poor design of toilets on planes, most people, including myself, absolutely dehydrate ourselves before we fly to make sure that we do not have to use them, even on long haul flights, which creates a whole different set of problems for safety on board a plane. Any influence we could have on smart design—probably outside the Bill—would be very helpful.

I thank the noble Lord for his response; I understand what he is saying. I will be bringing possibly a different version of this amendment back. I do not think it is impossible to look at a form of words that is a tighter list. Maybe a new clause needs to be inserted to give disabled travellers more reassurance on what the Government are trying to do. But at this stage I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.

--- Later in debate ---

[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.

[Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill (Lab)]

My Lords, I am grateful to noble Lords for their thoughtful and powerful contributions on accessibility and consumer protection. The noble Baroness, Lady Grender, is right that we should not have to hear these stories. Some of them are simply dreadful, and the worst thing is that they are only examples.

The Government share the objective behind the amendments that disabled passengers and others who need assistance should be able to travel by air with confidence, dignity and appropriate redress when things go wrong. It is for those reasons that the Government established the Aviation Accessibility Task and Finish Group. I have already welcomed the report of July last year from the noble Baroness, Lady Grey-Thompson.

Before turning to individual amendments, I should make one point that applies to very many of them. Clauses 1 and 2 are designed to provide powers to strengthen passenger rights and enforcement. The Government’s view is that detailed requirements relating to passenger rights are best developed through secondary legislation, following consultation, evidence gathering and impact assessment, rather than fixed in primary legislation now, when the time to do those things is insufficient. I ask noble Lords to keep these common factors in mind as I progress but, to be clear, I will gladly meet interested Members of your Lordships’ House to discuss each individual amendment and describe further the Government’s intentions. To gently contradict the noble Lord, Lord Blencathra, Ministers will have influence on what is brought forward in the regulations; it will not just be civil servants who propose. However, I will be asking noble Lords not to press their amendments, for the reasons I will set out.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Foster of Oxton (Con)]

My Lords, I support the thinking behind the comments made by my noble friends.

For clarification, if we are looking at consumer rights, it is the Civil Aviation Authority that has dealt with the public over a number of years when the public have not been satisfied with the compensation for delays or cancellations that they have received from an airline. The CAA is already doing that and playing that role. Do the Government see the CAA continuing with that particular role in such cases? That is one question.

Secondly, when we start to look at the Competition and Markets Authority, I do not see how you can have two authorities basically dealing with the same things. We know that the Civil Aviation Authority has the expertise in these fields, which is quite right, whatever we might object to in terms of powers. I am not sure who came up with the idea of the competition authority coming into decisions that should be made by the CAA as a regulator. I would be very interested to know from the Minister how this thought—that there could be two regulatory authorities dealing with civil aviation, its merits and everything that goes on around it—came about.

[Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill (Lab)]

My Lords, this group concerns the consumer rights powers in the Bill and the scrutiny of those powers. I am grateful to noble Lords for their amendments. The Government’s objective is a coherent, effective and proportionate consumer protection regime for aviation passengers.

Before I turn to the individual amendments, I will make three points that apply across this group. First, Clause 1 does not in itself create new powers of entry or financial penalties; it simply enables regulations to be made, with their scope, safeguards and detail being considered when they are brought forward. Secondly, the Government believe that detailed requirements should be developed through secondary legislation, with consultation, options appraisal and an impact assessment where appropriate. Thirdly, the Bill preserves flexibility so that the CAA, the CMA and the Government can respond effectively to consumer harms that may cut across aviation and wider markets. Where I refer to duplication, proportionality or flexibility, these are the common justifications that I have in mind.

Let me begin with Amendments 8 and 18 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Moylan, which are supported by the noble Baroness, Lady Foster, and concern the role of the Competition and Markets Authority. Although most aviation-specific enforcement relating to information gathering and powers of entry will sit with the CAA in practice, the CMA has a broader, market-wide role—including in sectors that overlap with aviation, such as travel and holidays. The CAA and the CMA already have concurrent powers in relation to general consumer law. Removing the CMA from this framework could limit flexibility and make it harder to address problems that span aviation and wider consumer markets. Therefore, in the Government’s view, it is right to retain the ability to include the CMA where necessary. The precise role of each regulator will be considered when secondary legislation is drafted. I therefore ask the noble Lord not to press his amendments.

I turn next to the amendment from the noble Lord, Lord Grayling, which seeks to remove the power of entry provision in Clause 1. I am afraid that I cannot support it. The Bill is designed to improve the CAA’s enforcement ability and to reduce reliance on slow, resource-intensive court processes. Clause 2 strengthens the CAA’s direct information-gathering powers. Clause 1 enables those powers to be strengthened further, if needed, including by enabling powers to enter premises or to require documents and information during the course of an investigation. Any such power would be considered carefully, consulted on and include appropriate safeguards when regulations are brought forward.

I also assure the noble Lord that these wide enforcement powers, including powers of entry, fell within Section 2 of the European Communities Act 1972. Much passenger rights law originated in EU law and has now been assimilated into UK law. Since our exit from the EU, primary legislation has generally been needed to amend it. Clause 1 restores the necessary degree of flexibility while preserving parliamentary scrutiny and future consultation. I ask the noble Lord not to press his amendment.

[Lord Grayling (Con)]

I have a simple question. What the Minister has not done is explain why it is necessary. What are the problems that this is designed to solve?

[Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill (Lab)]

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

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

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

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

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

Amendment 34 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Moylan, concerns the jurisdiction of the CAA and the CMA in aviation consumer protection. Paragraph 6 of Schedule 1 already enables regulations to set out how the two authorities co-ordinate, decide which is best placed to act and avoid duplication, including through joint working. The CAA will also have regard to the CMA’s rules, supporting consistent enforcement. A fixed approach in primary legislation would reduce flexibility and risk constraining effective enforcement. I therefore ask the noble Lord not to press Amendment 34.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Moylan (Con)]

I am very grateful, but does the syllabus not determine the content of the training? It is a matter we can take up outside—it is not something we need to detain the Committee on at the moment—but I am very grateful to the noble Lord for making it clear what he said and putting me right to that extent. I had no wish to put words into his mouth, but I was just struck by what he said.

I wanted to come back briefly to the question of UK-EU alignment on this. It would, of course, be very good if there were mutual recognition between the UK and the EU, but it would also be very good if there were mutual recognition between the UK and the US. I am not entirely sure why there is this relentless focus on the EU. In the days when we had freedom of movement—mercifully, we do not anymore, because we voted against it—mutual recognition would mean that a pilot could move from one country to another and live there and pursue his calling in those countries. That is no longer the case, any more than it is with the United States, so the argument for a specific arrangement with the European Union seems to me to fall largely by the wayside. Apart from that, I thank my noble friend Lord Davies of Gower for his contribution, and I look forward to hearing what the Minister has to say in the four minutes remaining.

[Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill (Lab)]

My Lords, I will do my best to speak as fast as I can, subject only to clarity. I turn to the next group, which covers workforce, skills and innovation. I am grateful to noble Lords for their amendments. Across this group, the Government share the underlying aim of ensuring that aviation remains safe, secure, innovative and supported by the skilled workforce it needs.

Before addressing each amendment, I will make a point that applies to several of them. In areas such as artificial intelligence, cyber security, emerging technology and skills, the Government’s view is that regulation must remain flexible, proportionate and capable of keeping pace with fast-moving developments. Where existing legislation, CAA functions, cross-government work or established programmes already address the issue, placing detailed duties in the Bill risks duplication, inconsistency and unnecessary administrative burden. I will refer back to that common justification where relevant.

I begin with Amendment 31, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Holmes of Richmond, on artificial intelligence safeguards. As he does, I recognise the importance of ensuring that AI is used fairly, transparently and responsibly. At present, the CAA does not use AI to make regulatory decisions, and any future consideration will require board approval. However, there are protections already in place should it do so. The CAA is subject to data protection legislation and Equality Act duties, which require fairness, transparency, accountability and appropriate human oversight in decision-making. Amendment 31 would duplicate those obligations and introduce a prescriptive statutory framework in an area where guidance, assurance processes and evolving standards are more suitable. AI policy is also being developed on a cross-government basis, led by DSIT, and legislation here in isolation risks cutting across that wider work. For those reasons, and applying the common point about flexibility and avoiding duplication, I ask the noble Lord to withdraw Amendment 31.

Amendment 32, also from the noble Lord, Lord Holmes, is on cyber security and legacy systems. Robust cyber security across aviation is essential. The CAA already has deep cyber experience and robust protocols and is subject to expectations in the Government’s cyber action plan. The Network and Information Systems Regulations require regulated entities to manage risks and prevent and minimise the impact of incidents. That already includes considering risks from legacy systems, with compliance assessed and enforced by the CAA.

There is also a wider legislative context. The cyber security and resilience Bill is designed to strengthen the UK’s cyber regulatory framework on a system-wide basis and allows further security and resilience requirements to be introduced through secondary legislation, following consultation. Stand-alone requirements in this Bill would risk fragmenting that coherent approach. I therefore ask the noble Lord not to press his amendment.

I thank the noble Lord, Lord Davies of Gower, for Amendment 65A, and the noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, for his observations on this matter. Instrument approaches to airfields are subject to specific CAA approvals that ensure that pilots can safely land using their instruments when a visual approach is not possible, usually due to poor weather. These focus on ensuring that instrument landings and approaches can be undertaken safely, rather than adding an additional requirement for the airfield also to train pilots for instrument approaches.

There are also detailed requirements for training in international and UK safety regulations. Requiring training would not be appropriate for all airfields. Smaller airfields may not be able to accommodate this, and it may also be unsuitable for larger, busier airports where the operational environment and potential disruption to commercial flights make such requirements impractical. This amendment could, therefore, decrease the number of airfields that allow instrument approaches, making it more difficult for pilots to find places to land in poor weather. We will ask the CAA to give further consideration to this issue, but we are not convinced that it is a matter for primary legislation. I therefore ask the noble Lord not to press this amendment.

Airports Slot Allocation (Alleviation of Usage Requirements) Regulations 2026

Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill Excerpts

Wednesday 10th June 2026 Grand Committee

Moved by

[Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill]

That the Grand Committee do consider the Airports Slot Allocation (Alleviation of Usage Requirements) Regulations 2026.

Relevant document: 3rd Report from the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee. Instrument not yet reported by the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments.

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

My Lords, airport slots are permissions that allow airlines to take off and land at specific dates and times. They are a valuable resource at capacity-constrained airports. The UK currently has nine such airports, including the main five London airports—Gatwick, Heathrow, London City, Luton and Stansted—as well as Birmingham, Bristol, Leeds Bradford and Manchester.

These regulations are necessary in the context of the continuing conflict in the Middle East, which is creating disruption and uncertainty for the aviation sector and therefore for airline passengers. The Government have therefore designed a hand-back measure for slots for the summer and winter 2026 seasons, which will allow airlines to return up to 10% of their slots, if necessary, without losing the right to those same slots the following year.

The use of this hand-back does not need to link to fuel shortage, because there is no fuel shortage at present, as UK airlines have stated. However, the impact of the continuing conflict in the Middle East is more nuanced and wide-ranging. Airlines are facing longer flight paths, increased fuel costs and, in some cases, shifting passenger demand, particularly on routes affected by regional instability. These regulations provide flexibility to manage genuine operational challenges and reduce the risk of last-minute cancellations. There is therefore a need for intervention.

The developments in the Middle East remain unpredictable and continue to put undue pressure on the aviation sector. These pressures are completely outside the control of airlines, but are nevertheless having an impact on their ability to operate as planned. Without intervention, airlines would not be able to respond to known risks to their operations and passengers would be exposed to last-minute cancellations and disruption at the departure gates. These regulations respond directly to the uncertainty and operational impact of the Middle East conflict by providing limited, targeted flexibility, while maintaining the overall integrity of the slot allocation system.

The statutory instrument allows airlines to hand back up to 10% of their allocated slots at slot co-ordinated airports across the UK. These are the UK’s busiest and most capacity-constrained airports, where demand for take-off and landing times is greater than the available capacity. As I said, the regulations apply for the summer and winter 2026 scheduling seasons. Airlines will be able to hand back up to 10% of their slots without losing their historic entitlement to these slots in the following equivalent season.

This 10% flexibility is split into two stages. Airlines may return up to 5% of their slots by a specified date in each season and a further 5% throughout the remainder of the season. To return slots under these regulations, airlines must give passengers at least 14 days’ notice if a flight is cancelled. This approach strikes a careful balance. It provides airlines with some flexibility to adjust their schedules to mitigate impacts of the conflict in the Middle East, while keeping passenger protections at the forefront. Importantly, the measure is time-limited, because it applies only to the summer and winter 2026 seasons, ensuring a proportionate response to current circumstances.

The regulations also allow returned slots to be reallocated where possible. This helps to ensure that valuable airport capacity is not left unused if the situation in the Middle East were to take a definitive positive turn. It also enables airlines that are less exposed to wider impacts of the conflict in the Middle East to step in and make use of returned slots to meet passenger demand. The draft instrument being considered today applies to England, Scotland and Wales. Airports are a devolved matter in Northern Ireland, but there are currently no slot co-ordinated airports in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland.

The Government undertook a targeted consultation with airlines, airports and other sector stakeholders on our proposal for alleviation for the summer and winter 2026 seasons. The consultation received a total of 59 responses. There was strong support among airlines for the proposed slots hand-back provision, albeit that most wanted the hand-back threshold to be 20%. Airports were generally opposed to alleviation being granted and wanted a lower threshold for hand-back. The Government have therefore adopted a balanced position, providing a 10% hand-back for summer and winter 2026. This gives airlines enough room to manage a genuine operational challenge if it arises, while making sure that they cannot use it on cancellations that go well beyond what the situation requires.

Furthermore, in the light of the consultation, and airport responses in particular, we have ensured that slots that are handed back can be reallocated. This ensures that where airlines are able to make use of these slots, they can be picked up, so that valuable airport capacity is not wasted, striking an appropriate balance between flexibility for airlines and efficient use of airport infra- structure. During times of crisis or widespread destruction —for example, during Covid-19—the Government have stepped in to provide alleviation from slot usage requirements over and above the existing justified non-utilisation of slots provisions set out in the slots regulation. Most recently, in summer 2022, the Government implemented a 30% hand-back to stabilise airport operations and reduce disruption for passengers.

The Government are grateful to the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee for its careful consideration of this instrument. I will now address the comments that it raised. The 10% hand-back provision was consulted on and a range of views was received. While many airlines argued for a higher threshold, no substantive evidence was provided. Ministers concluded that 10% represents an appropriate and proportionate balance supported by the available evidence.

On passenger impact, the 14-day notice period aligns with previous slot alleviation measures and, where airlines return slots, passengers are protected under UK law and are entitled to a refund or rerouting. Wider rights, including compensation in some cases, are set out in aviation consumer protection rules. The existing justified non-utilisation of slots regime—JNUS—is reactive and does not support forward planning, increasing the risk of late cancellations. This measure addresses this gap.

On the final points raised, the Government continue to monitor fuel supply closely and engage with industry, with UK airlines reporting no current shortages. Finally, the powers underpinning this instrument expire on 23 June 2026, under the retained EU law Act. Replacement powers are being sought through the civil aviation Bill and any future use will depend on the prevailing circumstances.

The policy intent behind these measures is clear: to support a resilient aviation sector while protecting passengers and the environment. First and foremost, they support better planning for passengers. By enabling airlines to adjust schedules in advance, passengers are more likely to receive early notice of cancellations, rather than facing last-minute disruption at the airport.

Noble Lords may be considering why the Government are acting now, before any acute or system-wide shortage of fuel has materialised. The answer is that this is a preventive, forward-looking measure. The disruption caused by the conflict in the Middle East is already affecting airline operations, costs and demand patterns. Waiting until those pressures result in widespread cancellations or operational instability would risk greater disruption to passengers and the sector. By acting now, the Government are enabling airlines to plan ahead, adjust schedules in an orderly way and provide passengers with meaningful notice of changes, rather than reacting at the last minute.

Secondly, these regulations reduce the risk of unnecessary flights. By removing the pressure to operate flights purely to retain slots, we expect fewer near-empty aircraft in the skies. This enables more efficient use of jet fuel stocks and aviation network capacity.

Thirdly, they help protect connectivity. Airport slots underpin route networks that have been built up over many years. Allowing airlines to retain their historic rights, despite temporary disruption, helps ensure that those connections can be restored once conditions stabilise.

Finally, these measures support the financial stability of airlines. Without them, if an airline was aware of issues that would make it difficult to operate a flight, it would face a choice between continuing with plans to run it anyway or cancelling it at the last minute and potentially losing that slot at the airport permanently.

To close, these regulations represent a practical, proportionate response to a specific and challenging set of circumstances. They maintain the integrity of the slot allocation system while introducing temporary flexibility to reflect real-world pressures. They support airlines, benefit passengers and help avoid unnecessary environmental harm. Above all, they are a measured intervention that is time-limited, targeted and grounded in the realities facing the aviation sector today. I hope that noble Lords will recognise the balance that has been struck and will join me in supporting these measures. I beg to move.

[Lord Kirkhope of Harrogate (Con)]

My Lords, I declare my interests as a pilot, an honorary vice-president of BALPA, the pilots’ union, and a former director of an airport. I generally welcome these provisions but, of course, they are part of the assimilated law of the EU —quite conveniently so, in fact, in that we can make alterations of this kind to the slots system. I want to question the Minister a little on one or two aspects of this instrument.

As we know, and as is referred to in the Explanatory Memorandum, slots are a major asset of airlines. Sometimes, they are actually worth more than the whole of the rest of the airline put together, including its aircraft and all the rest. So they are enormously valuable. The allocation of slots is, therefore, a critical matter; of course, that also includes any slots that become available for reallocation.

The Minister referred to this being a temporary measure. I would like to get a confirmation from him. He said that it relates to the Middle East conflict, but he then spoke later about the jet fuel situation and so on. That is clearly a looming threat, I suppose, but it is not the main argument here. The main argument he is deploying is that the Middle East conflict means that a lot of airlines are no longer able to carry out their normal routes as they would like to do and that, consequently, the aim is to avoid the nonsense of having aircraft running without passengers, as it were, as has been the case in a number of instances.

Allowing airlines to have their slots put back and then used at a later date seems to make sense, except for the fact that, as I read it, the measure ultimately talks about a five-year term with a review. The Minister said that it is a short-term measure for 2026. Can he confirm to me that that is the case? Can he also confirm that the other element written in here somewhere—the five-year term and review—is not relevant to this point? I would be very grateful for some confirmation on that.

--- Later in debate ---

I cannot fail to mention the huge damage that has been done to airports by the Government’s bone-crushing business rate increases, as I called them the other day. They must understand that adding these extra difficulties and costs to the operation of airports is a threat to the aviation system in this country. I hope that the Minister can answer those questions, that I have been sufficiently clear in asking them and that those which do not get a full answer today will be answered in writing afterwards, to be shared with other Members of the Grand Committee.

[Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill (Lab)]

I thank all noble Lords for their consideration of these draft regulations and for the thoughtful points that have been raised. I will attempt to answer as many as I can now. On those that I cannot, I will write to the noble Lord concerned and to other noble Lords present.

I thank the noble Lord, Lord Kirkhope of Harrogate, who has considerable experience. I cannot find in the draft statutory instrument any reference to a five-year term. The measure put forward today is about only the summer season and the winter season of 2026. He will find the permanent proposition for slot regulation in the civil aviation Bill, which I have no doubt he is studying more or less as we speak. I hope that will satisfy him, but if not we can discuss it afterwards.

My understanding about the three types of airport and what might trigger a change in categorisation is that it is triggered by the airport itself and by the level of potential use and, therefore, congestion. The company itself, Airport Coordination Limited, is clearly very efficient, with 40 employees, but there is a wider point that goes to some of the questions. A lot of this is about the stability of both the airlines and the airports sector. We are good at this in Britain, and we want the airline sector to prosper. We have to give it some stability in circumstances in which the international situation has destabilised it a bit.

I cannot answer the noble Lord, Lord Grayling, about the impact on individual airlines. He is clearly right that airlines that fly directly to the Middle East will be more affected than those that do not. On the impact of the wider geopolitical circumstances for any potential fuel shortage, I am very happy to confirm that the Government do not currently believe that there is an airline fuel shortage, but there could be in future, and if there is, we need to make adequate preparation for it in advance. It is quite hard to know where that might apply, so we have to apply some general thought to how we manage this. A lot of what is going on here is about giving some stability and certainty to airlines to resume normal business when they can, and it is about what happens, proportionately, to airports that rely on a throughput of passengers.

[Lord Grayling (Con)]

The question I raised with the Minister is absolutely central to the Government’s decision to take a 5% or 10% figure. He said that the airlines wanted more. I explained a very specific circumstance in which one particular airline—there will be many others affected in that way—would need more. He therefore needs to explain why the Government have fixed on this figure when the airlines said that it was not the right figure and common sense says that many would need more.

[Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill (Lab)]

I thank the noble Lord. The answer is that the airlines provided little or no evidence of any figure but would prefer more because that would give them more flexibility in circumstances where airports would have preferred this not to happen.

[Lord Grayling (Con)]

I am not interested in what the airlines said they wanted, because the department took the decision to alight on a particular figure. The Minister has not explained why the department took that decision, when simple common sense says that many airlines would need a different figure because of the basic arithmetic I described to him earlier.

[Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill (Lab)]

The answer to that point, whether or not it satisfies the noble Lord, is that we have to do something in general in these circumstances. Previous circumstances of various sorts have produced different figures. The Covid figure was 30%; I do not know how that was calculated. We feel the need to do something because we have to give some certainty both to airlines and to potential airline passengers. I take his point about the geographical differences and will certainly write to him further about what individual airlines in those circumstances said. I have no evidence that certain airlines proposed huge differences, but I will certainly go away and find out about that.

E-scooters and E-bikes

Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill Excerpts

Tuesday 9th June 2026 Lords Chamber

[Lord Storey]

To ask His Majesty’s Government what assessment they have made of the use of electric bikes and scooters on roads.

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

The Government recognise the role that light electric vehicles, including electric cycles and scooters, can play in supporting economic growth, improving health and reducing emissions. The electric cycles that comply with regulations are already permitted on public roads, and the Government recently legislated to improve the regulation of shared bike schemes. E-scooters are being tested through shared rental trials to assess their benefits and safety, while private e-scooters remain illegal for use on public roads. We will consult on proposals for e-scooters in the next few months.

[Lord Storey (LD)]

My Lords, last October, Sandy Peters was walking on a pavement in south London with her son—it was his birthday—when a hired bike hit her at full speed. Her face went into a brick wall. She spent seven days in hospital, facing £10,000-worth of dental surgery. She has no way of recovering that money, because the company that hired out the bike carries no rider liability insurance. The rider was 16 and should have never hired a bike, but the age checks failed and the law required none. Nobody was held to account. Does the Minister not think it time to sort out the problems of e-bikes and e-scooters once and for all?

[Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill (Lab)]

The first thing to say is that we absolutely sympathise with somebody with such terrible injuries in those circumstances; our hearts go out to them and their family. As part of the powers the Government have taken on shared cycles, we will have powers to set insurance requirements. No decisions have yet been taken, but we will consult on them as a consequence of the powers given in the English Devolution and Community Empowerment Act for precisely the reason given by the noble Lord: hire schemes need some rules, and that legislation enables us to set them.

[Lord Krebs (CB)]

My Lords, where I live, in Oxford, one of the problems with e-bikes and e-scooters is that, all too often, they are dumped on the footpath and block the way for, in particular, mothers with prams and pushchairs, elderly people and the sight-impaired. In this context, in the past 18 months, Kensington and Chelsea Council has removed more than 2,500 illegally parked e-bikes and e-scooters and has charged the operators £210,000 for doing so. Does the Minister think that other councils, including Oxfordshire County Council, should be encouraged to follow the lead of Kensington and Chelsea?

[Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill (Lab)]

I do.

[Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Con)]

My Lords, does the Minister have a timetable for the introduction in law of the insurance scheme? He knows from our discussions during the passage of the English devolution Bill that the Motor Insurers’ Bureau is very keen on this. Can he also look outside Parliament at the new super highway for bicycles that is being built, and give an assurance that there will be safe crossings for pedestrians to reach the House of Lords and other aspects of Parliament? At the moment, cyclists and e-scooters are not stopping at the traffic lights, and it is incredibly dangerous for visitors and parliamentarians alike to cross the road at Abingdon Street.

[Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill (Lab)]

It was a surprise to the House authorities, just as it was to noble Lords, that construction of that scheme started on Saturday without notice. I and the department would expect the scheme to be designed in accordance with all the right design principles for cycling. I would also expect, as has been remarked in here before, all road users to observe their duty to comply with the law, which includes cyclists stopping at red lights.

[Lord Shamash (Lab)]

My Lords, I ought to declare an interest, in that I do not like electric bikes or electric scooters, so at least noble Lords know where I am coming from. Being stationary at a red traffic light and being overtaken by bikes that do not pay the slightest heed to the traffic signals is really frustrating to watch, not least given the speed at which some of them can travel. Will the Government give serious thought to negotiating with the companies? We understand the 20 mph limit, which I and a number of my colleagues in the House find incredibly frustrating. It would be useful if these bikes had speed limiters, so that the fastest they can go is 19 mph. Can that be taken on board? Will the Government negotiate with the bicycle companies to make sure that they do all they can to make these bikes as safe as possible for other road users?

[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.

[Lord Rogan (UUP)]

My Lords, e-scooters cannot be used legally anywhere in Northern Ireland, except on private land with the owner’s permission. However, according to the most recent figures, three people have died and 51 have been seriously injured in Northern Ireland due to e-scooter collisions. Under current legislation, the PSNI must issue a warning before any e-scooters can be seized. Does the Minister agree that the removal of this legal obstacle, enabling officers to act immediately, would be incredibly helpful in enabling them to better protect the Northern Ireland public from reckless e-scooter riders?

[Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill (Lab)]

The Crime and Policing Act 2026 gave police stronger powers to seize vehicles being used anti-socially, without first requiring a warning. It also introduced new respect orders enabling police and councils to ban persistent offenders from areas where they cause harm. I am not familiar with whether that legislation applies to Northern Ireland, but I will write to the noble Lord to confirm that.

[Lord Young of Cookham (Con)]

My Lords, it is time someone spoke up for the cyclist. Unlike the noble Lord, Lord Shamash, I like e-bikes. I am one of a number of noble Lords on the other side of middle age who use e-bikes—legal e-bikes—to get around. Our case is undermined by illegal e-bikes being driven dangerously, often by delivery drivers. The City of London Police confiscates and destroys five illegal e-bikes every week. Should not more police forces do that and give wide publicity to that, in order to reduce this abuse?

[Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill (Lab)]

The noble Lord is right, and in pursuit of his desires, the Metropolitan Police recently seized 52 illegal e-bikes and mopeds. A total of 2,741 were seized across 2025-26. West Midlands Police seized more than 50, and Greater Manchester Police seized six and removed 55 locally. Merseyside Police seized over 500, Nottinghamshire Police around 100 and South Yorkshire Police over 150. So, we are starting to see proper enforcement across Britain, and the more publicity all that gets, the better.

[Lord Moylan (Con)]

My Lords, I want to throw my tuppence into this. Building on the question asked by the noble Lord, Lord Krebs, what strikes me is just how shoddy and tawdry our great city streets are looking. They have been turned into great parking lots of bikes for the benefit of private companies. Is the Minister not moved to do more than simply recite a series of legal requirements imposed on bicyclists that nobody ever complies with?

[Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill (Lab)]

Gosh. The answer to that is the ability, through the English Devolution and Community Empowerment Act, to allow local leaders to license shared cycle schemes. This is precisely the measure that will enable local authorities to clean up streets, at least in respect of bikes. As we go forward with proposals for e-scooters, I have no doubt that the same powers will feature. The noble Lord does have a good point, especially in relation to people with partial or no sight, or other disabilities. Littering the pavements and streets with these things is hugely undesirable for ordinary people trying to walk about and make use of their towns and cities.

Clean Air Zones Central Services (Fees) (England) (Amendment) Regulations 2026

Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill Excerpts

Tuesday 9th June 2026 Lords Chamber

Moved by

[Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill]

That the draft Regulations laid before the House on 20 April be approved.

Relevant document: 2nd Report from the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee

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

My Lords, this debate will deal with both the statutory instrument and the regret amendment laid by the noble Lord, Lord Moylan. These regulations make two principal amendments to the Clean Air Zones Central Services (Fees) Regulations 2020. First, the regulations extend the period during which local authorities may be charged for using the clean air zone central services website from 31 March 2027 to 31 March 2031. Secondly, they increase the fee that local authorities will pay to use the central services from £2 to £4 per transaction as a step towards full cost recovery. The regulations are intended to come into force on 1 September 2026.

As background, clean air zones encourage green travel by charging older, more polluting vehicles a fee to enter such zones. They have been introduced selectively where evidence shows that air quality is worse than the standards set out in the Air Quality Standards Regulations 2010; where they are the quickest way to reduce nitrogen dioxide in the local area; and where other options would not deliver the same results so quickly. There are currently seven clean air zones operated by local authorities in England: Bath and north-east Somerset, Birmingham, Bradford, Bristol, Portsmouth, Sheffield and Rotherham, and Tyneside.

The evidence indicates that clean air zones are having a positive effect. Between 2019 and 2024, in the areas of these cities, annual average concentrations of nitrogen dioxide reduced by between 18% and 46%, including by around a third in Bristol, 40% in Bath and north-east Somerset, and by more than 40% in Tyneside. These results matter. In the UK, it is estimated that exposure to air pollution has an annual impact on shortening lifespans equivalent to 29,000 to 43,000 deaths. This is about children breathing cleaner air, building healthier communities, preventing illness and protecting our National Health Service.

To support local authorities with the introduction and operation of these clean air zones, in 2021 the previous Government established the “Drive in a clean air zone” central services. This allows drivers to check on a website whether their vehicle meets the air-quality standards for that clean air zone and, where necessary, pay the relevant charge. It also provides support for those who do not use digital services to make payments and assists local authorities with enforcement.

This brings me to the issues raised by the noble Lord, Lord Moylan, who in his regret amendment suggests that the statutory instrument would risk additional costs being passed on to motorists, who are already facing high fuel costs; would fail to provide sufficient assurance that drivers will be protected from any direct or indirect increase in clean air zone charges; and would extend the charging period until 31 March 2031, despite the continuing financial pressure on motorists.

I should say at this point that I wrote today to the chair of the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee, the noble Lord, Lord Watson, to clarify government estimates of cost recovery likely to result from this fee increase. This letter corrects information sent to the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee in May. I copied that letter to the noble Lord, Lord Moylan, and the noble Earl, Lord Russell. We expect the fee increase to £4 per transaction to result in greater cost recovery, but this is not expected to be 100%.

To explain the history of this instrument, the 2020 regulations made by the previous Government permit a fee of £2 per vehicle until 31 March 2027. This was based on the assumption that by March 2027, the clean air zone central services would no longer be required, as local authorities would have achieved compliance with legal air pollution limits. The previous Government were not able to achieve this, and it is now clear that in some areas compliance with these limits will not be achieved until the early 2030s. Therefore, clean air zones will need to remain in place for longer than envisioned, and this instrument, by extending the charging period, is necessary to continue operating the central services.

The previous Government also failed to increase—at all—the central service fee designed to cover the Government’s cost of administering the service since it was introduced in 2020. Raising the fee to £4 will increase cost recovery to an estimated 90% for the lifetime of the central services from the financial year 2020-21 to 2030-31. To be clear, this still leaves the Government and the taxpayer subsiding these services to the tune of 10% of the overall cost. Through this fee increase, we are putting CAZ central services on a stable, sustainable footing.

I wish to reassure noble Lords on the question of the potential impact of this increase on motorists. We have been very clear with local authorities by letter that we expect them not to pass on any increase in costs to motorists. Tackling the cost of living is this Government’s top priority, and we are ensuring that this change does not add to the challenges many people face. This will be manageable for the relevant authorities as most of the schemes are currently running a surplus—significant surpluses in some cases. It is not right that taxpayers across the country should be subsidising surpluses, in these few authorities, generated from a scheme that is designed to clean up our air, and not to generate income. For example, from the information published by the council in Bristol, we understand its CAZ surplus has been running to several millions per year, and the fee increase could reduce it by around £400,000 in 2026-27, £1.2 million in 2027-28 and £1 million in 2028-29.

I further reassure noble Lords that, should any local authority be in a shortfall because of the operating costs relating to its clean air zone, this will be covered by the Government under new burdens rules. We have ensured both that any costs will not be passed on to motorists and that any additional costs to local authorities whose schemes are not in surplus will be covered by the Government.

The noble Lord raises a concern about rising costs to motorists, including fuel charges, but this issue is separate from the administration of a clean air zone service and the internal fees we are speaking about today. We are backing drivers and businesses by extending the 5p fuel duty cut and extending the 12-month road tax holiday for hauliers. This extension to the 5p duty is keeping taxes at a 16-year low and saving the average driver £120. The Government are also making record levels of investment in our road network, including a £7 billion commitment to tackling potholes and improving local road maintenance. Furthermore, we are delivering long-term funding through the road investment strategy, ensuring that a strategic road network continues to support economic growth and connectivity across the country. These measures demonstrate our commitment to easing the immediate pressures on motorists and investing in the future of our transport system.

I also wish to address the point raised by the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee that the fee has not been reviewed or updated in line with inflation for six years and that charges set out in legislation should be reviewed regularly to avoid significant step changes in amounts. I cannot account for the previous Government’s inattention to this principle, as clean air zones have been operating for some years, but this Government now have the necessary data available from the past 12 to 18 months on the usage costs and revenue, and therefore it is an appropriate moment to revisit the fee structure considering the improved evidence base.

We will continue to monitor usage costs and revenue from the central services over the coming years, so that we can anticipate any further changes needed. Local authorities are expecting this fee change from 1 September, and officials continue to help them prepare. The Government will also work closely with the DVLA, which manages the clean air service, to ensure the smooth implementation of the revised fee when the regulations come into force. The Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee requested that, should further instruments be required to increase the fee or extend the period for which it is charged, the Explanatory Memorandum should include information, and we will do this in future, should it be necessary.

In conclusion, these regulations will ensure that the central services underpinning clean air zones continue to operate effectively and sustainably, supporting continuing improvements in air quality in towns and cities with clean air zones. I hope noble Lords will join me in supporting these regulations. I beg to move.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill (Lab)]

My Lords, I thank all noble Lords for their consideration of the draft regulations. The noble Earl, Lord Russell, referred to the observations of the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee. I agree that, if we need to pursue this matter again, we should volunteer the information that the committee observed was not supplied in 2020 and again more recently.

The four areas with surpluses are Birmingham, Bristol, Bradford, and Bath and North East Somerset. I will write to the noble Earl with the information we have about how big those surpluses are. I put it to him and the noble Lord, Lord Moylan, that while the surpluses may be useful for local transport purposes, it would be foolish to guarantee that they existed simply because, as the noble Earl and the noble Lord remarked, the park of these vehicles and the income will change over time. Notwithstanding that I cannot give the figures, in the case of the larger local authorities they are not hugely material sums—but I agree that they are sums, and I will write to him detailing what they are.

The fee was set at £2 by the previous Government, without knowing the volume of vehicles that needed to pay the fee. I am sure it was not an unreasonable calculation and it would have been made by sensible people, but the review that we have done suggests that the taxpayer is making up the difference, rather than it being borne more locally and, in particular, by the authorities that make a surplus. We will review the matter again. I feel confident that in the next 12 or 18 months we will have another look. The noble Earl asked for annual data and we will look to publish something annually. I am not sure when it will start, but that is a reasonable point.

The major point is that this is an air quality measure and not a revenue measure. When local authorities are able to comply with the air quality standards for two consecutive years, they can close the clean air zone. That is what we want them to do. We do not want charging mechanisms; we want clean air for people in those towns and cities.

I think I have answered all the relevant points. I will not test your Lordships’ patience by going through again what I said 10 minutes ago. I commend the regulations to the House.