House of Lords

Tuesday 2nd June 2026 Lords Chamber

Tuesday 2 June 2026

14:30

Prayers—read by the Lord Bishop of Chelmsford.

Oaths and Affirmations

Tuesday 2nd June 2026 Lords Chamber

14:35

Lord Altrincham and the Earl of Effingham took the oath, and signed an undertaking to abide by the Code of Conduct.

Bosnia and Herzegovina

Tuesday 2nd June 2026 Lords Chamber

Question

14:37

Asked by

[Lord Peach]

To ask His Majesty’s Government what recent discussions they have had with the United States about the political and security situation in Bosnia and Herzegovina.

[The Minister of State, Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office (Baroness Chapman of Darlington) (Lab)]

My Lords, we are working closely with the United States, including through the Quint, the Peace Implementation Council and the United Nations Security Council, to support peace and stability in Bosnia and Herzegovina. The Quint remain firmly committed to Bosnia and Herzegovina’s sovereignty and territorial integrity. With October’s elections approaching, we continue to discuss our concern about increasing anti-Dayton rhetoric, the rise in Islamophobia and other divisive narratives.

[Lord Peach (CB)]

My Lords, I declare my interest as the UK Prime Minister’s special envoy to the western Balkans from 2021 to 2025. I thank the Minister for her Answer. As she just indicated, the UK has been supporting peace and stability in Bosnia, including through the service of the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Walker, as the commander there, for almost 30 years. That peace and stability sustains, yet it is under threat from rhetoric and provocation. The former President of Republika Srpska, Milorad Dodik, is a very frequent visitor to Moscow, where he receives what could only be described as instructions. Secession is still in the language in that country, and I think we can all agree that that would be a disaster for the integrity of Bosnia and Herzegovina, raise the spectre of tension and worse. We have an excellent embassy, but can the Minister reassure me that significant thinking and planning is in place should the security situation deteriorate?

[Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)]

I thank the noble and gallant Lord for his service and commend the work of his successor, Dame Karen Pierce, in this absolutely vital role. Yes, I can give him that commitment. My colleague—the MP Stephen Doughty, whom I am sure he knows well—leads on this, as he knows, in the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office. Our commitment, as witnesses to the Dayton agreement, remains steadfast.

[Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon (Con)]

My Lords, with the resignation of Christian Schmidt as the high representative, who, as anyone who met him will know, was frustrated by Republika Srpska’s claims under Mr Dodik, and in paying tribute to the noble and gallant Lord, can I ask what efforts the UK Government are making to ensure we get the right candidate, with the resilience of the late Lord Ashdown—let us not forget his legacy—who put this at the heart of British representation in standing up for Bosnia, Croatia, Serbia and, indeed, Kosovo?

[Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)]

It is absolutely vital that the successful candidate for this role has all the attributes possessed by Lord Ashdown—perhaps not all; they are very big shoes to fill. What matters most is that we find the candidate who has the ability to bring people together and secure the commitments that were made at Dayton, for as long as we need to do that.

[Baroness Ludford (LD)]

My Lords, Russia is undoubtedly stirring tensions to undermine western security and Bosnia’s progress to EU membership. As has been said, the UK has always played a strong role in supporting the Dayton agreement and the Office of the High Representative, which my former leader Paddy Ashdown filled 20 years ago—I am glad he was referred to. How is the UK working not only with the United States and the rest of the international community but specifically with the EU and European partners on Bosnia, as on Ukraine, to support the Bosnian state’s institutions and constitutional order?

[Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)]

We work very closely, as I am sure the noble Baroness would want, with the EU, the Council of Europe, the US and other partners to do just that. We are 30-plus years on from what happened and some people say that it is time to move on but, actually, it is clear that the conditions for that have not been met. There are new actors and risks of which we need to be mindful, and it is important that we stick to the agreement and, as the noble Lord opposite said, that the right person is forthcoming and that we pick them.

[Lord Bellingham (Con)]

As the Minister is aware, one of the major roadblocks to harmony between the Serb-dominated Republika Srpska and the Bosnia-Croat federation is the lack of a unified police force. Will the UK draw on its huge experience of capacity building and expertise in this area to make this a key part of our bilateral relations, as well as trade?

[Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)]

That is an interesting suggestion. We have expertise in doing that kind of work, where appropriate, but it needs to be done alongside the relevant authorities, so that we make sure that we move things along in a way that is sensitive to the context—if I can put it that way. I am happy to speak to colleagues to find out whether that is something that the UK is actively considering at the moment.

[Baroness Stuart of Edgbaston (CB)]

My Lords, the noble Baroness mentioned all the organisations that we are working with. Could she say more about how supportive of, and in line with, our colleagues from the United States we are on this policy?

[Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)]

All our allies and partners take positions; sometimes they are different, and we sometimes take different approaches to these issues. But our position is very clear: we will be consistent with the agreement that was entered into. We take seriously our duty to stick to those principles.

[Lord Purvis of Tweed (LD)]

My Lords, in recent years, a key part of UK support for the type of capacity building of civil and community organisations referenced by the noble and gallant Lord and my noble friend has been through the Western Balkans Democracy Initiative, which has been funded by development assistance. Can the Minister assure the House that this support will continue?

[Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)]

We have recently published our allocations for development assistance. Off the top of my head, I cannot remember what decision was made on that specific programme, but I am sure that that information is publicly available. If it is not, I will make sure that the noble Lord gets it.

[Lord Foulkes of Cumnock (Lab Co-op)]

My Lords, the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Peach, mentioned the malign influence of Russia in relation to this. There has been some suggestion that the United Kingdom is slackening its sanctions on Russia. Will the Minister confirm that this is not the case and consider further sanctions, particularly in relation to some of its assets here in the United Kingdom?

[Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)]

I can absolutely assure my noble friend that that is not the case. I remember that there were robust exchanges about this before the short Recess we have just had. Obviously, we keep all future designations under close review, and we do not preannounce them, but his point about our concern about Russia and our willingness to act with sanctions and other measures, when that is appropriate, remains.

[Baroness Hamwee (LD)]

My Lords, the Minister has acknowledged rightly that we do not just close the door on history; it has a very long tail. Civilians affected by the wars in the Balkans still suffer and still need support, and that support often comes from very small aid organisations that have suffered from the reduction in aid from this country and other countries. Can she acknowledge that?

[Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)]

When you make a cut to your development assistance, you can spend less—that is just a fact. I was unable to find 40% reductions for programmes that were not doing good or having an impact and that nobody would notice. Of course, I am happy to acknowledge that now, as I have done on many occasions.

Breast Cancer Screening: Women Over 70

Tuesday 2nd June 2026 Lords Chamber

Question

14:47

Asked by

[Lord Palmer of Childs Hill]

To ask His Majesty’s Government what plans they have to review the NHS policy of ending automatic mammogram invitations for women over 70.

[Baroness in Waiting/Government Whip (Baroness Blake of Leeds) (Lab)]

My Lords, an important research study, AgeX, is investigating the effects of routine breast screening in women over 70. It is the biggest trial of its kind ever undertaken and results are expected in 2027. The UK National Screening Committee has been closely involved throughout and will use the findings as they are available. It is vital that all screening policy is based on robust scientific evidence, as screening can also cause harm.

[Lord Palmer of Childs Hill (LD)]

My Lords, I thank the Minister for that, but I am not sure that I want to wait until 2027. The facts are compelling. Early detection of breast cancer significantly boosts survival rates, especially of older people, some of whom might not last until 2027. I disagree with the policy of not sending out invitations for mammogram screenings to the over-70s. We should not leave it to self-referral every three years. Will the Minister say what outreach programmes are being implemented in the meantime to inform women of their right to self-refer? Such programmes should include informational mailings, community health talks, and leveraging technology and social media platforms, with healthcare providers having proactive discussions with seniors about continuous screenings. In the intervening period to the magic date of 2027, can the Minister assure me that all these things are happening?

[Baroness Blake of Leeds (Lab)]

The noble Lord is quite right to say that women over the age of 71 can go to their GP and request a further screening every three years above that age. The noble Lord touched on a good point that it is imperative that that information is more widely available. I have talked to women of that age group and found that there is no general awareness that that is the case. I believe that all these policies should be managed and rolled out locally. It is for local healthcare systems to make sure that information is available to those most vulnerable in their communities. That is the work we are doing through the 10-year health plan, particularly reaching out to areas of disadvantage and inequality.

[Baroness Manzoor (Con)]

My Lord, I agree with the sentiments that have been expressed by the Minister. However, she will be aware that there are significant regional variations in the uptake of breast screening among those who live in poorer disadvantaged communities and among ethnic-minority women. These are women below the age of 70. What are the Government doing to narrow the gap in outcome for these women, and what key performance indicators are the Government using to monitor this?

[Baroness Blake of Leeds]

The noble Baroness will be aware of the launch of the women’s health strategy. Running throughout that is a real understanding that too many women are not aware of the treatment that is available. There might be all sorts of reasons why they are not coming forward for the screening to which they are entitled. The focus on working locally, spreading information, giving reassurance, and coming up with peer models within communities who can go out and convince women that screening is in their interest are all parts of the rich toolkit available to local health communities.

[Baroness Kramer (LD)]

I am over 71, yet I had no idea until this moment that a self-referral programme was in place—and I have just had a friend in her early 70s go into surgery for breast cancer. How is this message being distributed? I fear that, if I contacted my GP, even the GP would have no idea that self-referral was available.

[Baroness Blake of Leeds]

I declare an interest, in that I am in the same age group. All I can say from personal experience is that, when I went for my last screening, I was informed by the local screening team. This speaks to the point that it is patchy and inconsistent; we need to have a fundamental check around the country to ensure that consistency exists. The noble Baroness has made my point perfectly: too many women are not aware of what is available. That is why we are going to address the needs of women going forward.

[Baroness Nargund (Lab)]

My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Palmer, for raising this and my noble friend the Minister for raising awareness about one of the largest age-extension trials. It is true that it will give us results, but I was not aware that the final report would be available in 2027; I was under the impression that it would be by 2032. Can my noble friend confirm that the final report on age extension will be available by 2027? In the meantime, given that international professional guidelines support regular screening for women over 70, could we consider regular screening for women in the community when we establish neighbourhood health centres?

[Baroness Blake of Leeds]

I stress the importance of being mindful of all ongoing research, as there is extensive research going on in all areas of cancer. We also need to be very mindful of the new technologies coming forward. The EDITH programme, looking at the use of AI, could potentially significantly reduce the number of medical practitioners who need to be involved in screening, thus freeing up capacity and making sure that trials can be implemented. I want to reassure my noble friend of the work that is happening and the intention to abide by the timeframes set.

[Baroness Browning (Con)]

Does the Minister agree that, since it is a given fact that women over 70 can self-refer every three years, there is no need for these layers of bureaucracy and administration in the health service? There is no reason why a GP needs to refer a woman in that age group to their local breast screening unit. I go into the hospital breast-screening unit and say, “Could I please book an appointment?” They say, “Yes, certainly”. No GP comes anywhere near it. Let us cut out the bureaucracy; there is too much of it in the NHS.

[Baroness Blake of Leeds]

To veer away from breast cancer for a moment, one of the most successful programmes I was involved in was working with the local authority and local NHS services to remove the need to see a GP to be referred for lung x-rays. This programme particularly targeted men in disadvantaged areas and, my goodness, it had a huge impact. This is something that needs to be taken seriously. A lot of people, men and women, are averse to going to seek medical help. We need to make available as many opportunities as we possibly can.

[Baroness Pitkeathley (Lab)]

My Lords, since there is a strong hereditary element in breast cancer, what action is being taken to make sure that women who have had cancer ensure that their daughters and granddaughters are rightly tested? Will the Minister acknowledge the information being given out via “The Archers” on this matter at the moment?

[Baroness Blake of Leeds (Lab)]

I wondered when someone was going to mention “The Archers”. My noble friend is referring to BRCA and BRCA2 screening. It is incredibly serious that some people are wary of going through screening because of the possible implications hanging over their children. We all need to work to make that screening more of a possibility. I have to declare that my eldest sister died from breast cancer when she was in her late 50s. It is a dreadful thing to happen to families, and we have to make sure all families who go through this are aware of what they need to do and that the information is as widely available as possible.

[Lord Kamall (Con)]

My Lords, I thank the Minister for sharing her personal experience; I am sure our thoughts are with her. The Government have rightly said they want a shift from treatment to prevention, and the Minister will know that one element of prevention is testing and early diagnosis. We know that about one-third of breast cancers are diagnosed in women over 70, and this increases with age. We have heard that many women are not aware of screening on demand. Apart from the health and emotional consequences, when the Government conducted a cost-benefit analysis of ending routine screening, were they absolutely certain that any money saved in the short term was not outweighed by the extra cost of treating patients with later-stage cancer, which will be harder to treat and will end up costing the Government more money?

[Baroness Blake of Leeds (Lab)]

I reassure the noble Lord that all these factors are taken into account. I would warn against complacency. To go back to my personal experience, my sister had regular breast screening and it was not picked up because of the type of cancer that she had. I am delighted that the noble Lord, Lord Vallance, is leading the work on looking at how we can better screen women and make sure that the work we do is the most effective and reaches the highest number of women possible.

Windrush Compensation Scheme

Tuesday 2nd June 2026 Lords Chamber

Question

14:58

Asked by

[Baroness Benjamin]

To ask His Majesty’s Government what plans they have to tackle inconsistent decision-making for victims under the Windrush Compensation Scheme.

[The Minister of State, Home Office (Lord Hanson of Flint) (Lab)]

My Lords, up to March 2026 more than £127 million has been paid out by the Government following claims. All claims are considered individually against the published rules. Caseworkers receive comprehensive training and decisions are subject to robust quality assurance. Anybody who is unhappy about the outcome of their claim can access a free review process, including review by an independent adjudicator, and we use feedback to continuously improve decision-making.

[Baroness Benjamin (LD)]

I thank the Minister for his Answer, but Windrush victims have raised serious ongoing issues around inconsistent decision-making within the compensation scheme, even between siblings, including misinterpretation of evidence, inadequate support and lack of independence. The continued use of the term “immigrants” to describe those affected, rather than recognising them as British nationals, has wider implications for how cases are understood and handled, and undervalues the non-financial harms and loss of opportunities and security. The scheme is too complex for unrepresented applicants, who are undercompensated compared with claimants with lawyers, who receive much higher awards—£11,400 compared with £83,200 for the same claim. Could more funding be directed towards legal support, as with other state compensation schemes, to clear up this shocking injustice? Is the Windrush commissioner, who is supposed to be supporting Windrush victims, aware of these concerns?

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

I am grateful to the noble Baroness. First, the Windrush commissioner is in regular engagement and discussion with Ministers around issues of concern, and since January 2026 we have made some significant changes to the scheme as a result of representations from the commissioner. The noble Baroness mentions legal representation. We have a dedicated helpline. We give claim form guidance. We have free practical support for claimants’ assistance. We have put £1.5 million into a free advocacy support system. We also have limited legal support of up to £1,500 to obtain probate to submit a claim as a representative of a Windrush claimant’s estate. They are British citizens and they deserve our support. We want to ensure that we have a fair and equitable system, and I will happily take representations from the noble Baroness on any issues if she feels there are concerns.

[Lord Bailey of Paddington (Con)]

My Lords, the noble Baroness, Lady Benjamin, commented that people who come with legal representation get higher and better awards. Does the Minister know why this is and, if he does not, can he look into why people with legal representation are getting much better awards? Surely the system should be defending those who are the most vulnerable and cannot get that representation.

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

The two factors may not necessarily be similar. There may be individuals who engage legal support and end up getting the claim they would have had anyway, whether they had that support or not. The scheme was designed not to have necessarily a barrier of legal representation; that is why we have put in help and support for claimants, but legal representation is not required. We are looking at all times at how we can simplify the scheme, but I caution the noble Lord against presuming that legal representation in this case means a higher claim. It may be that the claim was justified in the first place, as we view all claims on an individual basis for each claimant.

[Lord Cameron of Lochiel (Con)]

There has been much commentary on the relatively high rejection rates for the Windrush compensation scheme. Subsequently, there have been calls for the Home Office to relax its criteria. It is of course imperative that the scheme is not open to exploitation and that compensation is paid only to those who are genuinely eligible. Can the Minister confirm that the Government will ensure that the criteria the Home Office uses will remain robust and fair, and applied consistently and equitably to all applicants?

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

Yes, I can, I hope, assure the noble Lord on that. As I said to the noble Baroness, Lady Benjamin, the Government made a number of changes in January 2026 to try to improve the scheme and make sure that people still have access to it in a simpler way. Those changes have also meant, as I said in earlier answers, that 94% of all claims have reached a final decision. We have speeded up the claims from taking four months in 2024 to less than six weeks now. On where there are appeals on those claims and reviews asked for, there have been, for example, 2,656 requests for review of tier 1 decisions, 504 of which resulted in a change of the claim. On tier 2 applications there have been 747 requests, of which 116 resulted in changes, so there is, I hope, a fair and equitable scheme. We want to see people applying for the scheme. We continue to receive around 140 claims a month and there is no end date to the scheme, so we want to make sure that people get the compensation they deserve.

[Lord Pannick (CB)]

Have the Government actually conducted any research into whether unrepresented claimants receive lower awards than represented claimants, and if so why, to address the concern of the noble Baroness, Lady Benjamin?

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

I cannot say to the noble Lord that we have undertaken that research, but I am happy to look at the point he mentions. The key point is that the scheme is designed to be simple. Support is available through a free helpline, and there is now a high level of speedy turnarounds and completed claims, at 94%. I will certainly look at whether there is a factual basis for it; I was simply making the point, to both noble Lords who have spoken and to the noble Baroness, that there may not be a correlation between legal representation and claim because all claims are judged on their individual circumstances.

[Baroness Lawrence of Clarendon (Lab)]

My Lords, I want to ask the Minister about data collection, because so many people are passing away before their claims are even looked at. Does he have any data to show how many people have passed away before being able to have their claims addressed?

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

I probably have figures for my noble friend, and I will write to her with the specific figures. The key point is that we are now, as part of the prioritisation, looking at claimants aged over 75 and those with conditions that are critical or life shortening so we can ensure that those who are potentially in danger of passing before a claim is completed have that claim speedily processed.

[Lord Scriven (LD)]

My Lords, victims of state problems such as the Post Office Horizon scandal and the infected blood scandal have been given fully funded, independent legal support. What makes this so different that there is no equity for these people?

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

The scheme was designed to be speedily executed and to ensure that we give dedicated support. We have a dedicated helpline, claim form guidance, free advocacy support, a £1.5 million Windrush compensation advocacy support scheme and legal support for those submitting a claim, as my noble friend Lady Lawrence mentioned, for those who have sadly died. That is the way in which we are trying to do this. The fact that we have paid out £127 million to date shows the Government’s commitment to ensure that those who deserve payments get payments.

[Lord Hope of Craighead (CB)]

Can the Minister say something about the training that those who have to administer the scheme receive? Proper training would be one way of ensuring that equality of treatment is achieved across the board.

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

Absolutely. Staff undertake a rigorous training programme that provides a holistic view of the scheme and includes a module on the history of the scandal. It includes clips of people from the Windrush generation, as well as case studies, to provide insights into the way in which individuals have been affected. It also focuses on important skills, such as telephony skills and communication. Staff regularly deal with vulnerable people and have the ability to pass on particular areas of concern to organisations such as the Samaritans if there is a requirement because of other potential issues. All staff undertake a mandatory “face behind the case” training course, and we are committed to learning the lessons from the scandal to ensure our caseworkers are both empathetic and fully trained.

[Lord Sentamu (CB)]

My Lords, the noble Baroness, Lady Benjamin, referred to a worrying thing, if it is true. The Windrush generation are still being referred to as immigrants, not as British citizens. Can the Minister confirm whether that is happening? If it is, we all ought to be concerned.

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

The Windrush generation are British citizens, and I confirm that that is the status they have.

[Lord Dobbs (Con)]

My Lords, every week I pass by that wonderful statue of the Windrush generation at Waterloo station. It is an inspiration, showing people who were invited here to come and be part of our community, and they have served this community incredibly well. We have lived the Martin Luther King dream in this country of bringing people together better than any other country in the world, but that is all now under threat. Would it not be a very good sign of our intent to get this Windrush issue sorted as quickly and as fairly as possible to reclaim our status as one of the most tolerant and inclusive countries in the world?

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

I agree that the UK should be a tolerant and inclusive country. The Windrush generation came to the UK to fill labour shortages following the Second World War and to make a contribution to the country they regarded as their native country. They are British citizens. That is quite right and proper. There is an estimated cohort of 11,500 to 14,500 citizens who are part of that Windrush generation.

We have kept the scheme open; it has no closing date. We are currently getting 140 claims per week. We want to get as many people as possible to apply. As I mentioned, we have reduced the time from two months to around six weeks to get claims considered. Very few claims are outstanding. It is important that people claim; they have a right to that money. Mistakes were made in the past. The scheme has been established and £127 million has been paid to ensure that this state, the United Kingdom, recognises both the service and the injustice that occurred with the Windrush generation.

Prostate Cancer Screening

Tuesday 2nd June 2026 Lords Chamber

Question

15:09

Asked by

[Baroness Royall of Blaisdon]

To ask His Majesty’s Government what assessment they have made of the recommendation from the UK’s National Screening Committee that there should only be a targeted screening programme for prostate cancer, as opposed to population screening.

[Baroness in Waiting/Government Whip (Baroness Blake of Leeds) (Lab)]

My Lords, the Government have today accepted the UK National Screening Committee’s evidence-based recommendation to offer prostate cancer screening every two years to men between the ages of 45 and 61 with a BRCA2 gene variant and a family history of breast, ovarian, pancreatic or prostate cancer. Population-wide screening was shown to do more harm than good. We will keep this decision under review and work with organisations to fill the evidence gaps for high-risk groups.

[Baroness Royall of Blaisdon (Lab)]

I thank my noble friend the Minister for that Answer; I think that I am pleased with it—I will have to think about it more fully. Given the known risk factor of family history when it comes to the likelihood of being diagnosed with prostate cancer, what are the Government doing to create a more specific definition of the term to enable better targeting of those men most at risk? I know it is important for hundreds of thousands of men up and down the country and their loved ones. My husband died of prostate cancer because it was diagnosed too late, and I have two sons.

[Baroness Blake of Leeds (Lab)]

I thank my noble friend for courageously continuing to pick up this very important issue. The term “family history” is not well defined in current evidence. Work is under way to define what degree of family history of cancer would carry a significantly increased risk of prostate cancer, and the UK National Screening Committee will build this into its modelling. In the meantime, officials are working with Cancer Research UK and the UK Cancer Genetics Group to see if interim guidance can be developed with experts to support GPs in making clinical judgments when asked about PSA testing by men with a family history.

[Baroness Chisholm of Owlpen (Non-Afl)]

I completely understand Cancer Research UK’s point about overdiagnosis leading to invasive treatment, with devastating effects, along with unnecessary anxiety and stress. There are inequalities in treatment, and more needs to be done to ensure that every man who is diagnosed receives the best treatment options possible. Does the Minister feel it would help to have a public awareness campaign—I know there have been some, but perhaps more—on how to notice the symptoms that people may have, particularly those in the Afro-Caribbean community, who are quite often let down as far as prostate cancer is concerned?

[Baroness Blake of Leeds (Lab)]

The noble Baroness is absolutely right to bring inequality into this discussion. The statistics are stark. That is why the Government are today announcing an investment of £18 million in TRANSFORM stage 2, which will take a particular interest in Black men. Eligible Black men include those aged 45 to 74 having come through the stage 1 process. There is a list of criteria that I cannot go into in detail on now, but it is worth looking into. There is also money set aside for capital spend to look at strengthening access to focal therapies, which are less invasive. So much research still needs to be done, and the noble Baroness is absolutely right to raise the particular issue of inequality.

[Baroness Pidgeon (LD)]

My Lords, the proposed limited screening programme is a disappointment to many campaigners. It is clear that the key to screening is accurate ways of testing, so what further investment are the Government planning to help develop more precise prostate cancer screening tests other than PSA?

[Baroness Blake of Leeds (Lab)]

I can only repeat what I said in my earlier answer: all the research into this that is continuing as part of the ongoing programme will be taken into account; it is critical that that is the case. I have forgotten the first part of the noble Baroness’s question.

[Baroness Pidgeon (LD)]

It was about testing for PSA.

[Baroness Blake of Leeds (Lab)]

I do not have the specific answer to that, but we have to make sure that GPs in particular have the best guidance possible on picking up the signs they need to take care of, on the advice they give to people coming in, and on looking at the most appropriate way forward, whether it be testing or making sure that patients get access to the right treatment, should that be deemed essential.

[Lord Kamall (Con)]

My Lords, I pay tribute to the noble Baroness, Lady Royall, for championing this issue. Today’s announcement that Black men will be offered prostate cancer screening in the TRANSFORM trial is very welcome, given that Black men are around twice as likely to develop prostate cancer and die from it. So I have two quick questions. First, only last week, the Government backed a recommendation that did not include them for targeted screening, so, out of interest, can the Minister share with the House what new evidence came to light since then and led to today’s welcome announcement? It is not a trick question; I am just trying to understand that gap in evidence. Secondly, when will eligible Black men be invited to stage 2 of the trial?

[Baroness Blake of Leeds (Lab)]

We hope to get the trial up and running within the next year; we really are ready to go. I will have to write to the noble Lord on the specific detail for his first question—I do not have that to hand—but everyone wants to get moving on this. It has been a long time coming, and we are delighted that we have the go-ahead today to move forward.

[Lord Patel (CB)]

My Lords, coming back to the Question from the noble Baroness, Lady Royall of Blaisdon, it is disappointing that the screening committee did not approve of screening for people with a strong family history, particularly of breast cancer, which the Minister mentioned, as BRCA genes are also associated with prostate cancer. So the screening committee might be asked to look at the evidence of family linkage to see whether that should not be included in “high risk”. By the way, coming to a better test than PSA, there is the promise of a saliva test with a higher specificity developed by Marsden cancer research institute. That is going to trial, and it may help.

[Baroness Blake of Leeds (Lab)]

The noble Lord is my go-to person for additional information in this area, and his knowledge is helpful in this debate. My understanding—he will obviously correct me afterwards if I am wrong—is that there is a much more defined relationship, in the research that has been done into breast cancer, in the likelihood of familial pass-on. That is exactly what this research has been set up to do: to look at whether there are the same patterns with prostate cancer, which have not yet been identified.

[Lord Beamish (Lab)]

My Lords, the problem with prostate cancer is that most men do not have symptoms; it was certainly like that in my case. The Minister said that wide screening would lead to worsening outcomes, but I am sorry: being alive is far better than the alternative. We will have a problem: in affluent communities, men can and will ask their GPs for tests, but that will not happen in some poorer communities. What has been suggested today is continued health inequality, where men in poorer communities will not ask for that test and will continue to die.

[Baroness Blake of Leeds (Lab)]

My noble friend is absolutely right that inequality, as we have said, runs throughout this debate. That is why I highlighted that there is not consistent messaging going out through GPs for men who come forward to discuss their health needs with them. Far more work needs to be done. But the evidence from the committee clearly stated that the risk of harm from unnecessary treatment is high. This is exactly the sort of work that has been looked into, but that is its clear recommendation. On the evidence around the progression of the disease, how many who are diagnosed go on to have a life-threatening condition has to be at the forefront of the evidence and the further research that is being done.

Steel Import Restrictions

Tuesday 2nd June 2026 Lords Chamber

Private Notice Question

15:20

Asked by

[Lord Sharpe of Epsom]

To ask His Majesty’s Government what assessment they have made of reports that the United Kingdom’s proposed steel import restrictions may jeopardise the implementation of the UK-India Free Trade Agreement; and what steps they are taking to protect British exporters, consumers, investment, and the benefits secured under that agreement.

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

My Lords, the steel trade measure is being put in place to address the serious threat posed by global overcapacity to our domestic steel-making capability. Given the strategic and economic importance of steel, the Government cannot afford to leave the situation unaddressed. Today the DBT Secretary of State is in Delhi, seeking to further strengthen the relationship and bring the UK-India FTA into force as soon as possible, to ensure that the benefits are realised.

[Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)]

My Lords, I am very grateful to the Minister for the Answer, and it is reassuring to hear that the Secretary of State is in India. However, the fact is that the previous Government secured Brexit freedoms precisely to break free from EU protectionism and position Britain as a champion of global free trade. Within months of signing what Ministers themselves called a landmark deal with India, this Government have now announced steel tariff measures so damaging that senior Indian officials are threatening to withdraw important concessions.

For example, the Scotch whisky industry, one of Britain’s greatest exporting success stories, was on the cusp of seeing tariffs on its exports to India slashed from 150% to 75% immediately, falling further to 40% over the life of the agreement. We do not need a review in 12 months to tell us what 100 years of economic history already confirms: tariffs damage trade, raise costs and, ultimately, hurt the very industries and consumers they purport to protect. Will the Minister commit today to reversing the steel tariffs outright, saving the landmark deal and sending an unambiguous signal to British businesses and our global partners that Britain is open for business?

[Lord Leong (Lab)]

My Lords, first, we use tariffs only as a last resort, and only in circumstances where we have no other choice. Without action, we risk losing domestic steel-making capability, which would mean that we could not mean critical infrastructure and defence needs without relying fully on imports. Furthermore, as I am sure the noble Lord knows, we are not the only country that has tariffs: the EU has tariffs, Canada has tariffs and the US has tariffs.

On the point about whisky, we have signed a legal treaty with India that underpins the trade deal, and the liberalisation of whisky is a clear part of that. We will adhere to that and support the Scottish Whisky Association to ensure that India meets its obligation.

[Lord Fox (LD)]

My Lords, as the Minister will no doubt realise, tariffs are double-edged. The businesses that use steel that is not being manufactured in this country are in danger of having to pay higher prices for that steel, unless the Government are subtler than seems to be the case to date. Can the Minister undertake forthwith to make sure that the steel catalogue is thoroughly reviewed and that no steel that cannot be made in the United Kingdom would come under any tariff at all?

[Lord Leong (Lab)]

The noble Lord is absolutely right. We recall that the quota currently in place stands at 60%. For most countries, we have not achieved 60%: it is only when we exceed that 60% that that tariff of 50% comes in. Furthermore, we import most of our steel from the EU; 70% of our steel imports are from overseas and 60% from the EU, while India contributes only 5% of the market.

[Lord Watts (Lab)]

My Lords, when we had Brexit, we were informed that there were oven-ready schemes for trade. Where are they?

[Lord Leong (Lab)]

Sorry, I did not hear the question.

[Lord Watts (Lab)]

The question is: when we had Brexit, we were told by the supporters of Brexit that we had oven-ready trade deals, ready to go, and they would boost the economy. Where are those trade deals?

[Lord Leong (Lab)]

I thank my noble friend for that. We are making best use of where we are today as far as our position with Brexit is concerned. We are entering into free trade deals with many countries across the world; we have just signed the FTA with India and are in conversations with South Korea and Turkey, and we have completed a free trade deal with the GCC countries. Those are the benefits and dividends of Brexit.

[Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon (Con)]

My Lords, just to share with the noble Lord opposite, there were extensive discussions: the CPTPP was signed and the India trade negotiations were started under the previous Government. I should know, because I was involved in them. I have a simple question. Having worked with our counterparts and friends in India, I know they will look at this as ill thought-out. The steel strategy was not effectively co-ordinated—to address the question from the previous noble Lord—on the implications for manufacturers here who rely on steel that is imported into the country, and in particular those reliant on Indian steel.

[Lord Leong (Lab)]

The noble Lord is absolutely right and I congratulate the former Government on starting the conversations on the India free trade deal and the CPTPP. However, the prize is closing the deal, which we have done in government. On the assessments and all that, look, we have absolutely no intention of undermining the benefits of the trade deal for any specific sector. That is why my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Business and Trade is in India having conversations with Minister Goyal to ensure that this free trade deal is implemented as soon as possible.

[Lord Hussain (LD)]

My Lords, as I understand it, our free trade agreement with India includes a special clause on the welfare of animals, which is quite good. Is a human rights clause also included? If not, do the British Government really think that human rights in India are less important than those of animals?

[Lord Leong (Lab)]

No, we do not. Human rights are important everywhere, whether in India or any other country, and we will abide by our obligations under the international conventions on human rights.

[Lord Gove (Con)]

My Lords, I was delighted to hear from the Minister a brief summary of just some of the benefits that being outside the European Union has brought this country. Not only do we have an independent trade policy that allows us to protect steel jobs, but, just before the Recess, the Chancellor of the Exchequer removed entirely a slew of tariffs on products, which she emphasised would mean cheaper prices in our supermarkets for every citizen. It is also of course the case that precision breeding means that we have plants and animals with higher yields that are more resilient to environmental and other pressures, and changes to share issuance which mean that the City of London is more competitive than ever. I join the Minister in saying that that vote 10 years ago was a fantastic leap forward for the United Kingdom and I am so delighted that this Minister is showing the courage of the nation’s convictions.

[Lord Leong (Lab)]

I did not detect a question there. We are where we are. We have to get Brexit done and we are making the most of it. We have signed trade deals with many countries and many more are in the pipeline. We will continue signing free trade deals everywhere.

[Lord Redwood (Con)]

How many job losses will there be in the steel-using industries in the United Kingdom as a result of the new higher tariffs?

[Lord Leong (Lab)]

That is why we have brought in special measures to safeguard jobs in British Steel in Scunthorpe. At the same time, we have invested loads of money and given £500 million to Tata to ensure that Port Talbot continues. We will ensure that jobs are protected.

[The Earl of Effingham (Con)]

My Lords, consumers do not buy raw steel, but they do buy the things made from it. Tariffs cause a squeeze on real wages as more household income goes on goods whose prices have been pushed up by input costs. Why would any Government want that?

[Lord Leong (Lab)]

I am afraid the noble Earl did not hear my earlier answer. No one wants tariffs. They are always the last resort when we have no alternative to protect our domestic industry. Furthermore, with steel, most imports do not even meet the quota of 60%. Until it hits 60%, the 50% does not come in.

Local Plans (Burial Space) Bill [HL]

Tuesday 2nd June 2026 Lords Chamber

First Reading

15:30

A Bill to make provision about the inclusion of guaranteed burial ground space within Local Plans.

The Bill was introduced by Lord Mohammed of Tinsley, read a first time and ordered to be printed.

Conduct of Undercover Policing and Surveillance Operatives Bill [HL]

Tuesday 2nd June 2026 Lords Chamber

First Reading

15:31

A Bill to prohibit covert human intelligence sources from entering into or maintaining intimate sexual relationships with persons who are the subject of surveillance or investigation; and for connected purposes.

The Bill was introduced by Baroness Hamwee, read a first time and ordered to be printed.

Syria (Sanctions) (EU Exit) (Amendment) Regulations 2026

Tuesday 2nd June 2026 Lords Chamber

Motion to Approve

15:32

Moved by

[Lord Lemos]

That the Regulations laid before the House on 21 April be approved.

Considered in Grand Committee on 18 May.

Motion agreed.

Lord Mandelson Humble Address: Government Response

Tuesday 2nd June 2026 Lords Chamber

Statement

15:32

The following Statement was made in the House of Commons on Monday 1 June.

“With permission, I would like to update the House on the Government’s response to the humble Address of 4 February. Before I do, I think it is important for all of us to reflect again on the impact that this debate will have on the victims of Jeffrey Epstein. Members across the House will be aware of the truly horrific crimes that he committed against countless women and girls; we hold them in our thoughts when discussing these issues again today.

The Government have today laid the second tranche of documents. These were laid before the House in advance of this Statement and are now on GOV.UK for the public to see. The documents we are publishing today comprise one of the largest government publications ever laid before the House. This disclosure process has been wide-ranging, costing the Cabinet Office alone over £1 million. As the House knows, this was an official-led process, with judgments made by senior officials, and I am grateful for the careful work that they have undertaken right up until today’s publication.

While the first tranche dealt with Peter Mandelson’s appointment, withdrawal and severance, this second tranche responds to the parts of the Motion that requested communications and documents concerning his appointment and vetting, as well as messages between Peter Mandelson and Ministers, special advisers and civil servants in the months prior to, and throughout the duration of, his appointment.

I recognise that the House will need sufficient time to review today’s tranche in full, given the size of the publication. As we have just heard from the Leader of the House, that is why I have secured government time on Wednesday for a subsequent general debate: so that there is an opportunity for Members to ask further questions after today’s Statement. To inform that debate, and for clarity and accountability, I draw the House’s attention to the methodology set out in the publication today, which explains in detail how the Government undertook the disclosure process. I will not repeat that in full here today, but I will make reference to a number of areas that I know the House has expressed an interest in previously.

First, on redactions, in line with the Motion, over 300 individual documents were referred under a process agreed between the Government and the Intelligence and Security Committee. I confirm that no material has been redacted on the grounds of prejudice to national security or international relations without the committee’s approval. For clarity, all redacted material agreed with the ISC is labelled in the bundles today with three asterisks. Outside this arrangement, this process does not change the important and well-established constitutional principle that national security and international relations judgments are ultimately for the Government. I once again express my thanks to the Intelligence and Security Committee for its engagement in this process. Further limited redactions have been made outside the ISC process in respect of information that relates to junior officials’ names; contact details such as telephone numbers and email addresses; the personal or commercially sensitive data of third parties not relevant to the Motion; and, where relevant, legal professional privilege.

I also confirm that no redactions have been made to references to Global Counsel, other than to protect the identity of individuals who worked there and are not public figures. Officials have sought to be transparent in the material where the individual is a Global Counsel employee. Also, no redactions have been made to references to Palantir and Anduril outside the scope of the existing ISC redactions process, and no clear references to current or former UK politicians have been redacted on the basis of their being third parties.

I can also confirm to the House that no Government Minister or special adviser has determined any of the redactions themselves. The redaction process has been overseen by Cabinet Office officials and, where relevant, in agreement with the ISC. In addition, the Cabinet Office humble Address team have taken advice from an independent King’s Counsel—this has included review of the methodological approach followed by officials—and acted on that advice to inform their work. This has helped to ensure that the Government are confident that their approach is compliant with the humble Address and the Government’s legal obligations.

These additional targeted redactions, made outside the agreed ISC process, have been made in line with the Freedom of Information Act 2000, the Ministerial Code, and the resolutions on ministerial accountability passed by both Houses in 1997. This is important because it goes to the question of whether the Government have complied fully with the humble Address. That question should be answered in the context of the established rules and precedents that relate to humble Addresses. If these rules were not relevant, the humble Address would have required extensive additional detail on the face of the Motion dealing with these procedural issues. However, I recognise the level of interest in the House in respect of these redactions not related to national security and international relations, so, on the recommendation of the ISC, I can confirm that the honourable Member for North Dorset, Simon Hoare, the chair of the Public Administration and Constitutional Affairs Committee, has reviewed our approach to third-party redactions this morning. He has confirmed that we have applied the methodology set out in the document and that, in his view, the redactions are sensible, reasonable and proportionate. I thank the ISC for this recommendation and the honourable Member for the additional reassurance he has provided on this point.

As the House is aware, the Metropolitan Police has also asked the Government to withhold some material in scope of the Motion that it considered could be prejudicial to its ongoing criminal investigation or any subsequent prosecution. This request remains in place and I am very grateful, again, to the chair of the Public Administration and Constitutional Affairs Committee, with whom we have also shared this information in order to provide additional accountability for the Government’s actions. I hope that Members will appreciate the need not to prejudice the investigation and understand that I will not be able to answer questions about certain documents that have been withheld. No responsible Government would wish to undermine a criminal investigation and put at risk the justice that it seeks, and I am sure that the House will share this position. I can, however, confirm that this material does include questions put to Peter Mandelson by the Prime Minister’s then chief of staff, and Peter Mandelson’s responses.

In addition, a small number of documents have been withheld at the request of the police, which fall broadly into the following categories: national security vetting material; conflict of interest process material; and relevant internal correspondence with Peter Mandelson. Such information will, of course, be published at the conclusion of the investigation or at the point at which it would no longer be prejudicial to the police investigation to do so.

The documents published in the first and second tranches contain the entirety of the documents the Government have available for disclosure, except those few documents I have just referred to in relation to the Metropolitan Police. Members will no doubt have questions about what might be perceived to be ‘missing’ messages and meeting notes, which I would like to address in turn. On messages that some might expect to be included, I can confirm that we have conducted multiple rounds of discovery from relevant Ministers, special advisers and officials, in line with the Motion passed by the House. This has involved requesting searches of email, messaging platforms such as WhatsApp, and other related communications services on both work and personal devices.

However, the House should note that some messages may not have been backed up where devices may have been changed or disappearing messages turned on, for reasonable and permitted reasons, including before the dismissal of Peter Mandelson or the passing of the humble Address—my messages included. I do recall having some limited exchanges with Peter Mandelson over WhatsApp, including those I have already discussed in the media, but these conversations did not involve transacting government business and were in line with official guidance on the use of non-corporate communications channels at the time.

I share the view put by the Intelligence and Security Committee to the House that there are lessons for the Civil Service to learn in respect of better note-keeping, archiving and the use of appropriate levels of secure IT systems in the future. The Government have already committed to a review of the use of non-corporate communications channels, the terms of reference for which we will shortly publish, taking into account the concerns that have been raised in this House and the two tranches of documents that we have published in response to the humble Address. I will of course keep the House updated as we progress that work.

I now turn to the material relating to Peter Mandelson’s national security vetting process. I can confirm that the vetting process summary and recommendation that was put by UK Security Vetting officials to the Foreign Office has been shared with the Intelligence and Security Committee. It was shared for the purpose of agreeing redactions, as part of the agreed process, so that it can be published when we are in a position to do so. What have not been shared are the highly sensitive personal data inputs collected during the interview process. These could relate to, for example, how much money an individual might have in a particular account or who a person may have had a personal relationship with in the past. If those participating in the vetting process cannot trust that the information they feed into that process is confidential, that will harm the integrity of the whole system. Anything less than full candour would be hugely damaging and profoundly negative for our national security; this would be felt by this and future Governments and, ultimately, by the British people. Sharing this data for any person undergoing developed vetting would therefore undermine the very basis of our national security vetting system.

This is the 10th update that I have provided to the House on this matter. With the exception of the small number of documents that are withheld at the request of the police, which we intend to publish when the police are content for us to do so, the Government now consider that they have duly discharged the duties set out in the humble Address. I will, however, return to the House for the general debate on Wednesday to provide a further opportunity for colleagues to ask questions. On that basis, I commend this Statement to the House”.

[Baroness Finn (Con)]

My Lords, this scandal began with the Prime Minister’s decision to appoint Peter Mandelson as His Majesty’s ambassador to Washington. Mandelson is a man whose relationship with Jeffrey Epstein was already known to be a profound reputational risk and whose later published record included cash payments and benefits from Epstein, including travel.

At the core of this story is not merely a failure of process; it is a failure of judgment. It is the Prime Minister’s failure, and it shows a callous disregard for the victims of one of the most notorious sex offenders of modern times.

In truth, we have learned little that is surprising from what is actually in these documents. It is no surprise that Lord Mandelson displayed contempt for the Prime Minister, for cabinet government and for officials and advisers alike, despite his public utterances. He described No. 10 as “beleaguered and bereft”, said it needed a “complete revamp” and claimed that senior people in Downing Street did not know what the Prime Minister wanted; indeed, that most of them did not think that the Prime Minister knew what he wanted.

Of equal concern is that, clearly, Ministers spent a lot of time discussing party politics with a supposedly politically impartial official. Can the Minister confirm that that failure to uphold the impartiality of the Civil Service is in contravention of the Ministerial Code?

What is most revealing is not what the documents contain; it is what they do not contain. Nowhere is there candid written submission, whether from officials or political advisers, saying, “Prime Minister, this appointment is unwise. This candidate carries unacceptable reputational risk. This office demands a higher standard”. We have not been shown a written decision from the Prime Minister or the Foreign Secretary authorising the appointment on the merits. Instead, we are given peripheral documents: process, risk, choreography, vetting, and announcement handling. One chain says simply that

“a political appointment has been agreed”.

The Cabinet Secretary later records that earlier advice explained the Prime Minister’s right to

“make such an appointment and the process for doing so but did not give specific advice on candidates”.

So, for all the Prime Minister’s talk of leadership, the record before us suggests that not one person serving him felt able or willing to advise him candidly in writing that this appointment was folly. That is a remarkable indictment of the culture at the centre of government.

It is also deeply ironic. This is a Prime Minister who has staked much of his moral authority on the Hillsborough law and a statutory duty of candour. He has said that such a duty is needed so that the truth is not optional and cover-ups are impossible and that the law would change the balance of power so that the state can never hide from the people it should serve. Those are admirable sentiments. They arise from hard and bitter experience: Hillsborough, infected blood, Covid—all where families were forced to fight the state, not only for justice but for records, evidence and truth.

Perhaps the one person in government who did, in private, take the duty of candour seriously was Pat McFadden, who told Lord Mandelson:

“Every meeting I have is: ‘Who can we tax in order to pay benefits to others?’ They’re asking the wrong questions”.


What a shame that he felt that that duty did not extend to the electorate.

Does the Minister appreciate how surreal it is for a Government to preach candour in public office while, in relation to one of the gravest scandals in British diplomatic history, they appear assiduously to have avoided creating clear records of advice and decision? Candour is not merely what Ministers say at a Dispatch Box after the event. Candour is what advisers write down when the powerful are about to make a grave mistake.

There is a further problem. The Government acknowledge that material has been withheld so as not to prejudice an ongoing Metropolitan Police investigation, and say that further publication may follow. But where is the schedule? How many relevant documents have been withheld? What categories do they fall into? Who authored them? What dates do they cover? What broad subjects do they concern? I ask the noble Baroness to undertake that the Government will provide the House with a clear account of what has been withheld and why.

Finally, responsibility cannot be outsourced to officials, advisers or process. The responsibility lies with the Prime Minister. If further confirmation were needed of Lord Mandelson’s total unsuitability, it is found in the extraordinary discovery that after his appointment had been publicly announced, he still planned to participate in UBS’s Greater China Conference in Shanghai in his Global Counsel capacity, and that he would be paid for it. Officials further recorded that he asked to start on the FCDO payroll in order to facilitate that private engagement. This was a man with no proper regard for propriety, ethics or the dignity of public office, and he has been driven from office and from public life. The remaining question is how long the Prime Minister who appointed him can credibly remain.

[Lord Pack (LD)]

My Lords, when discussing such matters we should always start with remembering and honouring the bravery of the women and girls who came forward to tell the truth, revealing the grim reality of the behaviour they and others had been subject to. Their commitment to truth stands in stark contrast, sadly, with Peter Mandelson’s decision to withhold key information from the papers we are discussing today.

However, turning to what we do have, and starting on a positive note, the Government’s new guidance on direct ministerial appointments published alongside the humble Address now says—and it is very welcome:

“Where security vetting procedures are necessary, these should be undertaken and completed before an appointment is confirmed and announced”.


I have raised before the rather bizarre, back-to-front nature of appointing somebody first and only then checking whether they are suitable, so that is a very welcome change and should be acknowledged as such.

On a possibly less positive note, I see that the terms of reference for the vetting review have also been published alongside this tranche of documents. I have previously expressed concerns about how the results of Peter Mandelson’s vetting were reported to others through a daisy chain of verbal briefings, such that in the end the Prime Minister was hearing the outcome of the vetting process third hand, without sight of the relevant outcome documents. Whatever we think about the judgments made in that process, that is clearly a very brittle process, prone to error and lack of accountability. Can the Minister therefore confirm that the vetting review will include not just how vetting is done, which is clearly within scope, but how its results are reported to others, including looking at the merits of replacing that culture of verbal briefings with a clear, documented paper trail?

Moving on to what is definitely not, I am afraid, a positive note, the messages that we now can see from inside government show a clear and widespread embedding of the culture of government by WhatsApp. I have previously asked about the promised review of the Cabinet Office’s guidance on the use of WhatsApp, which still, at the bottom of the page on GOV.UK, states:

“This guidance will be reviewed on or before 31 December 2025”.


Last month, when I queried when the review will be completed, the Minister told me:

“I expect it to be before your Lordships’ House imminently for us to discuss the detail”.—[Official Report, 19/5/26; cols. 280-81.]


However, yesterday, in the House of Commons, the Minister, Darren Jones, told the House simply that the terms of reference for the review will be published “very shortly”. So we have gone from a promised review before 31 December 2025, to an expectation last month that details were imminent, to a hope yesterday that the terms of the review will be published very shortly. It seems that each time, as time passes, we are getting further away from the completion of the review. What assurances can the Minister give us about the Government’s commitment to sorting this issue out and ensuring that this review is fully completed —and promptly?

Turning to the papers themselves, I have four questions. Running through much of the correspondence is the idea from officials that membership of the House of Lords exempts you from vetting requirements in many circumstances. It is a repeatedly expressed belief. Given the limited nature of the checks made on those of us who have the privilege of joining this House, and given that those checks have in many cases been carried out several decades previously, can the Minister confirm the Government’s position? On what occasions, and for which posts, would someone who otherwise has to be vetted be exempted from vetting by virtue of being a Member of this House?

Secondly, there is the email from a civil servant to Peter Mandelson on 21 January last year—volume 1, page 77—regarding the vetting team’s request for the names of his foreign contacts. The email said:

“I suggest you send over the handful of names you mentioned, even though you don’t consider them ‘close contacts’. That will reassure the vetting team that you’ve been comprehensive, even if it’s all quite artificial”.


That apparent coaching on how to mislead the vetting team with extraneous information is clearly concerning. Can the Minister tell us when the Government became aware of such exchanges, and what action has been taken to ensure that similar such coaching or advice is not proffered in future?

Thirdly, there is the curious email from Ailsa Terry to Peter Mandelson and Morgan McSweeney on 13 February last year—volume 1, page 386. It says:

“Olly has been clear about the need to delete all traffic on this”.


Why would a senior civil servant be telling those two people to delete all the records of something?

Finally, I turn to a matter of detail—it would be a useful one to clear up—regarding volume 3, page 128. It appears to show the noble Lord, Lord Livermore, arranging a meeting with a paid lobbyist, yet the Treasury’s list of declared such meetings does not have any matching entry. Did that meeting take place? If so, who attended it, and what is the reason for that meeting not appearing in the register?

I appreciate that, obviously, the Minister may not be able to give detailed answers to all those points now, but I hope she will be able to commit at least to writing to me, because clarity and transparency are crucial as part of not just the Government’s but the whole political system’s reaction to the scandal we have been facing.

[The Parliamentary Secretary, Cabinet Office (Baroness Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent) (Lab)]

My Lords, first, I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Finn, and the noble Lord, Lord Pack, for their contributions. As ever, I will endeavour to answer all their questions, but I will reflect on Hansard and write on any issues I have missed.

Before I do so, it is important for all of us to reflect on the impact this debate will yet again have on the victims of Jeffrey Epstein. Noble Lords across your Lordships’ House will be aware of the truly horrific crimes he committed against countless women and girls. As we discuss these issues again today, it is the victims of a horrendous sexual predator whom we must remember.

Moving on to the substance and process of the Government’s compliance with the ISC, for clarity and accountability, as noble Lords will have seen, the publication includes a summary of the methodology explaining how government officials undertook the disclosure process. To clarify, because doing so will be helpful for Members of your Lordships’ House, on redactions, in line with the Motion, more than 300 individual documents were referred under a process agreed between the Government and the Intelligence and Security Committee. The Government are grateful to the committee for its engagement in this process, and I am of course especially grateful to my noble friend Lord Beamish for his stewardship of the ISC and his management of this significant additional workload.

Further limited redactions have been made outside the ISC process in respect of information that relates to junior officials’ names, contact details, the personal or commercially sensitive data of third parties not relevant to the Motion and, where relevant, legal professional privilege. The Cabinet Office humble Address team, which has taken the decisions on non-ISC redactions, has taken advice from an independent KC—including reviewing the methodological approach—and officials, acting on that to inform its work. These additional targeted redactions made outside the ISC process have been made in line with precedent, built on the conventions of the Freedom of Information Act, the Ministerial Code and resolutions on ministerial accountability passed by both Houses in 1997, as my right honourable friend the Chief Secretary to the Prime Minister stated yesterday.

On the ISC’s recommendation—we thank it for such a constructive suggestion—the chair of the Public Administration and Constitutional Affairs Committee, Mr Simon Hoare MP, has reviewed our approach to third-party redactions and confirmed that we have applied the methodology set out in the document and that the redactions are sensible, reasonable and proportionate. As noble Lords will be aware, the Metropolitan Police Service has asked us to withhold some material in scope of the Motion which it considers could be prejudicial to its ongoing criminal investigation or any subsequent prosecution.

To ensure parliamentary oversight, the Government also shared this information with the chair of the Public Administration and Constitutional Affairs Committee to provide additional accountability of the Government’s actions. The Government are very grateful to Mr Hoare for his participation in that exercise. Our goal is to ensure that we neither prejudice nor undermine any police investigations, as all Members of your Lordships’ House would expect. Such information will be published at the conclusion of the investigation, or at a point when it would no longer be prejudicial to the police investigation to do so. Therefore, I am limited in what I can and will say.

I will also touch briefly on the material relating to Peter Mandelson’s national security vetting process. The UK security vetting process summary and recommendation that was put to the Foreign Office has been shared with the ISC to agree reactions so that it can be published when we are able to do so. What has not been shared is the highly sensitive personal data that formed the basis of the vetting process. If those participating in the vetting process cannot trust that the information they feed into the process is confidential, it will harm the integrity of the whole system, undermining the very basis of our national security vetting system and, in turn, our national security. We cannot and will not do that. I note that the chair of the ISC, my noble friend Lord Beamish, confirmed last night that he agrees with the Government that the larger vetting detail should not be released to the committee even though it is covered by the humble Address. I am grateful to my noble friend for saying so.

Moving to the specific points that have been raised, the noble Baroness, Lady Finn, touched on compliance with the Ministerial Code. Noble Lords will understand that I am not the judge of the Ministerial Code—that is the role of the Prime Minister, taking advice from his independent adviser as needed. As set out in the code, Ministers are personally responsible for deciding how to act and conduct themselves in light of the code, and for justifying their actions to Parliament and the public. The noble Baroness also touched on the future duty of candour law and raised the scandals that have led to us requiring a law. We have discussed in your Lordships’ House many times—be it the horrors of the infected blood scandal, of Horizon, of Windrush, of Hillsborough, or of the Manchester Arena—that there is a reason why we need to change the law. If we cannot convince people to be candid, then in order to change the culture we will need to change the law. I reassure the noble Baroness that, as I understand it, Peter Mandelson did not participate in the Shanghai speaking engagement she referenced.

On the direct ministerial guidance and change in vetting, the noble Lord, Lord Pack, raised a very important point, as he did last time, about how this is communicated. I will have to go back to officials to see if it can be included in the terms of reference, because the process is well under way. The noble Lord is aware that my colleague, the Chief Secretary to the Prime Minister, was called up on the fact that it has been slightly delayed, although it is slightly ambitious timing, so it depends on your view. However, I will see what I can do about verbal briefings and write to the noble Lord.

On the issue of the NCCCs review, I expect very shortly—imminently—to be back in front of your Lordships’ House with both the terms of reference and who is undertaking that review. We are not not doing it; we absolutely are, as my honourable friend in the other place said. But I will have to come back to him.

With regard to the fit and proper person test, the noble Lord would have read with interest, as I did, about what we are allowed to know as Members of your Lordships’ House and what we are not allowed to know. Noble Lords will be aware that there are a small number of exemptions from standard vetting requirements in place. Sir Adrian Fulford is considering the relevant policies as part of his review into national security vetting. His high-level recommendations will be published shortly, and we will act swiftly on his recommendations.

There is a general exemption from national security vetting for parliamentarians. This has been a general rule for many years, and many Members of your Lordships’ House would have experienced briefings because of it. That includes in this instance and in others those briefings that can also be made on Privy Council terms, hence the discussion. I would suggest that noble Lords actually look at the time stamps for how that discussion was done, because that was a one-day discussion—several messages but a one-day discussion—and then a decision was made.

The noble Lord, Lord Pack, also asked me about my noble friend Lord Livermore and the transparency declaration. I understand this was a personal meeting that took place away from government property. The only participants were my noble friend Lord Livermore and Peter Mandelson; no one else from Global Counsel joined in the end. As this was a meeting in a personal capacity, it was not recorded as an official meeting.

The documents before your Lordships amount to one of the largest government publications ever laid before the House. Officials work tirelessly to ensure our compliance with the wishes of the other place and over £1 million has been spent. The scale is not dissimilar to the requirements of a public inquiry, and I want to thank my officials for their extraordinary effort since the beginning of February. However, the last word should not be about process or political intrigue, but to remember who has been failed. Our thoughts must remain with the victims of Epstein today and every day.

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

My Lords, we now have up to 20 minutes of questions from Back-Bench Members. The first question will be from the Conservative Benches.

15:52

[Lord Gove (Con)]

My Lords, one figure emerges from these papers with his already high reputation enhanced. I refer of course to Sir Olly Robbins, the former Permanent Secretary at the FCDO, and I am sure the noble Baroness, who is an excellent Minister, will agree with me that the memo that he authored towards Lord Mandelson, which was published, reinforces that he is a public servant of the highest standards of honour and integrity. Would she also agree with me that he should be reinstated now rather than have the taxpayer pay hundreds of thousands of pounds for his unfair dismissal?

[Baroness Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent (Lab)]

My Lords, Olly Robbins was dismissed because the Prime Minister and the Foreign Secretary lost confidence in him, as has been set out publicly before. As has always been the case, we do not comment on individual employment cases.

[Lord Beamish (Lab)]

My Lords, the ISC has spent many hours and days doing the task which Parliament set it. I put on record my thanks, on behalf of the committee, to the staff who have worked behind the scenes on this. I also thank the committee members, including two Members of our own House, my noble friend Admiral Lord West, and the noble Baroness, Lady Brown of Cambridge, who have worked very hard on this long task.

I wrote last week to the Prime Minister raising four points: the use of WhatsApp in government; the use of low-side systems for transmitting confidential and secretive information; the lack of record-keeping, particularly within the Foreign Office, of audit trails; and the way in which security advice was handled by officials and Ministers. They are nothing new. The committee raised them with the last Government, including the Foreign Office, which had a very bad reputation for keeping records or WhatsApp messages. I understand that the Government have now committed to a review of this, but I say to my noble friend that there is an urgency in this. This needs to be done very quickly, because this is not something new. It was raised with the last Government, it was ignored by the last Government, and it now needs to be put right as a matter of urgency.

[Baroness Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent (Lab)]

I thank my noble friend for the work he has done, as well as my other noble friend and other colleagues in your Lordships’ House and the other place. This has been an extraordinary volume of work for many people, not least members of the committee and their officials, and we are very grateful to them for it.

I will take the four points he raised in turn. He is absolutely right; there has to be a positive in everything that happens, and one of the positives is that we will now review each of these areas to fix what is not working, the first of which is the use of WhatsApp. There will be a review on the use of non-corporate communication channels—we really need a better phrase for them than NCCCs, but I am sure we will come up with one. On record-keeping, I assure your Lordships’ House that the Cabinet Secretary has this week written to all the heads of departments—in other words, to every other Permanent Secretary—to remind them of their responsibilities, and we are reviewing the guidance that is issued to private offices going forward. My noble friend is absolutely right about low-level platforms and security information, and those two will be taken in train. I realise, as I reference that, that one of the questions asked by the noble Lord, Lord Pack, was about why some material should be deleted. I am not sure of the detail, because I have not seen some of the security elements behind it, but I would suggest that it may be because that information should not have been on that level of platform.

[Baroness Manningham-Buller (CB)]

My Lords, I say to the Minister that I greatly welcome the fact that the Government are going to resist any misplaced pressure to reveal full security vetting, as indeed the ISC rightly says. We all know that, in references for jobs nowadays, the candidates are perfect and have a million and one qualities. I know that security vetting is very detailed— I have been subjected to it many times myself. It goes to your school, education, employers and friends, and people speak frankly. If for one moment they felt it was going to be published, security vetting designed to protect the most secret information would be of little value. Whatever else we do, we must hold on to that. However tempting it would be, for whatever reason, to know the full contents, they must not be revealed. I am talking not about this case but about a general principle. I very much welcome the Minister’s assurance on that.

[Baroness Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent (Lab)]

I could not agree more with the noble Baroness. This is clear, and there is already some concern about the chilling effect that even discussions of vetting in this way may be having on people’s responsibilities to be candid during the process, because they are concerned that it could end up that very private details of their personal life could be released in a way that most people do not know about. It is absolutely clear that this Government will not release the vetting files, in order to protect our national security.

[Lord Robathan (Con)]

The Minister has been making a very good meal of this, and I pay tribute to her. I am going to America next week; does she share my deep embarrassment that this country, renowned for its integrity, appointed this shocking man as ambassador?

[Baroness Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent (Lab)]

I wish the noble Lord safe travels, and I hope he has a very enjoyable visit. With regard to the appointment, I think we have all been clear that this was a mistake and should not have happened, and the Prime Minister has taken personal responsibility for it.

[Lord Maude of Horsham (Con)]

My Lords, does the Minister agree that the last, albeit inadvertent, public service that Peter Mandelson delivered was to enable to be laid bare for public scrutiny the extraordinary vacuum at the centre of this Government—that there is a lack of leadership and a lack of direction, and that this has consequences? Does she agree that, when the Financial Secretary stood at that Dispatch Box yesterday and told the House that the inevitable consequence of the Government’s so-called EU reset was that Britain would rejoin the European Union, that has consequences? Does she agree that that lack of discipline and of collective responsibility has to come to an end and can only do so with a change of Prime Minister?

[Baroness Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent (Lab)]

My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, because he has given me an opportunity to highlight exactly how effective my Government and that of Keir Starmer have been since we came into office. More than 50% of asylum hotels are closed and knife crime has gone down by 10% in the last 12 months. The IMF has just raised our growth forecast. We have approved 110,000 grants to help people buy new electric vehicles, and we have increased the number of secondary school, special school and further education teachers by 4,000. Over 1,300 schools have joined the free breakfast club programme. The NHS waiting list is at its lowest level for three and a half years. Some 11 million renters have stronger rights and 56,000 illegal immigrants have been returned to their countries. We have brought in 30 hours of free childcare per week for parents and the minimum wage has gone up. I will take that every day of the week.

[Lord Harris of Haringey (Lab)]

My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend the Minister for the way in which she is addressing this Statement. Seeing her pile of papers and the number of Post-it notes attached, it is clearly an impressive task for any Minister to deal with.

Much has been made of the use of WhatsApp. I suspect I am not alone in your Lordships’ House in confessing that I use WhatsApp. I also have a number of conversations in which disappearing messages are used. There has already been criticism of the use of disappearing messages in WhatsApp, not just in the discussions that have been revealed as part of this but right through the previous Government, particularly during the Covid period. Perhaps my noble friend can confirm that.

Secondly, while I deplore the use of WhatsApp for any formal decision-making, disappearing messages are an entirely sensible proposition where WhatsApp is being used. I checked my mobile phone this morning, and the largest use of memory on it is by WhatsApp—so, in fact, for colleagues in the other place, colleagues here and colleagues on the other side of this Chamber to use disappearing messages is entirely rational. Does my noble friend agree?

[Baroness Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent (Lab)]

I thank my noble friend and would like to reassure him that I have read every page of the humble Address. I apparently do not need to sleep any more.

The point that he made about WhatsApp and disappearing messages is absolutely right. The guidance issued to every Minister is clear:

“‘Disappearing message’ functions have a role in limiting the build up of messages on devices. You must ensure that any such use does not impact on your recordkeeping or transparency responsibilities”.


Anyone who had deleted messages was not breaking the rules. The issue is in making sure that all record-keeping of decisions and how they were made is kept in government, which is why we are reminding every government department of its responsibilities in this space.

[Lord Young of Acton (Con)]

My Lords, as my noble friend Lady Finn said, the Prime Minister has staked his moral authority on the Hillsborough law and the duty of candour. That is admirable but, when candour is required of this Government, we get redacted documents, nil responses and stolen mobile phones, which we are told were not backed up in the cloud. We learned today that even the Prime Minister has disappearing messages on WhatsApp switched on—so much for the state never hiding from the people it serves.

My question for the Minister is: where is the candour from this Government? Spare us the usual list of the previous Government’s sins; after all the Prime Minister’s moral grandstanding on this issue, the argument that “We’re no worse than you lot” does not really cut it.

[Baroness Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent (Lab)]

I wish the noble Lord had listened to the answer I gave to my noble friend because, if he had, he would not have needed to read his question. With regard to the issues that the noble Lord raised, I do not think he will find that I have attacked the previous Government from this Dispatch Box, although there is plenty to attack them for.

On candour, as I just stated to my noble friend, the use of WhatsApp messages and deleting messages is explicitly allowed for within the guidance that is issued within government. On the use of candour, I think everyone benefits from a little light.

[Baroness Hayter of Kentish Town (Lab)]

My Lords, it is interesting that my noble friend does not talk about the previous Government, but they were the Government who tried to prorogue Parliament and found that they should not have done it. I find it difficult to take lessons from them.

My noble friend and other Ministers have acknowledged many times that there were serious shortcomings in the due diligence and vetting process, and they have already made some changes—for example, to ensure that vetting takes place before an announcement. I welcome that. My noble friend alluded to various changes under way, but I wonder whether she could let us know what other workstreams will make sure that we improve the whole situation with vetting and approvals.

[Baroness Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent (Lab)]

I thank my noble friend for her question. I agree with her that there is a little bit of chutzpah in being lectured at by colleagues opposite.

With regard to the changes that are being undertaken, obviously we have asked specialists in the field to make their recommendations to us. Noble Lords who operate in the security field will be aware that there is always an ongoing review of how vetting is undertaken to make sure that it complies with the world as the world shifts and changes and as our threat levels change. I look forward to seeing Sir Adrian Fulford’s recommendations for next steps. My noble friend is absolutely right that we are not standing still. We have reminded all government departments of their responsibilities. We are looking at the existing guidance for private offices to make sure that ministerial guidance is in place. One of the things that I am looking at is the recommendation of the noble Lord, Lord Redwood, about how we can ensure that Ministers have the right support in place, as well as the right training and mentoring, both in this space and more broadly.

[Baroness Coffey (Con)]

My Lords, Ministers have brilliant private offices that help them with record-keeping, so the Minister is right to suggest that using WhatsApp is perfectly acceptable. I want to understand further, though. It is unfortunate that the chief of staff’s mobile phone was stolen. Has the Cabinet Office investigated asking network carriers, and indeed the WhatsApp organisation, for the metadata? That records whatever calls were made, whatever texts were sent and which messages were deleted. It would be useful, in this level of candour, to make those requests and to inform Parliament if the network carriers, and indeed WhatsApp, refuse to provide them.

[Baroness Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent (Lab)]

I have to agree with the noble Baroness about brilliant private offices; mine is fabulous. Obviously, it has a really easy job of making sure that I operate well. On the specifics about the metadata, I will have to write to the noble Baroness. This was a process led by Cabinet Office officials. I am not sure of the detail in that space on what additional information they sought.

[Lord Foulkes of Cumnock (Lab Co-op)]

My Lords, it is clear that Members opposite were hoping that there would be a silver bullet in all these humble Address papers that would kill the Prime Minister. When they have to resort to quoting Peter Mandelson’s view of the Prime Minister, it shows how desperate they are becoming. Then we got the scattergun approach from the noble Baroness, Lady Finn. She had to resort to picking here, there and everywhere and getting nowhere.

My question relates to what the noble Lord, Lord Pack, said about vetting Members of this House. As the Minister said, that does not happen at the moment. Yet we have a Member of this House who was appointed against the views of the intelligence community: the noble Lord, Lord Lebedev. Surely the Minister must agree that we may need to rethink it in view of that.

[Baroness Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent (Lab)]

I thank my noble friend, as always, for his thoughtful contribution. With regard to the specifics, there is a genuine issue. Obviously, many Members of your Lordships’ House on a day-to-day basis need to be briefed on specific pieces of government legislation or to have early access to certain documents, as was offered to some Members of your Lordships’ House yesterday, on Privy Council terms or as fit and proper people. There is a balance here about how we operate our day-to-day world so that noble Lords can appropriately scrutinise the actions of the Government versus general access to information. While I will not comment on individual Members of your Lordships’ House, I can understand some concerns, which is why Sir Adrian Fulford has been asked to consider that as part of his review.

[Baroness Foster of Oxton (Con)]

My Lords, it appears from the second tranche of emails that the former ambassador to America was sent on a mission to support, and ensure that the American Administration supported, the appalling Chagos deal. It also appears that there was more to it than that in relation to his involvement with the Chagos deal, not just making sure that the American Administration went along with the UK Government. Will the Minister please inform the House whether there is an investigation to give us further information as to the precise role that the former ambassador to America had in relation to the Chagos deal?

[Baroness Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent (Lab)]

My Lords, I find the question itself a tad surreal, given the nature of what we are talking about. The noble Baroness is referencing the actions and engagement that the Government’s ambassador had with another nation. Some of that material will be redacted for international relations and national security reasons. With regard to where we currently stand, the base on Diego Garcia is vital to our national security. Our agreement with Mauritius is the best way to secure it, ensuring that it can continue to operate effectively and play a crucial role in our national security.

[Lord Watts (Lab)]

My Lords, does the Minister agreed with me that we should not take lessons from the Opposition, who had a Prime Minister who misled Parliament on a number of occasions and none of them said anything about it?

[Baroness Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent (Lab)]

My Lords, I do not believe that the noble Lord was referring to any Member of your Lordships’ House in those comments; I say this to reassure the Privy Council Bench on the opposite side.

Noble Lords will appreciate that the previous Government had some challenges at various points during their period in office. As for what that means for us, we have republished the Ministerial Code, adding in the Nolan principles. We have created the Ethics and Integrity Commission. We have made sure that we are bringing forward consideration on lobbying reform. This is a Government who are seeking to rebuild trust in public life, and we will continue to do so.

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

Tuesday 2nd June 2026 Lords Chamber

Second Reading

16:13

Moved by

[Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill]

That the Bill be now read a second time.

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

My Lords, civil aviation is a cornerstone of our national prosperity, supporting jobs,investment and connectivity across the United Kingdom. In 2025 alone, UK airports handled 2.1 million commercial flights and nearly 300 million passengers. This highlights both the scale of the sector and the need for effective regulation. The Bill before your Lordships’ House will reinforce consumer protections, support economic growth and aviation infrastructure, and enable improved safety standards. In doing so, it will help ensure that the UK remains an attractive and competitive aviation hub for years to come.

I am sure that noble Lords will wish to consider the case for this Bill. The sector has changed profoundly in recent years. Rapid technological advances, new aircraft capabilities and the emergence of new airspace users, such as drones, have created complexity for which the current framework was not designed. At the same time, the UK has lost certain powers to update regulation following EU exit. The sector has also faced external shocks,such as the recent instability in the Middle East and the unprecedented disruption of the Covid-19 pandemic. To manage this, we need a framework flexible enough to respond to volatility, embrace innovation and prioritise passengers. That is the purpose of this Bill.

The Bill takes an important step to strengthen consumer protection for passengers. Although the sector serves millions well, when things go wrong some may face uncertainty and delay in securing redress. The Bill introduces a power to strengthen air passenger rights through secondary legislation, ensuring that they keep pace with case law, international standards and a changing landscape. This will allow the Government to tackle the issues that matter most to passengers: delays and cancellations, baggage loss or damage, injury or death, protections for disabled and less mobile passengers, and redress mechanisms for individuals.

I am acutely aware of the difficulties that disabled passengers can encounter when flying, including poor and inappropriate service, long waiting times, and damaged and lost mobility aids. I have heard concerns expressed by noble Lords from all sides of the House on challenges that they have faced themselves or when travelling with family and friends. The noble Baroness, Lady Grey-Thompson, led my department’s Aviation Accessibility Task and Finish Group to identify ways to improve without legislation the travel experience of disabled air passengers, but this Bill will provide the Government with the powers to strengthen legal protections where necessary to ensure that the system works for all passengers, including those who require assistance.

Crucially, the Bill strengthens enforcement. Unlike other regulators, the Civil Aviation Authority currently relies on court action to protect consumer rights. This is slow and resource intensive. The Bill will give the CAA direct consumer enforcement powers, aligning it with the Competition and Markets Authority. That will allow earlier and more effective intervention, quicker redress and greater passenger confidence.

The Bill supports the modernisation of UK airspace. The UK has some of the busiest and most complex airspace in the world, yet much of its design dates back to the 1950s. Modernisation is therefore essential to maintain and improve safety, reliability and efficiency, as well as to reduce emissions and noise for communities. Without it, it is estimated that, by 2040, as many as one in five flights could face significant disruption. The Government have established the UK Airspace Design Service to deliver the most complex airspace changes, beginning with London. The Bill complements that work by strengthening the Secretary of State’s existing powers of direction, enabling her, where necessary, to direct those involved in airspace change to implement approved designs. This provides a more robust power of last resort, ensuring that modernisation can proceed effectively.

The Bill broadens who may be charged for the provision of air traffic and air navigation services. This will ensure that the cost of providing better air services, including funding the UK Airspace Design Service, can continue to be recovered fairly, as new types of airspace service users emerge.

On slot reform, the Bill enables a more agile and resilient approach to airport slot regulation, a framework that has remained largely unchanged since the early 1990s. Effective slot allocation is essential, not only in times of disruption but to maintain capacity, connectivity and competitiveness. The Government must be able to respond swiftly and proportionately when demand changes or operational pressures arise. The Bill therefore introduces a delegated power to amend slot regulations when needed, replacing powers lost after EU exit.

Recent experience has shown why that matters. The pandemic demonstrated how quickly aviation operations can be disrupted, and more recent instability in the Middle East has reinforced how quickly external events can impact aviation, resulting in the need for an urgent statutory instrument to be brought before this House in the next few days using powers that will no longer be available after 23 June. The Bill therefore provides a much-needed mechanism for updating slot rules when circumstances require it in the future.

Finally, the Bill strengthens the aviation safety framework. The UK has an excellent record on aviation safety and these measures will help ensure that it is maintained. However, since EU exit, all changes to safety regulations—mostly highly technical and routine updates—must be delivered through statutory instruments. This process is time-consuming, resource intensive and duplicative; it is unsuitable for an international and fast-moving sector such as aviation, where global safety standards evolve continuously.

As a result, the UK is falling behind on its international obligations, which could impact the safety of the sector. The Bill aims to make safety rule-making faster and more efficient, by delegating technical aviation safety and operational standards to the Civil Aviation Authority. This will create a more responsive and agile framework, helping to ensure that safety requirements keep pace with international standards and the changing landscape.

We recognise that noble Lords, and Members in the other place, will want to ensure appropriate ministerial and parliamentary oversight of this delegation. The Bill includes strong measures precisely to ensure this. The Secretary of State will set objectives and priorities for the Civil Aviation Authority, which will be laid before Parliament, including a forward look at rule-making tasks. The Secretary of State will be able to direct or even override, if necessary, the CAA’s exercise of its rule-making functions using her existing powers.

The Bill also includes binding requirements on the Civil Aviation Authority to consult and notify affected parties, including Ministers, and a duty to report to Parliament on the exercise of this delegated power. This approach gives Parliament a more holistic forward and backward view on aviation safety rule-making, compared with the fragmented and piecemeal view it has in the current system. It also enables much-needed consolidation of the existing, fragmented sources of law, which would otherwise be impractical. This will make compliance for industry simpler and enhance safety.

Alongside this, the Bill addresses an important gap in enforcement. It restores powers, lost after the EU exit, to amend and create aviation safety-related criminal offences where necessary. Without this, some safety rules cannot be fully enforced, making them harder to update and less effective in practice. Taken together, these measures will support a clearer, more effective regulatory framework by preserving the UK’s high safety standards, aligning better with international practice and sustaining public confidence in the safety of our aviation system.

In closing, I know many noble Lords will be interested in how the Bill interacts with the Government’s support for a third runway at Heathrow. I should be clear: the Bill is designed to support the entire aviation sector, regardless of any decisions on expansion. Those with a particular interest in Heathrow will have an opportunity to scrutinise proposed changes to the airports national policy statement later this year.

Before I conclude, I should note that this Bill is an important waypoint, not the end of the runway, for aviation reform—sorry. Following Royal Assent, further regulations will set out the detail for industry and allow for further scrutiny by your Lordships and Members in the other place. The Bill’ application is UK-wide, as aviation is a reserved matter, but some of its clauses touch on transferred matters in Northern Ireland. The Government are therefore seeking a legislative consent Motion from the Northern Ireland Assembly.

This Bill is a measured and practical piece of legislation. It updates the legislative framework governing civil aviation in a way that is proportionate, targeted and grounded in the needs of a modern sector, while remaining consistent with the high standards this House would rightly expect. I hope noble Lords will recognise the value of these reforms and feel able to support the Bill’s passage today. I beg to move.

16:23

[Lord Harper (Con)]

My Lords, before I start my remarks, I draw attention to my declaration in the register of interests as the non-executive chair of RVL Aviation.

The Minister will, I hope, be pleased to know that I, for one, broadly support the Bill, although there are some areas where I have some questions and concerns. Where I agree with him—he set this out clearly in his letter to Peers—is on the importance of the sector: how important civil aviation is for the UK, particularly given our global interests and the number of jobs it supports in the economy, and indeed its importance for economic growth. I completely agree with that. He also set out in that letter the fact that there is an awful lot of change and that we are global leaders in some of the development of new technologies, and therefore some of the regulation around those technologies. I know that, when I was leading the department, we gave clear direction to the CAA about engaging with industry to make sure that we could lead the world in developing some of that regulation.

Let me go through a number of areas of the Bill and set out where I agree and where I have some questions for the Minister. On airspace modernisation, I strongly support what the Government are trying to do. It was an area I was involved with when I was Secretary of State. It has a lot of benefits in terms of improving efficiency for airlines, reducing costs, reducing carbon emissions and making use of very congested airspace, particularly in the London area, more efficiently. But I am struggling with exactly what benefit the power in the Bill will generate in practice.

In the ECHR memorandum, the department made it clear that it was a last-resort measure. No directions have been made. They have been threatened on some occasions. It went out of its way in that memorandum to emphasise how limited a power it would be. In the Explanatory Notes to the Bill, it said that the use of the clause might be helpful, particularly in delivering airspace modernisation particularly over London. It would be helpful, when the Minister winds up, if he could set out a specific example of where the new statutory power for the Secretary of State would have a practical benefit in delivering airspace modernisation.

The only other thing I want to flag—I do not think this is a genuine concern, but it would be helpful for the Minister to put people’s minds at rest—is that, when there are changes to airspace in terms of flight paths going to airports, there are, of course, perfectly reasonable concerns raised by residents who live near those airports. I wanted to have the Minister’s confirmation that the Secretary of State having this power to direct change will not change any of the existing rights for people to be consulted and have the opportunity to set out their concerns. I accept that it may be perfectly reasonable, in some cases, for decisions to be taken that some residents will not like because they are in the interests of the country, but there should be a proper process and I want to check that nothing in the Bill will change that process and weaken the rights of individuals.

On the ability of the Government to legislate using secondary legislation for consumer powers, I want to get a sense of the government’s thinking and test one of the specific things in the impact assessment. It is worth saying that, generally speaking, the aviation sector—there is one exception, which I will draw on in a minute, and the Minister referred to it—has very high levels of customer satisfaction. I think in the latest CAA consumer survey, it had something like an 88% satisfaction level, which is an all-time high. So, generally, there is not a problem to fix. But the Minister rightly drew attention to a very specific issue, which I suspect at least two noble Lords this afternoon will touch on: how the industry deals with disabled passengers and those who need extra support.

This is one of the questions I have about the CAA’s enforcement powers. There is already legislation in the Equality Act that was carried forward from the Disability Discrimination Act about the steps that all businesses, including airlines, have to take: all the reasonable adjustments they have to make to deliver services for disabled passengers. My question is about the enforcement powers that the Minister is planning to give to the CAA. Will that mean that the CAA can use the legislative powers in the Equality Act to insist that airlines make those reasonable adjustments? Is it able to use that legislation and enforce the rights that already exist? They are not new legal obligations, but I think many people feel that airlines do not deliver on those to the extent that we would expect. Is that part of the enforcement suite that the Government are thinking of? If there are existing laws that are not being properly enforced, my preference would be to properly enforce existing laws, not invent new laws, which may themselves not be properly enforced.

One of the issues I have with the Government taking powers to legislate with secondary legislation is that, although this is not true of every individual company, the aviation sector generally is a relatively low-margin business. Every time you legislate to improve consumer rights it comes at a cost, and you have to balance the rights that you are delivering—the consumer experience—against the cost that you are putting on an industry that, overall, does not make a huge margin. There is clearly a high bar if you make those changes with primary legislation, but there is a lower bar if you make them with secondary legislation. I just want to test whether the Government have any specific plans in mind at this stage that they might use secondary legislation for.

I raise this because, if you look at the impact assessment—it is a very hefty tome; a lot of hefty tomes have been published this week—page 3 says specifically:

“The EU is currently considering updates to Regulation 261, which governs passenger rights during flight disruptions”.


It also says that, if the Government do not have

“the power to amend legislation, the UK cannot promptly mirror or respond to these changes”.

I think that illustrates a mindset that is not helpful.

If the Government think that there are gaps in consumer protection legislation for British passengers, then they should make those changes because they are the right thing to do in themselves, and make the argument for them. The Government should not blindly follow and respond to things that the EU is doing. If the EU is doing things that are sensible, and that we think are sensible, we absolutely should do them, but we should do them anyway. If the EU does things that are not sensible, I see absolutely no reason why we should follow it. The whole point about leaving the European Union was that we could make decisions for ourselves. If we think things are sensible, we should do them, and we should not worry about whether the EU is doing them; if they are not sensible, we should not do them. I am afraid that the impact assessment betrays the fact that the Government, if they get these secondary legislative powers, will just mirror exactly what the EU is doing, whether or not it is sensible. I hope the Minister can put my mind at rest on that.

On airport slots, the Minister is right: the Government’s current ability to use the power of secondary legislation to amend them expires later this month. We have already seen some examples, both during the pandemic and more recently, where both the last Government and this one had to make very sensible and necessary changes, and this power is a very sensible one to have. The question is the extent to which those powers can be used for wider slot reform. Slots are a very significant economic interest for the sector as a whole; making dramatic changes would be very expensive and should be done only via primary legislation.

We consulted on slot reform when I was in the department. The department has not yet responded to that consultation. It would be helpful if the Government could set out where they have got to on that, when they plan on responding to the consultation on slot reform and, if they were to do any significant slot reform, what they think they would need to do in terms of consultation and engaging with the industry, and whether these powers would be the appropriate ones to use in those circumstances.

Briefly, I have two more points. As many will know, the CAA is a gold standard industry regulator that is respected around the world for having very high standards for aviation regulation. It also regulates our space launch capability. I am very comfortable with the CAA continuing to play that role as a regulator. The bit I am less comfortable about is whether it should be setting the rules as well as enforcing them. There is nothing wrong with the current system where Ministers set those rules. Part of the problem is that, in the past, those rules were set by the European Union. Ironically, when the European Union was doing it, Ministers were engaged in the Council of Ministers in setting some of those rules, but we in Parliament also had a number of scrutiny mechanisms where both Houses of Parliament could look at those rules in detail.

What is not clear—at least, it was not clear to me from the Bill or the Explanatory Notes—is this: if the CAA makes regulations, what is the role of this House and the House of Commons in scrutinising those regulations? Personally, my starting position is that I would prefer that the regulations were made by Ministers, who are accountable to both Houses of Parliament, and that then the CAA gets on and enforces those regulations. Of course, Ministers will be informed by the CAA’s expertise in drafting the regulations, but I think Ministers should be responsible for setting the rules and the CAA should then be responsible for enforcing them and putting them into practice. That is the bit of the Bill about which I am less comfortable.

Finally, the Minister mentioned Heathrow. He will be well aware that—as the CAA has, in effect, conceded—the existing economic model for regulating Heathrow is not fit for purpose. He will be aware that it is consulting, in its document CAP3251, on a range of options for the future of the economic regulatory model for Heathrow. That consultation closes on 15 June. There are a range of options in that consultation, but does the CAA have the power to implement all the options in that document, including, for example, the ability to have competition between different terminals at Heathrow? If it does have the power to do that, that is great. If it does not currently have the power to do that, is the Minister open to using this legislation to make sure that the CAA does have that power, so that when it has concluded the consultation and reached a decision—and when Ministers have reached a decision about how Heathrow’s economic model is regulated—it will have the ability to deliver it?

So, I have a few questions and concerns, but overall the Bill helps to strengthen the aviation sector. It is an important one for the United Kingdom, and I look forward to listening to the Minister’s detailed answers when he winds up the debate.

16:38

[Earl Russell (LD)]

My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill, for introducing the Bill and for the briefings that he and his team have kindly provided to Members of the House. We approach this Bill with an open mind and with a clear desire for greater clarity and certainty. Its relatively short length masks the complexity of the systems it seeks to update and reform, as well as the significance of the mechanisms chosen to implement those changes.

On the face of it, the Bill seeks to strengthen consumer protections, support economic growth and infrastructure, and modernise and enhance aviation safety. Of course, those are all laudable aims. However, the policy space that the Bill occupies is both crowded and contested, and the interaction between its different elements requires great scrutiny. Airspace modernisation is long overdue, but it may also facilitate increased capacity and, potentially, airport expansion. Likewise, the stronger consumer protections are clearly needed, but we must be confident that the measures proposed will work as intended in practice.

The Bill provides a framework rather than a finished product. It establishes significant delegated powers and relies heavily on secondary legislation, placing key decisions one step removed from parliamentary scrutiny. For these reasons, we will seek further clarity and assurances across three principal areas: first, the relationship between airspace modernisation, airport expansion and our environmental commitments; secondly, the delivery of improved and effective consumer protections; and, thirdly, the scope and use of delegated powers within the Bill.

I turn first to airspace modernisation and slot allocation. The aviation sector remains a vital and growing part of the UK economy. It supports jobs, enables trade and logistics, connects us to global markets and underpins both inbound tourism and outbound travel. According to the latest Civil Aviation Authority data, more than 61 million passengers travelled through UK airports in the first quarter of this year alone— a record high driven by short-haul European flights. Many of those journeys could and should be taken by rail, which is far better in terms of our carbon outputs. Yet this growth also presents a clear challenge.

The Climate Change Committee’s 2025 progress report to Parliament makes it clear that, while overall UK emissions are declining, aviation now contributes a greater share of total emissions than the electricity supply sector. It also warns that continued growth in aviation emissions could place our future climate targets at risk. While we are clear in our opposition to further airport expansion in the south-east, the Government have publicly indicated support for expansion, including a third runway at Heathrow. That policy context inevitably shapes how this Bill is read and understood.

Aviation remains one of the most difficult sectors in which to reduce emissions. While emerging technologies, including sustainable aviation fuels, are welcome and necessary, they have inherent limitations and they are emerging technologies. The Climate Change Committee has been equally clear that, should technology progress fall short, the Government may need to consider demand management measures to remain on track to net zero. Against this backdrop, I welcome the Minister’s clear statement that this Bill is not intended to enable airport expansion, either directly or indirectly, and we are grateful for that.

On these Benches, we recognise the need to modernise our airspace. The UK has some of the most congested skies in the world, and our airspace management systems have not been fundamentally updated since the 1950s. They remain structured largely around ground-based navigation systems that are increasingly outdated. Modernisation, if done well, offers real benefits, improved efficiency, enhanced passenger safety, reduced noise for affected communities and lower emissions through more direct and optimised flight paths. We therefore support this complex but necessary work, including the proposal to establish a UK airspace design service to oversee its delivery.

However, while we understand the Government’s desire for powers to direct this work, including in relation to slot allocation and scheduling, it would be remiss of us not to seek clear assurances about how these powers will be used in practice. In particular, we are concerned to ensure that the powers cannot be used deliberately or inadvertently as a back door to increased airport capacity or expansion, without appropriate scrutiny. In that context, I ask the Minister to reaffirm that decisions taken under these powers will continue to be informed by the independent advice of the Climate Change Committee, and I would also welcome greater clarity on the relationship between airspace modernisation, slot allocation and any future increase in overall capacity or passenger numbers.

At what point does operational reform become, in effect, expansion, and how will Parliament be able to distinguish clearly between the two? Furthermore, what safeguards exist to ensure that, even if the present Government do not intend to use these powers to facilitate expansion, a future Government could not do so without proper oversight? We will seek to work constructively with Ministers to establish appropriate guardrails, including stronger requirements for monitoring, reporting and transparency in relation to the airports national policy statement, the environmental impacts and the effect on our local communities of noise.

I turn briefly to consumer rights. We agree that the current system is not functioning as it should. We also recognise that many of these powers are coming to an end and need to be reformed. From delays and cancellations to lost luggage and overbookings, passengers too often experience poor outcomes and inconsistent enforcement. It is essential that passengers can rely on robust protections and that the regulators have the tools needed to ensure swift and ready compliance.

The fact that the Civil Aviation Authority has, in some cases, had to resort to the courts to enforce basic consumer protections points to systemic weaknesses. We therefore broadly welcome the strengthening of the CAA’s powers, bringing them in line with other consumer rights. However, the Bill also provides for potential divergence from retained EU law in this area. At a time when the European Union is updating passenger protections and the Government have indicated a desire for broader alignment in certain areas, we will be seeking clarity that the intention here is one of convergence rather than divergence.

We also strongly support measures to improve the experience of passengers—particularly those with mobility impairments, who continue to face significant and unacceptable barriers when travelling, particularly in relation to their mobility aids. More broadly, however, we consider that the Bill is overly cautious in its approach to consumer rights. It presents a real opportunity to place passengers more firmly at its centre. There are many issues here that need broad reform, from not separating families or travellers from the people they are with to the size of hand luggage and extra charges added to people’s bills. We would like to see a statutory passenger charter in the Bill to ensure that high standards are not only articulated but embedded in practice.

Finally, on delegated powers, we will consider carefully the forthcoming report of the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee. Given the breadth and significance of the powers proposed, it is essential that appropriate safeguards, limits and mechanisms for parliamentary oversight are in place. I welcome the Minister’s opening comments on that, but more needs to be done and amendments will be needed in this space.

While we broadly support the aims of this Bill, we will work constructively to ensure that it aligns with our environmental obligations, delivers tangible benefits for our communities and provides meaningful, effective and enduring consumer protections.

16:47

[Baroness Grey-Thompson (CB)]

My Lords, I declare my interest as chair of the Aviation Accessibility Task and Finish Group. In July 2025, we produced an independent report. I thank the team at the Department for Transport, the members of the group and the industry, which was very open about how we can improve travel for disabled people. However, we found that not one airline or airport universally gets it right even most of the time. Our 19 key recommendations were made in the context of no legislative time, but I hope we now have a chance to impact what we do for disabled people.

After much consideration, the task and finish group looked at five themes: training, passenger information and communications, non-visible impairments, mobility aid design and handling, and tailored service and delivery. It became clear that there is a lack of data. It is hard to know how many disabled people fly annually, depending on the definition, but it could be around 1.5% of all passengers. The Library Note on this Bill, which was very helpful, said that the satisfaction rate for disabled people was only 82%. There is also a lack of data on when things go wrong. It is hard to know who to contact or complain to, how to resolve issues and even who has responsibility. Recognising that the industry has many moving parts, this Bill presents a significant opportunity to do something very different for disabled people.

We also know that there has been a significant increase in demand for assistance. We saw many airports and airlines trying to do the right thing, but the nature of the requests can be very variable. We recognise that what probably most people need is not assistance but wayfinding or help with bags. We need to think creatively about how that customer journey is carried out, even looking at airport design or gate allocation.

Through our work, we heard anecdotal evidence that the lanyard scheme has not always been used properly—stag dos arriving at the airport and requesting lanyards is not in the spirit of the scheme. I have seen people using an aisle chair to get on board and then seeming to walk off at the other end. I am conscious that there can be fluctuating conditions, but not having the right assistance puts huge pressure on an already strained system. One size does not fit all. A number of visually impaired people got in touch to tell me that, when they fly, they are continually told that they need to sit in a wheelchair and be pushed through the airport because that is easier for the staff, rather than doing it in a way that works for the disabled person.

A significant number of people wrote to me to say that various influencers have filmed airports, showing ways to cheat the system, which not only encourages people to think about creative ways to get through the airport, but has resulted in an increase in negative comments made towards disabled people who have genuine needs.

What also came through was that there needs to be a more streamlined method of booking assistance. This is very different from the railway industry, where you could potentially catch a later train or a later bus. There is a real challenge in managing expectation, providing assistance in a reasonable time and being clear about sorting things out when mistakes are made.

We also found out that a lot of the information was joined up. On a personal level, I never look at an airport website, but at one point I was a very frequent flier, and I have travelled through most UK airports. The actual challenge of booking assistance is too varied. For some airlines, it relies on the disabled person knowing a very vague assistance code, or when you get to the airport, you are asked all those questions again. It proves that the system is not working as well as it could.

While recognising that we have an issue with international jurisdictions and that we can control only some parts of the journey, I would also like to look at how we could influence more widely. A lot of the emails sent to me were about equipment being broken and, in some cases, destroyed by not being secured properly during the journey. One thing that the Bill will not be able to sort—but I had a huge number of emails about it—is the issues that passengers who travel with allergies face.

Recently, I had a number of emails from people who use colostomy bags or ileostomy bags, about how they are treated. Each person recognised that security is an important issue and that checks need to be done. One person who wrote to me recently, who flies a lot, said that the only way they are able to manage going through security is by taking their colostomy bag off just as they go through security, covering it up with tissues and tape, and then putting it back on when they go through the other side. That just does not feel appropriate at all.

I broadly welcome the increased powers of the CAA, but, like the noble Lord, Lord Harper, I would like to understand what the best route is to actually securing better treatment for disabled people.

Most of the emails I receive are about being left on a plane, or broken or missing equipment. We have all heard of the numerous tales of Frank Gardner when he has been flying. He has had incidents where his wheelchair was incorrectly tagged and staff were unable to locate it. He has had a couple of very high-profile cases. In May 2022, when it had happened numerous times, he said that disabled passengers appeared to be treated as the “lowest priority”. Sophie Morgan, likewise, a very well-known disability rights campaigner, suffered terrible experiences with damage to her chairs. But most disabled people do not have that platform. Athena Stevens’s chair was worth £25,000. It was irreparably damaged while travelling, which left her unable to travel independently. She estimated that the overall impact on her life and business reached £70,000, due to additional care, having to travel differently and lost work, but only limited compensation was made available. Maayan Ziv—a case in Canada—had a chair that was worth $30,000 and was severely damaged. This became widely known, because there was a lack of understanding of what a wheelchair means. It is not just a suitcase. It is not something that is very easy to replace.

I have had many experiences over the years, including one memorable time flying from Geneva through Charles de Gaulle to Birmingham. When it became clear that my chair was not there, I was asked by a member of staff whether had I ever tried to walk and whether I would like to try to walk. No, I cannot walk. The airline then tried to return two sleeping bags to me and argued that that was my lost property, even though they were clearly tagged to a different airport and another name. My day chair was found several weeks later in Dublin, and it came back to me in two pieces. It had literally been cut in half. It was suggested that I might like to try and duct tape it back together, which did not work. I wonder how much the airline industry is spending on repairs and replacements.

Another incident occurred when I was an athlete, flying with my racing chair—I always found it better to travel with my chair unboxed because they could see what it was. I was travelling with a very cheap pair of wheels, which got damaged, and the airline immediately jumped to replacing them and trying to offer me a very expensive pair of wheels. I was able to say that I needed a spoke key and 20 minutes. There needs to be some proper assessment of damage, ensuring that the level of liability is commensurate with the equipment.

We have to recognise that equipment is also changing. More people are using scooters than ever before, especially those with fluctuating conditions—they are much easier to travel with than an electric chair. Many noble Lords will see that I have a battery attachment that I use on my chair to get out and about around London. I have never tried to fly with it. We do have to explore the challenges of flying with much of this equipment, especially the safety issues; I know the ongoing work of the implementation group is looking at this. When a disabled person gets all the way to the gate and then finds that they are not allowed to fly—again, I recognise that there are related safety issues—it causes a significant number of problems.

We therefore need more data on the number of people who fly, what they require, and where things go wrong. Also, on wheelchair and mobility equipment protection, I would be very interested to see whether we could try to accurately report, publicly, the number of wheelchairs and mobility aids that are damaged, delayed or lost each year. We also need to look at how we can improve the enforcement and accessibility failures. In the task and finish group, we talked about specific penalties for repeated accessibility failures. That was not possible at the time, but I think it might be now. We should also look at the complaints process to ensure that it runs quickly and smoothly and is not leaving disabled people in situations where their complaints have timed out through no fault of their own.

I would also be interested in looking at requiring the CAA to publish a wider disability impact assessment before implementing significant new regulations. On airport assistance standards, the quality of assistance is variable across the UK. How can we establish minimum standards for passenger assistance, reasonable waiting times, staff training, communications support, and boarding and disembarkation procedures? It would also be very useful to have an update from the implementation group on the work it has been doing since July last year; that would help all noble Lords in addressing the Bill. Currently, everything is just a bit too ad hoc; it is quite difficult to travel as a disabled person, and we should be able to make that better.

I look forward to working with the Minister and his team to improve the Bill.

16:58

[Baroness Ramsey of Wall Heath (Lab)]

My Lords, tomorrow morning the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee, which I have the honour to chair, will be meeting to consider, among other things, the civil aviation Bill. It is not impossible to imagine that the committee will have something to say about the delegated powers proposed in the Bill. My speech today, however, gives me the opportunity to contribute to the policy substance in it, which I am very supportive of. I am delighted to be able to take advantage of this opportunity because it is a Bill which has the potential to make a real difference to people’s lives.

It is a pleasure, and somewhat humbling, to follow the noble Baroness, Lady Grey-Thompson, with her enormous expertise and of course powerful eloquence, which it has been a great pleasure to hear so many times on disability issues in this Chamber.

Today, I want to talk about my mother, Anne, who sadly died in her 90th year back in 2018, and people like her. Let me explain what I mean. My mother was born into poverty in 1928. There was certainly no prospect of her travelling abroad, let alone by aeroplane, when she was growing up or as a young woman; nor, indeed, was there any such prospect when I was growing up. But things change, and, in her 50s and 60s, she thought that she should try to make up for lost time—and then, why not carry on into her 70s and 80s? Of course, as we get older, travelling gets more complicated, but she loved getting around, whether by bus—on that, my noble friend the Minister will no doubt be pleased to hear that she absolutely loved the P4 bus from Brixton to Lewisham Shopping Centre well into her 80s—by train or by automobile.

To come back to today’s subject, she loved travelling by plane. When she was in her late 70s and wanted to visit the country of her father’s birth, we flew together to Dublin. By now, her legs were not strong enough for her to climb the steps up to the plane from the runway like everybody else, but the airline made perfectly good arrangements for a lift—I am not quite sure what the machinery was called—to take her up to the plane in London and back down again in Dublin. It was happy news. On the back of this success, my mother knew that she would be able to come with me and her brand-new granddaughter on a weekend in Rome, and to visit the Vatican, which had been a lifetime ambition for her. The flight out was fine and the Vatican really came up trumps, with the people who worked there, on seeing her frailty, secretly shepherding her into the “staff only” lifts to get her smoothly from floor to floor.

However, on returning to Gatwick, she was stuck on the plane. There was no lift for a very long time. Travelling is tiring for us all—we get hungry, thirsty and very tired—but being left stranded after everyone else is long gone because you need help getting off the plane and into the terminal building and into a wheelchair just is not good enough. She could not face having to go through that experience again. The only way to guarantee that was simply to stop flying on aeroplanes, so she did, and that was that. But my mother’s energy and drive for travel were undimmed, so we took her, very smoothly, to Brussels and Paris via the Eurostar. As I may have already said, she carried on enjoying the bus trip to Lewisham, but there were no more flights because of the way she was treated that time on our return from Rome and the Vatican.

Noble Lords can imagine how I cheered when, four years ago, the BBC’s security correspondent, Frank Gardner—the noble Baroness referred to him earlier— called out, among other things, the UK’s main airports for the way in which, all too often, they treat wheelchair-bound passengers like him. He did so after being left stranded at Gatwick himself, a few years after my mother. His job meant that he had no choice but to keep flying, and this was his fifth time in four years being stranded and left, as he put it,

“waiting in an empty aircraft long after all the other passengers have been off-loaded”.

He went on to say:

“This is nothing short of discriminatory and Britain’s premier air hubs should be ashamed of the way their disabled passengers have been repeatedly treated as a low priority”.


Hear, hear, as I think we say.

Mr Gardner continued:

“The remedy is simple: invest in enough equipment and staff to do the job, pay them properly, sort out the comms so airports know when to expect a passenger with needs, and get on top of the planning and rostering for the allocation of equipment and the teams that operate it. This isn’t rocket science, it just comes down to better planning and sufficient investment. Disabled passengers are not demanding special VIP treatment, they just expect the same level of service as the rest of society. It really isn’t a big ask!”


Fazilet Hadi, the head of policy at Disability Rights UK, said:

“Huge thanks to Frank Gardner for speaking out about this issue. For every disabled person that tells their story about being left on a plane, there are hundreds more of us that don’t. The level of neglect and disregard of disabled airline passengers is truly appalling. The high number of disabled people experiencing poor service led the Civil Aviation Authority to write to airports, threatening to take action if passenger assistance for disabled airline customers didn’t improve. The situation is obviously not getting better and the Equality Act is being breached on a regular basis”.


Today, on behalf of people from all walks of life—whether they are like my mother, who wanted to follow her dreams; like Frank Gardner, who was flying for work; or anyone else, whatever their circumstances— I wholeheartedly support, as all of us can surely do, legislation that will put an end to the excuses, ensuring that the CAA has the powers that will put this right.

17:04

[Lord Redwood (Con)]

My Lords, I welcome the three main aims of this legislation, which were well set out by the Minister. The Government are right that the aviation industry has been growing reasonably well and could make a bigger contribution to growth and prosperity in our country. The Government are right that safety is a vital priority behind which all parties in this House would unite. They are right to realise that, as technologies change, aeroplanes evolve and our airspace becomes ever more congested, it is necessary for a Government to accept the prime safety responsibility and ask whether the rules and guidance are still correct, and whether the regulatory authorities are doing their job in carrying out their task of enforcing safety.

We all want to see good conditions for passengers. That has to be a balance, because if you go too far in regulating in favour of super service then the price can go up too much. The Government must form a judgment on what is an appropriate minimum level of service quality to require so that no one is left in a bad way. This is particularly true of disabled people, as we have been hearing. However, they have to be careful not to overdo standards, which then prices people out of the market and it becomes a middle-class indulgence.

Where I have more doubts about the Bill is when it comes to the detail. I found the 316-page impact assessment heavy going. I do not know whether other colleagues bothered or whether they did not get to the exciting conclusion at the end—I must have missed the exciting conclusion at the end. It was repetitious, very generalised and very high-level. It was clearly a piece of work done by officials who were given an impossible task. They were meant to work out what regulatory changes are going to be made and ask the usual questions of an impact assessment, on the costs of these regulatory changes and the benefits of carrying them through, as some things you will have to do because they are for safety but, for lots of other things, you will have to make a judgment about the trade-offs. Are the costs too high or are the benefits exciting enough to go for it?

Remarkably, this impact assessment concludes that there will be just a small net loss, as a result of the legislation, of just a few million pounds for a multi-billion-pound industry, and so this is well within the margin of error. When you try to find out why the figures are so small, you find that there are practically no benefits identified because this Bill will ensure that nothing happens for quite a long time. It is arranging the regulatory furniture but it will not change what will apply to airlines and passengers any time soon.

The Bill has delay built into it at every opportunity. We read in the impact assessment that it may take a year for us and the other place to get the legislation through and finally into effect. Then, apparently it will take another year before the Government come up with changes to use the very large powers that this legislation will give to Ministers and to regulators without further reference to Parliament. We are being asked to sign a blank cheque, but Ministers have no idea who they will want to make the cheque or cheques out to, let alone how much there may be on them.

The House needs to understand that this is what I would call officials’ legislation. This is not a burning desire of a Minister who knows his subject very well to make changes which are soon going to make a difference to aviation and to economic growth in this country. This is “good management-type” official legislation, saying that we may need these powers and need to copy a whole load of EU regulations that have already passed—or, more likely, that are going to come out soon—so let us have these powers and make sure that most of these things can be done by a regulatory body without any reference to Parliament or by statutory instrument with minimum debate, and that way we do not need to trouble people about it. When the House proceeds to investigate the legislation, it will want a bit more from the Ministers on how they would use these considerable powers.

I would like more urgency from Ministers. The impact assessment says that nothing is going to happen before three to five years have elapsed, because of the year legislating, the year thinking about how to use the powers, and then the powers coming into effect. In other words—and Labour Peers should think about this—this legislation is basically saying that it cannot make any improvement to aviation or provide any extra growth in the lifetime of this Parliament. That is disappointing.

I am a bit more ambitious than the Government. I find myself saying there are things that could be done now, on a shorter timetable, which could make life better for the aviation sector, its passengers and its users. Take the prime one of growth—that is my main concern. I have always said how much I admire the fact that the Government want to be a growth Government, but I have been critical about how many of the things they do actually achieve the opposite. Here is one thing that is not actually going to achieve the opposite—it is just not going to achieve anything, according to the papers before us—where more could happen.

The Minister says that we will have an opportunity in due course to discuss the expansion of Heathrow. Heathrow is the dominant airport of the UK aviation sector, and the success and growth of Heathrow will be a dominant factor in how well this sector does. Delaying a debate seems a little odd, because surely this should be the prime concern of the Government at the moment. When I look at the plans, I believe the Government have backed the plan that takes the longest and is the dearest. They have gone for the plan where the M25 needs to move, which adds more than £20 billion to the total cost and I suspect will add quite a lot of delay to the whole thing, as well as the actual cost of building the additional runway—whereas there is a rival scheme, at considerably less cost and to a tighter timetable, where the runway would fit on to the existing land extending more eastwards so that we do not have to rebuild the M25.

Maybe the Government are right. I would be interested to hear their case. But we would need reassurances that the M25, during all those difficult works, would not be disrupted. Look at the important transport infrastructure of this country. The M25 is one of the dominant and most important pieces of infrastructure that we have put in, saving all those journeys through London and allowing so much commerce and passenger traffic to flow around the city relatively quickly on a good day. We do not really need a big disruption of that.

As someone who some years ago had as my main business career offering financial advice to Governments around the world, I had to fly quite a lot, rather more than I wanted to in those days. To me, as a travelling businessman earning revenue for my firm and for the country as a whole in selling overseas services, what mattered was timeliness and accessibility. I was interested in total journey time from my house to the office I was going to advise. Quite often there was disproportionate time, trouble and delay in getting from my house, some 35 miles from the airport, to Heathrow to get on the plane, which might even have been on time. Ministers looking at growth of airports and accessibility to airports have to consider surface transportation. There have been improvements in recent years to get better rail access to Heathrow. It took a very long time for those of us who wanted that to break through with the authorities to get it to happen. That now has happened with both an extensive Tube option and a link to the old Great Western main line. But we need to make sure that road access also works for those who wish to use the airport.

It would be useful if the Minister could give us an update on Gatwick, the second very large airport in the London area. There was a plan to have a much cheaper and faster progress to many more passenger movements, with the idea of having a constant-use second runway. That requires shifting the existing relief runway a little, so there is quite a bill of cost. That was meant to be coming along before the end of this decade, and it would be very interesting to hear an update on whether it is going to happen.

The relevance to this Bill is that, of course, as those airport expansions happen, many more slots will become available. We owe it to those who are thinking of venturing very large sums of money to expand Gatwick and Heathrow to let them know what the rules of the game will be when they come to place those slots, and to look to see how they are going to remunerate the large sum of money in the case of Gatwick and the absolutely colossal sum of money in the case of Heathrow, even in the original budgets. Heathrow has all that additional risk from complexity, which could result in needing to remunerate even more capital than is currently envisaged.

While I welcome the three main aims of the Government and think that this legislation could be improved by telling us in detail how they can do things that will improve all those, we need more on the environmental impact on surrounding communities living close to airports. I speak as someone who used to represent a constituency that was some 35 miles or so out of London to the west, where there were problems with Heathrow noise. There are solutions that could be woven into this legislation or general government policy. A new generation of planes should be considerably less noisy. It is possible to construct flight paths that are less intrusive, and it is certainly possible to increase the angle of ascent and descent, which reduces the magnitude of the area affected by the noise nuisance. The more that can be done to encourage quieter aviation, the better. There are also other environmental issues relating to surface transport; I gently sketched them in relation to Heathrow and the M25, but there are similar issues for other airports.

My final point is that while, if you are interested in UK economic growth, of necessity you clearly concentrate on how you develop Heathrow and Gatwick—the giant two—regional airports well outside London can also be extremely important to economic prosperity and commerce. I would welcome more thoughts on how they can promote themselves with a good network of routes that do not require interchanging in London—or in Schiphol, as happens so often at the moment for people flying from northern and western airports. I urge the Government to look again at why this is all taking so long, why there is no sense of urgency and why there is not a much clearer refrain in this that we can go for growth here. One of the great triumphs of the UK economy over the last decade has been the big, successful surge in the export of services. Above all, services need really good aviation links, in the way I briefly described from past personal anecdote. I urge the Minister to see himself as a growth champion and to say to his colleagues in government that we can do better than this.

17:18

[Baroness Antrobus (Lab)]

My Lords, I wish to speak specifically to the measures in the Bill to support airspace modernisation and aimed at delegating aviation safety and operations rule-making to the CAA. I thank the Department for Transport staff who took the time to brief me ahead of today’s debate.

I trained to fly while in the Royal Air Force in the early 1990s. For full disclosure, I failed at the end of tactical weapons training, so although I have several hundred hours of flying under my belt, my latter career in the RAF, until I left 15 years later, was as a flight operations officer—still, perhaps even more so, intimately involved in the business of aviation and airspace.

It was such a long time ago that we navigated by map and compass, even in a fast jet at 500 mph. We had no GPS; we corrected for wind based on the much less advanced weather forecasts of the day and some dead reckoning. We set our watches each morning with a hack at the morning met brief based on the speaking clock—I think most Members are just about old enough to remember that. Come to that, our recce briefs on Russian military equipment, for that was still our focus then, were delivered via slides in a rotary carousel projector—again, I think Members might remember those. Our cockpits had more in common with the 1950s than with the glass cockpits and flight decks of today.

Today’s modern aircraft, both civilian and military, are in a different world entirely. They could just about fly themselves, except most people are not yet ready and want a pilot in charge of their commercial flight to the Mediterranean for some summer sun. Although passenger-carrying planes are likely to remain crewed for a while yet, the potential and the technology to move freight around in the skies above our heads in uncrewed aircraft are advancing all the time.

Right now, Amazon is trialling drone delivery in Darlington—delivering packages under 5 pounds in weight within a 7.5-mile radius of its distribution centre. The Civil Aviation Authority is working to safely integrate drones flying beyond visual line of sight in UK airspace through this type of trial. It has also authorised air operations to deliver blood and the trial of uncrewed police helicopters. We already have a military uncrewed aircraft, the MQ-9B Protector, flying in UK airspace from RAF Waddington in Lincolnshire.

Imagine a time when freight can move not above our garden roofs and fences in small drones but at much higher altitudes, taking lorries off our roads and into the skies. I want that time to come sooner rather than later—and, of course, safely. But, unlike the enormous leaps in technological capability since I first pulled on a flying suit, UK airspace remains largely unchanged—in fact, as some noble Lords have said, since the 1950s. This is unsustainable and not good for our economy, the environment or the aviation industry, both civil and military. Commercial flights alone have increased twelvefold since then.

So I welcome the new powers to enact change to update our airspace. There is so much potential in new and emerging technologies, such as uncrewed aircraft, but the UK has to be able to move with—even ahead of—the times to make the most of the amazing opportunities for growth and ensure that we are competitive in this industry.

The 2023 airspace modernisation strategy talked of a core principle; that is,

“the safe integration of all users”.

That is ambitious and I welcome the Bill in supporting that ambition. I also welcome its intention to give the CAA greater flexibility in determining who pays for air traffic and air navigation services. At the moment, airlines and aircraft operators do, but the scope to extend that is only fair in this changing environment.

I also support the delegation of certain operational rule-making to the CAA to ensure a more responsive process. Currently, the legislative framework for aviation safety rules is, as the Government have stated, extensive, complex and cumbersome. Obviously, this change should always have aviation safety at its heart.

I welcome the contributions of fellow noble Lords on other parts of the Bill on which they are infinitely better qualified to contribute. I will not trespass on their territory but listen with interest to their valuable and informative perspectives.

Finally, in returning to where I started, with military aviation, it is imperative that we remember that this civil aviation Bill is not just about civil aviation. Military capability relies on airspace, air traffic services and the CAA. Military aircraft need to train and exercise; defence industry needs to experiment with and assure new capabilities. These are all vital activities in the defence of this nation that need airspace to operate and succeed.

Also, some of our defence air capabilities are military owned but civil registered, such as the Envoy command support air transport aircraft and the Voyager air-to-air refuelling and passenger aircraft. When we proceed to debate this civil aviation Bill, we must remember that we are also discussing military aircraft capability and development and, with that, the defence and security of the UK.

Does my noble friend the Minister agree that airspace is a resource? It is part of our critical national infrastructure, even if it is invisible to most of us who are not airspace nerds, and it is vital that we update it to meet the needs of today and tomorrow.

17:25

[Lord Davies of Gower (Con)]

My Lords, it is a pleasure to follow the noble Baroness, Lady Antrobus. I begin by declaring my membership of the All-Party Parliamentary Group on Aviation, and indeed as an aviator who contributes greatly every year to the CAA. Let me say at the outset that I broadly support the objectives of the Bill. The Minister referred to the essentials of the Bill in his opening speech. They were the subject of the communication of 20 April 2026 from the DfT to the chair of the CAA outlining the DfT’s expectations and priorities for the next period. They include: growth and innovation; the economic regulation of aviation; airspace modernisation; the decarbonisation of aviation; modernising the CAA’s focus on aviation’s passenger and freight customers, so as to put the consumer first; and efficiency, effectiveness and resilience. I will return to those in a while.

First, I want to identify a glaring omission in the Bill. It is conspicuous by its absence. No reference whatever has been made in the DfT’s priorities to general aviation. There is not one mention in the whole of the Bill to what is, for many in the industry, the front door to their career, whether they be air crew or ground crew. Why should we be concerned that there is no mention of general aviation in the Bill? It is a section of the industry that contributes £4 billion to the UK’s economy and supports some 40,000 jobs. This may be seen as a small slice of UK aviation’s £50 billion to £100 billion GDP footprint, but it underpins things such as pilot training, emergency services and business connectivity.

Since 2018, general aviation has faced pressures from lower disposable incomes, rising costs and economic uncertainty, and this has reduced activity across recreational flying, training and private ownership. Since Covid, GA activity has failed to recover. The CAA’s data reveals a 40% reduction in all GA activities. I understand that the CAA issued only some 1,300 private pilot licences last year. I would expect the DfT to be extremely concerned, instead of which I understand that the department has disbanded its GA section. Perhaps the Minister could confirm and comment on that. As GA supports jobs, skills and pilot training pathways, proportionate regulation and avoiding unnecessary burdens are important to maintaining confidence and investment. Given the circumstances that GA finds itself in, I am extremely concerned that the Government’s enhanced consumer protection measures do not create unintended burdens for smaller airports, aerodromes and GA operators. What assurances can the Minister give in relation to that?

The Minister may well be wondering why there should be concern. Put simply, air crew, such as pilots, do not magically appear fresh out of an easyJet- or British Airways-trained box. They are the result of people starting at the very bottom of the ladder, through gliding, progressing through the private pilot’s licence, many add-on qualifications, instrument ratings and the mountain of exams needed to gain a commercial pilot’s licence—the so-called improver route. All this is achieved at grass-roots level by small flying clubs and schools and small grass airfields at enormous cost to the individual and risk to small businesses with the fluctuating cost of fuel and newly imposed employment taxes.

In terms of airspace, while I accept that the basic design has not changed in 70 years, despite technological advantages—I note that the Government’s policy paper is keen to single out the safe integration of drones, which is to be welcomed, as lower airspace is where congestion, particularly with general aviation, occurs and will continue to do so—I ask: what safeguards are in place to ensure that airspace reform decisions remain transparent and evidence-based and fairly balance commercial, environmental and wider aviation user interests?

The Government seek to expand the CAA’s enforcement powers. What mechanisms will ensure accountability, proportionality and appropriate parliamentary oversight of those powers? I am keen to learn from the Minister how the DfT proposes to safeguard these changes for non-airline operators.

This debate would not be complete without mention of the European geostationary navigation overlay service, commonly known and referred to as EGNOS, the satellite-based augmentation system that improves the precision and integrity of global positioning systems; in particular, the EGNOS Safety of Life Service— note “safety of life”—which is used in safety-critical applications, such as in the aviation sector. Back in June 2022, the All-Party Parliamentary Group on Aviation asked Oxera, the Oxford-based economics and finance consultancy, to assess the business case for a temporary reinstatement of EGNOS. It pointed out that

“prior to leaving the EU, the UK civil aviation sector invested heavily into satellite-based approaches because of the significant safety and reliability advantages that satellite-based approaches offer compared to traditional approaches (i.e. non-precision navigational aids) … Despite these investments, the UK is currently the only state in the G20 without useable access to a precise satellite-based navigation system, whereas other countries are increasingly moving towards relying on precision satellite-based approaches”.

What does this mean in reality? It has really serious consequences. It means that remote areas of the United Kingdom that rely on small regional airlines, such as Loganair in Scotland, are unable to operate in inclement weather conditions. I note that the noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, who was due to participate in this debate, has been stranded for a number of days on the Isles of Scilly, which are fog-bound. As a result of our non-participation in EGNOS, the likelihood of aircraft operating into the islands in such conditions is remote.

In relation to air crew training, in addition to the lack of instrument approach training slots, the whole UK professional flight training industry cannot deliver for UK-based students the full range of performance-based navigation training, which is reliant on satellite-based signals. Worse still, all these GPS-supported approaches are only 2D lateral non-precision; 3D precision requires the EGNOS Safety of Life Service to enable the airport to provide this. So training aircraft cross the channel to places such as Jersey and other European countries where a full suite of approaches are available, as they still benefit from the EGNOS signal in space. This is a major revenue and talent loss to the UK GA sector. Similarly, air traffic control offices cannot do more than train in simulation for 3D approaches.

Lastly, the All-Party Parliamentary Group for Air Ambulances, of which I am a member, is pushing government hard across a range of topics. As we speak, there is a reception to launch a report on the case for safeguarded 24/7 on-site hospital helipads. A big part of its lobbying is on the lack of helimed point-in-space procedures for hospitals, which are EGNOS reliant. The loss of EGNOS access weakens aviation safety and NHS trauma care goals. Without reinstatement, increasing air ambulance mission cancellations put these strategies—and patient outcomes—at risk. Perhaps the Minister can tell us what the Government have in mind in relation to EGNOS.

I will end here but implore the Minister to again consider reinstating EGNOS membership as a matter of urgency. Above all, I implore the Government to give due consideration to general aviation when prioritising their goals and directions to the CAA. At present, I fear they clearly are not doing so.

17:33

[Baroness Dacres of Lewisham (Lab)]

My Lords, this Bill recognises a simple reality: aviation has changed significantly over recent decades, as many noble Lords have mentioned, and our regulatory framework must continue to evolve alongside it.

The United Kingdom depends on a modern, efficient and well-regulated aviation sector. Aviation is about more than aircraft and airports. It is about connecting people to jobs, businesses to markets and communities to opportunities. It supports trade, tourism, investment and economic growth. It also plays a vital role in connecting the nations and regions of the United Kingdom, helping to bring people, businesses and communities together while connecting every part of our country to the wider world.

For that reason, I welcome this Bill and its focus on regulatory reform and modernisation. In a sector characterised by international competition and rapid technological change, standing still is not an option. Good regulation should not be seen as a barrier to growth. On the contrary, effective regulation provides the clarity, confidence and stability that enable industries to invest and innovate. A clear and modern framework allows operators to plan for the future while ensuring that consumers and travellers remain properly protected.

For many people, air travel is associated with some of life’s most treasured and important moments. It may be that long-awaited family getaway, an opportunity to spend time with loved ones, an important business trip or a chance to pursue new opportunities. When things go wrong, whether through delays, cancellations or poor communication, the impact can be both significant and deeply disappointing.

That is why the framework that governs the aviation sector matters. Passengers rightly expect services that are safe, reliable and responsive. Businesses require clarity in order to invest and grow. Regulators must be able to respond to changes. The challenge for this Bill is to strike the right balance between those objectives.

Modernisation should not be viewed simply as a technical exercise. Whether we are discussing airspace reform, airport slot allocation or regulatory frameworks, the objective must be to create a system that is more efficient, more accountable and better able to support growth while improving the experience of passengers. Transport connectivity is not an end in itself. It is what enables people to access jobs, education, investment and opportunity.

Aviation also plays an important role in supporting the connectivity access that the nations and regions of the United Kingdom depend on. For many communities, air travel is not simply a convenience but an important link to employment, business opportunities, public services and family networks.

While much attention is often given to international aviation, we should not overlook the importance of domestic connectivity. Aviation helps to strengthen economic and social ties across our country and supports the movement of people, skills and investment between regions. As we consider the future of the sector, it is important that those wider connectivity benefits should be recognised.

I particularly welcome the provisions relating to airspace modernisation and the future role of the Civil Aviation Authority. As has been mentioned, much of our airspace infrastructure was designed in a very different era. These reforms present an opportunity to make better use of technology, reduce unnecessary delays, improve resilience and make more efficient use of increasingly constrained airspace. They will also help to ensure that the United Kingdom is equipped to integrate emergent aviation technologies safely and effectively, maintaining our position at the forefront of a rapidly evolving sector.

The pace of technological change in aviation is accelerating, as many noble Lords have mentioned. New technologies offer opportunities to improve efficiency, resilience and safety, but they also challenge regulators to ensure that the rules evolve alongside innovation.

The United Kingdom has a proud history of aviation leadership. If we are to maintain this position, our regulatory framework must be capable of responding to change at a pace that reflects developments within the sector while maintaining the confidence of passengers and operators alike.

Equally, ensuring that airport slots are allocated and managed effectively can help to maximise capacity, improve connectivity and make the best use of existing infrastructure, supporting economic activity across the country and placing us in a stronger position to consider any future airport expansion that may be required to ensure that the United Kingdom remains internationally competitive. Of course, modern infrastructure and modern aviation systems also require modern regulation. The provisions relating to the Civil Aviation Authority are central to achieving that objective.

Aviation is a rapidly evolving sector, shaped by new technologies, changing passenger expectations and emerging operational challenges. A regulator that is able to respond more quickly and effectively to those changes is better placed to support innovation, maintain high standards and protect consumers. We cannot keep coming back to primary legislation to make changes as and when things evolve. That simply is not quick or responsive enough; it is just not agile.

Greater rule-making powers have the potential to create this more agile and responsive regulatory framework, reducing, as I said, the need for primary legislation. It can give industry greater certainty, enable faster adoption of new technologies and ensure regulation keeps pace with development in aviation rather than lagging behind it. Regulation that arrives years after innovation risks holding back progress rather than supporting it. It is important that future regulation remains proportionate to support innovation and competitiveness and avoids imposing unnecessary burdens while continuing to maintain the high standards that UK aviation is renowned for.

There is also an important competitive dimension. Aviation operates in a global marketplace. The United Kingdom benefits when it is seen as an attractive place to invest, innovate and do business. A regulatory framework that can respond efficiently to change will help ensure that our aviation sector remains internationally competitive, supporting growth, investment and jobs while maintaining the high standards of safety and consumer protection which, as I have said, the UK is known for.

This is, in many respects, an enabling Bill. Its long-term impact will depend not only on the powers it creates but on how those powers are exercised in the years ahead. Effective regulation also requires public confidence. As the Bill progresses, I would welcome further clarification from the Minister on how accountability and parliamentary oversight will operate alongside any expanded regulatory powers granted to the Civil Aviation Authority. It is important that greater flexibility for the regulator is matched by appropriate transparency and scrutiny so that confidence is maintained for Parliament, industry and the travelling public.

I would like to touch briefly on accessibility. When we discuss accessibility, we rightly think about physical access and support for passengers with impaired mobility, but we should also recognise the experience of neurodivergent passengers and those who may face sensory, cognitive and digital barriers. For many passengers with sensory, cognitive or neurodivergent needs, airports and air travel can present unique challenges—busy terminals, rapidly changing information, unfamiliar environments and sensory overload can create barriers that are often overlooked.

A truly accessible aviation system should enable people to travel independently while having the confidence that support will be available when needed. Independence and support should not be seen as competing concepts—a modern transport system should provide both. For many passengers, accessible travel is not simply about completing a journey; it is about accessing employment, education, family connections and wider opportunities. It is also about dignity, confidence and independence. The ability to travel without unnecessary barriers can have a profound impact on an individual’s quality of life. For some, it can mean accessing employment; for others, it can mean pursuing education, maintaining those family relationships or simply seeing a part of the world they want to experience and learn more about.

As we consider further regulations and guidance, I hope that accessibility continues to be viewed through this broader lens. The objective should not be merely to remove obstacles when they arise but to design inclusive systems and services from the outset. That approach benefits everyone. Clear information, intuitive systems and well-designed services improve the passenger experience for all travellers, not only those who require additional support. As we update and improve our aviation system, we should remember that progress is not solely about technology; it is about people. A truly modern aviation sector is one that works for all passengers, including those with physical disabilities, sensory needs and neurodivergent conditions, and ensures that advances in efficiency are matched by advances in accessibility.

I have been encouraged by the work already taking place across parts of the aviation sector to improve awareness and support. As the Bill progresses, I hope these will be opportunities to explore how best practice can be encouraged and embedded across the sector. Through my work in local government and transport leadership across London, I have seen first-hand that successful transport systems are those that earn public trust, adapt to change and work for everyone who relies on them. This Bill provides an important opportunity to create a regulatory framework that supports innovation, growth and international competitiveness while ensuring that passengers remain at the centre of aviation policy.

If we get this balance right, we will not only strengthen consumer confidence but help to ensure that the United Kingdom remains a leading aviation nation in an increasingly competitive world with a sector that is innovative, accessible and fit for the future. For those reasons, I welcome this Bill and look forward to further scrutiny as it progresses through this House.

17:46

[Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb (GP)]

My Lords, surprisingly perhaps, I welcome the Government’s attempt to strengthen airline passengers’ rights, especially with the worries about aviation fuel due to Israel and Trump launching a disastrous and illegal war on Iran. I am happy to support the Civil Aviation Authority being given additional enforcement powers to ensure that airlines comply with consumer laws. However, I am not so keen on legislation that makes it easier to expand airports, especially if that increases noise and pollution for people living in the immediate area or along the flight path. It is extremely bad for human health and well-being.

As a Green, I am well aware that a lot of what I say in your Lordships’ House is not supported by anyone around me and that my views on the environment, climate change and the disastrous path we are taking as humans are at best contentious and, at worst, regarded as plain wrong. I am just staggered by the lack of ecological awareness among Members of your Lordships’ House. It defeats me that noble Lords cannot understand the science, cannot see what is in front of them, and still support things such as airport expansion when we know it is bad for the planet—I exclude the noble Earl, Lord Russell, from this, obviously, and some of his colleagues. Luckily, there are people outside—many scientists and people who know what they are talking about better than I do—who can say that we are headed for disastrous circumstances if we do not take climate change seriously.

This whole Bill is just ludicrous in terms of the future of people and planet. I have mostly lost hope that this Government care about people and planet. They have lost all claim to be a green Government, with their attacks on nature in Britain and their decisions to expand aviation. The go-ahead for the expansion of London City Airport, Luton, Gatwick and Stansted means an extra 51 million passengers per annum. If the Government add Heathrow to that total, it is an extra 65 million. The Minister in his opening remarks said that aviation is a “cornerstone” of our economy, or some such. I would say it is a cornerstone of climate collapse. If we cannot see that, I would be happy to have one-to-one sessions with any Peer who would like to discuss this further, because, quite honestly, I am in despair at the lack of awareness about what our future could be.

As I said, luckily there are people outside. For example, Professor Bill Rutherford of Imperial College London said:

“The only way you can make aviation any more sustainable is to do less of it”.


All those extra flights result in either extra emissions or extra farmland taken up growing jet fuel, and that means rising food prices and more public subsidy.

The Sustainable Aviation Fuel Bill was appallingly named: there is no such thing as sustainable aviation fuel. That was infuriating as well. It is just greenwash that will leave future Governments needing to do the hard work of behaviour change to achieve net-zero targets. Actually, I am not a supporter of net zero. It is a ridiculous aim; we should be going for less than zero and cutting back completely. Net zero is unrealistic. It is real zero that we need, and less. The climate crisis is accelerating and this Bill would have been a chance to do something about that. Rather than promoting aviation, we need to cut back.

The first step towards stopping more flights leading to accelerating climate change is to deal with private jets. The rich are paying a lot of money for the privilege of wrecking our planet and the Government need to tell them that it is no longer acceptable. Being rich does not excuse you from your responsibilities as global citizens. Flying off for the weekend, perhaps every weekend, has consequences. The ice is melting, the seas are rising, flash floods and storms are becoming more powerful, and heatwaves and droughts are going to hit farming very hard. Our food supplies will be under threat. Change is happening now, not decades in the future. That means we have to act now as well, so private jets should be the first thing that the Government target to cut back on, and this Bill is the obvious opportunity to do that.

Next to the frequent flyers, the Government should be raising the aviation tax on people who take two or more flights a year. Frequent flying is something that well-off people do; we can discourage them by reflecting the true environmental cost in the amount that frequent flyers pay. Business flights have already changed since Covid made us shift towards online working and that trend must be given another shove.

Finally, we are experiencing another record-breaking year for temperatures in this country and across the globe. The next decade will see yet more record-breaking years, as will the decade after that. The decisions being made by this Government on aviation will add to the disaster that the younger generation will have to live and struggle with. I ask noble Lords to stop and rethink. I do not mean just the Government; I mean every single Member of this House who has supported the whole idea of aviation. Stop and think about what you are doing for the future—for your children and grandchildren. You are destroying their future.

17:53

[Baroness Foster of Oxton (Con)]

My Lords, first, I will try to cheer you all up a bit, because that is not what was reflected by our previous speaker. I declare my interest as an adviser for the Drone Delivery Group. I am also a vice-chairman of the All-Party Group for the Future of Aviation, Travel and Aerospace.

As a further interest, I spent the first 25 years of my working life at British Airways as a young stewardess. For the following 15 years, I was in the European Parliament and dealt with all the primary legislation that covered the civil aviation area and other forms of transport. The former RAF Baroness has left, but I recall that she mentioned what it was like in the RAF all those years ago. For those of your Lordships who are pilots and understand airspace, when I started flying I was on a Hawker Siddeley. Most airfields did not have an ILS—an instrument landing system—yet we have those most advanced aircraft that could land in virtually nil visibility. So technology has certainly moved on apace in the last 50 years.

I say that because we have one of the best and most exciting industries that we have ever created, when we go back historically into civil aviation, certainly post the Second World War. We also have some of the best brains and the best scientists, who are inventing the technologies in the aerospace sector that make aviation as safe, clean and green as it is today.

Given my time as a Member of the European Parliament, I am going to come on to the three key areas that are mainly in the Bill. I thank the Minister for his comprehensive introduction and, like most colleagues, obviously I have read through what it says. Regarding our leaving the European Union, I was involved in the legislation for the European Aviation Safety Agency 20 years ago. It was actually developed for the certification of the A380 aircraft, because obviously we cross-border manufactured. That was the reason the agency was set up, but then its scope expanded over the years, so the agency had competence for many other areas. Of course, that took away the competences that the CAA had had. When I originally joined the airline industry, every nation had its civil aviation authority and there was no sort of European central body.

However, we also comply with the Montreal and Chicago conventions, ICAO and IATA. This is not just about legislation being made here, and the Government need to take account of that, as did the European Commission at the time. It is fine to say, “Well, we will make rules and regulations about x, y and z to do with civil aviation”. But primarily we are signed up to, and must comply with, international obligations, which obviously affect the entire aviation industry worldwide.

Clearly, we are now putting back competences to the Civil Aviation Authority which it has not dealt with for many years, and it needs to make sure it has the resources and everything else to do it properly. I have every confidence in our Civil Aviation Authority; it is one of the best civil aviation authorities in the world, along with our accident investigation bureau in this sector. The independence that our agencies have is key. Therefore, we do not get overwhelmed by political interference in areas where the experts need to be making a lot of the decisions.

I will touch on the three primary areas in this Bill. The first is airspace. We know that, with the increase in traffic over the years, the pressure on airspace has obviously grown terrifically. I was one of the rapporteurs for the single European sky regulations in the European Parliament, over 20 years ago. We were looking at functional airspace blocks and at ensuring that, right across Europe, it was smooth. Eurocontrol had obviously taken a huge role in traffic management, so it started to improve it hugely. Nevertheless, we still have bottlenecks around Europe which will affect us in the United Kingdom, but at the time the United Kingdom was known for having one of the best systems. We mixed the civil with the military to ensure that, when we were not using military airspace, civil aviation could use it. That was very unlike France and some other countries, which insisted on keeping these corridors, and therefore we had a backlog all the time.

In terms of capacity in the airspace sector, we know that when vertical separation was reduced over 20 years ago down to 1,000 feet, obviously because of the introduction of anti-collision devices et cetera, it was key to trying to get more capacity into European airspace. But, as we know, the industry has grown further, so it is quite right that we are looking at how to make this better. I think the CAA, NATS and the providers have done a terrific job with all the steps that they have taken—not with the vertical separation, obviously, but when they look at trying to ensure that we can cut times down for landing and take-off. I accept, however, that more technology needs to be brought in to make it even more efficient. I would like the Minister to tell us—maybe not today—what exactly the Government are looking to do. We have a lot of what they would like to do, but I would like to know precisely what they think will make this more efficient: I have not read that.

Moving on to slots, I was also rapporteur on slots in around 2004-05, and for the slots revision, which was about 10 years later. Slots are not a simple thing; I think I still have got the scars on my back. People think that, generally, the captain says, “Here’s the slot and we’re going to push back”, and sometimes you have missed it because the baggage is not on, or something—but of course it is not like that. These slots are traded twice a year through IATA and it is quite a complex business.

In addition to slot-airports—Heathrow and Gatwick, and do not forget the other airlines coming in—the value of the company depends on which slots they hold. When we were looking at slot revision back in 2004-05, the European Commission wanted primary trading. That would not have worked. It also had an idea that maybe it should be the one to allocate slots, but that was certainly not going to work. After much debate, it was recognised that one of the key issues is to make sure there is slot fairness, apart from grandfather rights and new entrant rules, which were brought in. Obviously, there is what happens when we have issues like the Middle East and other conflicts—the “use it or lose it” rules, which we have mentioned in discussing statutory instruments—and there are ways to get round this sort of thing. Notwithstanding that, people need to tread very carefully when they are looking at some sort of slot changes or changing the rules. This is just not a simple, “Oh well, let’s have this”, or “somebody in the Department for Transport thinks we should do X, Y and Z”. It will be at your peril if somebody starts to try and does the wrong thing, because it affects third-country carriers coming in.

The next area I would like to touch on is passenger rights. The noble Baroness, Lady Grey-Thompson, and others have raised this. I will touch on the “passengers with reduced mobility” regulation. Before the regulation was changed, the airlines had taken responsibility for their disabled passengers and passengers who need assistance. It was the European Commission which determined 20 years ago that it should not be the airlines that do this—not that the airlines may want to do it now—and that it should move to the airports.

The disadvantage of that was that, when an airline offered a service, everything that happened on that journey came back to the airline, so it took responsibility. I was crew. I sat with people while they waited for their wheelchair, or tried to check that the wheelchair was not damaged if it was in the hold. I have seen it first-hand. There is no excuse for people being left on aircraft on their own, waiting for somebody to take them off. There is little excuse for wheelchairs being damaged when they are hold loaded. The decision at the time was to take this responsibility away from the airlines and give it to the airports. This is where you lose that connection. How could you reverse that? I have no idea, because I doubt whether the airlines would want to take back that responsibility. It is just a thought as to how things were done and what has slipped since. There is no easy solution to this, but it is about what is called good customer service.

This brings me to general passenger rights: the old regulation 261, which was about cancellations and delays. I have to say—some people may disagree with me—that I lived and breathed 261 over those years, and certainly, colleagues in the European Parliament did. We got a very good deal for airline passengers. The legislation was robust. It was the first legislation that made airlines actually look after their passengers if flights were cancelled or delayed. It put the onus on them to really cough up and make sure they were doing their job. Most of the time they did a good job, but unfortunately a number of airlines were not particularly interested. That, hopefully, has improved hugely. There has to be a balance between the responsibility being on the airline and, for example, if there is compensation, the level at which it is set. We got to €200, €400 and €600 on short, medium and long haul flights. A balance has to be struck, but I do not think it is impossible. The legislation that is in place is good. We even moved from force majeure to exclude external events, to certain things being brought back in, whereby a passenger could claim compensation or at least ensure that they were being looked after.

It is good that the passenger is at the heart of this; it is right that they should be at the heart of this industry. As I said, we run a great industry. There is no reason for people to be treated badly. I have been at the forefront, when you are at 35,000 feet and you are going to be diverted because there is a thunderstorm, for example. This is where professionalism, reassurance and training of staff, including ground staff, has to come in, to ensure that the passengers are the priority; they are the ones that need to be looked after. Even in the direst circumstances, the public generally are fabulous. They know that they are in your hands. They will be very forgiving if they know that somebody is doing their very best in a professional way.

On a slightly critical note, the Secretary of State appears to run right through this legislation. The Secretary of State decides this, the Secretary of State is going to decide that—and, of course, the Secretary of State is answerable to all these things. But he or she will be responsible for the rulemaking. Then, the question is: who will advise the Secretary of State on this new rule? Will the Secretary of State be talking to the CAA? Will they be talking to people in the Department for Transport? It looks a little ambiguous, so there needs to be some clarity.

Finally, there also needs to be some clarity on the issues themselves, such as airspace and slots. We are being told what is wrong and what the Government would quite like to do, but I would like examples of things that have really gone wrong and what precisely the Government are thinking of putting in this legislation. There are questions to be answered, but I would like to thank my colleagues and others for referring to general aviation, which is key. I thank the Minister again for coming to the House with the Bill today.

18:08

[Lord Barber of Ainsdale (Lab)]

My Lords, I first declare an interest, as noted in the register, in that I am the current president of BALPA, the British Airline Pilots’ Association. BALPA is strongly supportive of the Bill’s objectives to modernise aviation regulations and to enable airspace reform. The Bill offers an opportunity to create a more responsive and agile framework. In such a safety-critical sector, this flexibility must be matched by clear expectations on effective oversight, better visibility of future workforce needs, and consultation with professional pilots.

First, on the issue of airspace change, modernisation has the potential to deliver more efficient routing and better use of UK airspace, contributing to the long- term sustainability of the sector. My noble friend Lady Antrobus’s references to the drone revolution provided a compelling illustration of the scale of the impending change coming our way. Given its direct impact on flight operations, it is essential that pilots and their representatives are engaged throughout this process, from design through to implementation. I hope the Government will ensure that there is a structured and ongoing consultation with front-line professionals as airspace change proposals are developed, delivered and reviewed once new arrangements become operational.

It should be recognised from the outset that airspace modernisation, alongside possible expansion of major airports such as Heathrow and Gatwick, is likely to lead to significantly increased traffic levels in UK airspace over the coming years, and that any material uplift in both flight movements and passenger numbers could lead to an increase in demand for pilots. This opportunity to build a growing, highly skilled, UK-based workforce needs to be understood and positively planned for if we are to avoid facing critical skills gaps at a moment of real and much-needed opportunity and growth.

Of course, airlines operate in the private sector, but there is a strong case for the Government and the Civil Aviation Authority to monitor, for example, the make- up of the pilot workforce, including the number of commercial airline pilots approaching the mandatory retirement age of 65. They should consider whether the training pipeline is adequate for future demand, which itself is being driven by public policy decisions such as airspace modernisation. The CAA already publishes a range of key aviation statistics. Should it now also be required to provide a more regular analysis of trends within its licence register data to improve the visibility of workforce dynamics and support more informed planning across the sector? Looking at a very different sector, I note that the Nursing and Midwifery Council publishes regular such assessments of the workforce on which it holds data. Could we not do that in this sector?

On the wider role of the CAA, Clause 8 transfers responsibility for setting detailed aviation safety and operational rules from Parliament and Ministers to the CAA. While this may improve regulatory agility, it represents a significant shift in where practical control of the aviation rulebook sits, with reduced opportunities for parliamentary scrutiny. This gives rise to some key questions. How will the Bill ensure meaningful consultation with pilots and other affected groups as rules are reviewed and before rules are created or amended? What mechanisms will allow Parliament to exercise effective oversight of significant or perhaps more novel regulatory changes? How will the CAA be required to provide transparency around decisions, including on the rationale and operational impact of new rules? I hope that we will be able to probe these points in Committee to ensure that the proposed flexibility in rule-making will be balanced with appropriate accountability and expertise to maintain confidence in the UK’s aviation safety framework.

Finally, on the CAA’s role in providing accountability to consumers for the effective enforcement of their rights in aviation, this could be a positive alternative to lengthy, expensive litigation that supports precious few people with legitimate grievances about failures in the sector. But can the Government examine how the CAA will discharge these responsibilities in practice to ensure that it can and will deliver a step change for the better over the current defective arrangements, and address in particular the powerful challenges expressed today by the noble Baronesses, Lady Grey-Thompson and Lady Ramsey, on the difficulties faced by disabled people and others with significant accessibility issues? I look forward to the further stages of this important Bill.

18:14

[Lord Holmes of Richmond (Con)]

My Lords, it is a pleasure to take part in this Second Reading debate. In doing so, I declare my interests as an adviser to the Crown Estate, Endava plc, and Simmons & Simmons LLP, as set out in the register. I congratulate the Minister on the way he introduced the Bill. I know he owns a bus; I do not know whether he has a jet.

[A noble Lord]

Not yet.

[Lord Holmes of Richmond (Con)]

Given that he made an “end of the runway” comment, it is only fair to say that I have always found him incredibly “plane-speaking”.

I would like to talk about inclusion and innovation, largely because the Bill does not talk very much at all about these issues. There is clause after clause on proposed secondary legislation, but secondary legislation as set out in the Bill is permissive; it is not in any sense mandated. While I can understand, and support, the need for flexibility when it comes to provisions for secondary legislation, that goes to prescription and operational detail and the need for flexibility there; it should not be flexible and permissive when it comes to the principles, particularly around inclusion. Does the Minister not agree that there could be a lot more on the principles of inclusion on the face of the Bill?

“Come fly with me, let’s fly, let’s fly away”.

Lovely words from Mr Sinatra, but what if you are a sight-impaired passenger, or a wheelchair user, or somebody with different mobility or cognitive needs? Perhaps not so much. When it comes to the experience of disabled people, flying can often be torturous and anxious-making before even arriving at the airport. It can be an experience that is not uplifting but dire, sometimes discriminatory and often demeaning. Sometimes you are left in the terminal; sometimes, if you get to board, you are left on the aircraft at the end of the flight. When you finally emerge from the aeroplane, you oftentimes find that your wheelchair or essential mobility equipment has been damaged or destroyed. Come fly with me? Not without greater protection and coverage on the face of the Bill, not least for disabled people.

What about older people, who are not mentioned in the Bill? What about younger people: passengers and minors who are travelling unaccompanied? No increased safeguarding provisions for them are set out in the Bill. There is no equality assessment of passenger complaints and actions taken when it comes to disability and mobility issues. When we look at the current draft of the Bill, we see nothing specifically for disabled people, older people or younger people, or anything specific on equality. Does the Minister not agree that having an inclusive-by-design statutory duty on the face of the Bill would be a huge step forward—yes, for disabled passengers, but for all passengers boarding a plane?

I turn to innovation. This is an industry that has come up with some of the greatest innovations and advances in science, engineering and technology across the country and around the world. It is therefore interesting that, when it comes to new and emerging technologies such as AI, blockchain, cyber and quantum, the Bill is again curiously silent. There is nothing on an AI layer for slot allocation and transaction, the issue of passenger redress and, crucially, the issue around airspace itself. What about digital tools for passengers to press their claims, assess their stage and track where they are? They could be empowered through the digital tools that could be put in their hands as a potential consequence of this legislation.

What about data? What about interoperability? Many of the powers in the Bill will potentially dramatically increase the amount of data gathered—commercially sensitive data and data that could easily identify private individuals—yet the Bill is currently silent on that. There is nothing on AI governance, responsible AI or ethical deployment, all of which could be set out at a high level in the Bill without in any sense frustrating the flexibility of the proposed secondary legislation.

To give one example of where AI could positively impact, imagine a system whereby claims under the already mentioned Regulation EC 261/2004 could be assessed automatically by AI and the compensation not only calculated but paid. Similarly, imagine predictive analytics used before disruption has even occurred, looking at data around weather patterns and so on. Imagine what AI could do on slot allocation, using the level of data and analytics already available, if it was brought together with powerful AI tools—and perhaps a blockchain basis for slot allocation and transaction in the first place, to give that immutable record of what is happening in what can sometimes be a somewhat opaque exercise.

If we do not address these technology questions in a framework capacity in the Bill, we will have different approaches to AI and other technologies for consumer redress, passengers tracking their claims, slot allocation and airspace itself. This will differ and be variable, with, crucially, a lack of clarity and consistency. That is completely avoidable if we get it right at this stage.

To conclude, inclusion by design is absolutely essential and currently lacking. Innovation in all its forms is curiously absent from the current draft of the Bill. In many ways, to be only somewhat reductive, we currently have a Bill that in some ways pushes digital by default but is without inclusion by design. If unamended, it will leave exclusion by default and exclusion by design.

18:23

[Baroness Thornton (Lab)]

My Lords, it is a great honour to follow the noble Lord, Lord Holmes, and I agree with very much of what he said.

As will be clear to my noble friend the Minister, some of us have joined this important Second Reading debate as consumers, not as experts on the aviation industry—unlike, for example, my noble friend Lord Tunnicliffe, who will bring his huge knowledge of this sector to bear, I have no doubt, in his contribution; my noble friend Lady Antrobus, whose speech adds to the knowledge and wisdom of this House; and indeed my noble friend Lord Barber.

I very much welcome the part of the Bill that grants direct enforcement of consumer protection legislation to the Civil Aviation Authority. My noble friend the Minister will be aware that, as consumers rather than experts in aviation, we find it a matter of particular satisfaction that the Bill proposes to grant the Civil Aviation Authority these direct enforcement powers over consumer protection legislation, strengthening its existing powers and bringing them into line with those enjoyed by other regulators.

What might this mean in practice? I offer a small but perhaps telling example, drawn from my own experience last Thursday. Noble Lords will recall that it was an exceptionally hot day in the United Kingdom— I can tell them that it was even hotter in Poitiers. As our Ryanair flight landed, I noticed a long queue of passengers standing outside the terminal building, virtually on the tarmac itself, in blazing sunshine, waiting to board the aircraft we were about to leave. I have no idea how long they had been standing there, but, whatever the answer, it was plainly too long. It is not easy to see how such treatment could be justified, unless the overriding priority was to achieve the fastest possible turnaround time, regardless of passenger comfort and, arguably, regardless of considerations of health and safety. I did indeed feel herded at Stansted, but at least my brain did not get fried.

I readily acknowledge that standards of courtesy and general customer service in the budget airline sector have improved significantly over recent years. Until a few years ago, the Ryanair chief executive, Michael O’Leary, was famous for not caring about the brusque and sometimes rude way that his staff treated passengers. But then, famously, speaking at the Paris Air Forum in June 2016, he said:

“If I’d only known that being nice to customers was … so good for my business I would have done it years ago”.


To give credit where credit is due, the staff are indeed very charming, by and large. Nevertheless, much more still needs to be done if consumers are to be treated with the degree of dignity and consideration that they are entitled to expect when buying any product or service.

People understandably choose budget airlines because the fares are low, but they also do so because those airlines frequently serve destinations that few other carriers are willing to fly to at all or at scale. In many places, that gives them what is, in effect, a near-monopoly position. Where that occurs, robust consumer protection becomes all the more important. We may not be able to insist upon better standards in France, but we can and should insist upon them here in the United Kingdom.

It is worth saying—this partly follows the noble Lord, Lord Holmes—that, if you are not tech savvy, do not have a printer available to you or do not know how to use online ticketing, you will be fined. Does the Bill address the issue as one of equality and reasonable adjustments for ability, disability and age? Will this be considered in the new consumer rights that the Bill espouses?

Most passenger rights originate, of course, from European legislation, and this Bill seeks to update it. As my noble friend the Minister said, the Bill is needed, and its three primary objectives are to promote economic growth and infrastructure development, strengthen consumer rights and protections, and enable improved aviation safety. The Bill modernises the regulatory framework for aviation and ensures that it can keep pace with technological change and the evolving consumer landscape, ensuring that the sector remains resilient to disruption and aligned with international standards. It introduces a delegated enabling power for the Secretary of State to amend existing passenger rights regulations and introduce new regulations where necessary. It addresses airspace modernisation, about which I knew absolutely nothing—although, since the contribution of my noble friend Lady Andrews, I feel I know a little more than I did before this debate.

The Bill delegates responsibility for certain aviation safety and operational rule-making to the CAA, enabling highly technical rules to be developed and updated more efficiently and creating a more responsible and agile regulatory framework. It restores powers lost after EU exit to amend and create aviation safety-related criminal offences in assimilated law. In other words, it is an important Bill in all those areas. I welcome it and look forward to being involved in its passage through your Lordships’ House.

18:28

[Lord Kirkhope of Harrogate (Con)]

My Lords, I declare several interests in aviation, the first of which is as quite a long-term private pilot—but not, I am afraid, one now flying in the 21st-century glass cockpits referred to by the noble Baroness, Lady Antrobus; I have to rely on 20th-century cockpits for my flying. I am the honorary vice-president of the British Airline Pilots Association, and I involve myself with the All-Party Parliamentary Group for Aviation. I am also a former director of Newcastle International Airport. My interest in aviation goes back a long way and is still very current.

In general, I welcome the Bill. It presents a considerable opportunity to modernise our aviation legislative frame- work and could help to position the United Kingdom as one of the world’s leading aviation markets, particularly in the light of the recently published aviation competitiveness index, which ranks the UK, disappointingly, only sixth out of the eight aviation markets it assessed.

I say so with one substantial qualification, which I imagine the Minister anticipates. Almost in its entirety, this Bill is an enabling measure; it creates no new passenger rights and reforms no single rule; it confers powers on the Secretary of State and the authorities to do those things later by regulation. In relation to other legislation, I have raised my concerns that so much is left for later decisions, often implemented without the full scrutiny that they might deserve at the time. It therefore remains to be seen how Ministers will utilise the new powers contained in this Bill to enable meaningful reform and improve aviation regulation for the benefit of consumers and airlines alike, because that is surely what we all desire.

To take the consumer provisions first, the inherited framework referred to before, Regulation UK 261, was drafted for a different era, and it now imposes liabilities on carriers well beyond anything its authors intended, covering passenger rights when flights are delayed and cancelled and when there is a denial of boarding. This regulation followed our leaving the EU so, although in general it follows the same matters as the similar EU regulation, it is enforced by our authorities, so we have the possibility of both EU and UK regimes applying to flights between the UK and Europe. In the Government’s discussions with their European counterparts, we could certainly benefit by trying to ensure some alignment at least in this international marketplace. The European Union, which wrote the original form of the regulation, has itself concluded that the thresholds no longer work, and its Council agreed last summer to lengthen the qualifying delay to four hours on short-haul flights and six hours on long-haul flights. The power in Clause 1 is an opportunity to bring clarity, not least to the vexed question of what amounts to so-called extraordinary circumstance, which sustains a small industry of litigation and serves passengers and airlines alike very poorly.

On the enforcement powers in Clause 2, I urge greater caution, for, by the authority’s own survey, passenger satisfaction stands at its highest recorded level. Powers of direct penalty should be reserved for genuine and systemic harm and exercised with proper process, and I shall be grateful to know what safeguards the Government intend to avoid misunderstandings and unnecessary rigidity.

I come now to the part of the Bill closest to my own concerns as a pilot, on airspace. Ours is the most congested in the world. NATS handles a quarter of Europe’s traffic and barely a 10th of its airspace, yet the basic design has scarcely altered since the 1950s, when the country saw some 200,000 flights a year, against more than 2.5 million now. In 2019, I was asked by the All-Party Parliamentary Group on Aviation to undertake an inquiry into lower airspace, particularly because of the pressures on general aviation, and we came up with a number of proposals for change. We concluded, inter alia, that the methodology in which airspace design changes occur was antiquated and in need of radical reform, and called for the scrapping of legislation governing lower airspace design. I wonder if this legislation is at last going to encompass our findings. Could the Minister perhaps confirm it?

Modernisation is now very overdue, and the powers in Clause 4 to see airspace change actually implemented are sensible and necessary, but the new design service, the so-called single guiding mind, was promised to be operational by the end of last year—and I must ask, where is it? An assurance on a revised timetable would be helpful. I ask too that the smaller users of our skies, the gliders and the light aircraft, previously referred to by several speakers, including my noble friend Lord Davies, are not again quietly squeezed out, for they have as good a claim to the air as any airliner.

If we are to grow the aviation industry, with developments such as the third runway at Heathrow and capacity growth at many regional airports, we shall need to deal with the shortage of pilots to fly our aircraft. I am not persuaded that that supply can safely be left to the market alone, and I would ask whether the Government or the CAA might take an informed interest in the health of that workforce and encourage more to train for this role. The smaller private training schools need encouragement, not impediment. Of course, at the heart of this legislation will be full and ongoing consultation with professional pilots and their representative organisations to ensure that we adequately respond to the needs of the industry with a more flexible and dynamic system of training and recruitment.

Finally, I want to make a couple of points relating to NATS. First, may I press the Minister to clarify the proposals on charging for air traffic and navigation services? Those responsible to pay for those services, according to the Bill, is to change from

“owners and operators of aircraft”

to, simply, “persons”. General aviation is not, wisely, affected too much by the present arrangements, which apply largely to the airlines, and I would argue that the burden of such charges should remain as at present. Is this change more, perhaps, because of technological developments such as drone delivery systems? The Minister is nodding his head. Perhaps he could confirm that in his wind-up.

We need to protect general aviation for the future, but my second question relates to liability. When the air traffic control system failed in the summer of 2023, some 2,000 flights were cancelled and over 700,000 passengers disrupted, at a cost that the regulator has put at up to £100 million. The airlines met that bill in its totality. NATS, which we know is a profitable company that was at the very heart of the failures, paid absolutely nothing. The most that could be done was to embark on the clear complications of fining it, but with much lesser redress available. When a carrier causes the delay, it has to pay— without argument, it has to pay. When the monopoly air navigation provider causes it—guess what—the carrier pays again. That surely cannot be right, and I hope that the Minister will say whether this Bill, with all its new powers, might finally correct that imbalance.

I welcome this Bill, and I shall engage constructively as it proceeds, but I return to where I began. This Bill could do a great deal of good. It could also, I am afraid, give great disappointment. I think we all want the former outcome, not the latter, so the Government must be held closely to account.

18:37

[Baroness Gill (Lab)]

My Lords, imagine the scene: it is 1 am on a freezing Tuesday. A young mother is sitting on the airport floor trying to comfort a crying toddler. Her flight was cancelled four hours ago. The terminal departure boards are completely blank; the airline staff have packed up their desks and vanished; and the automated customer phone lines are dead. For that family and for thousands of travellers, especially those with disabilities, every single week the miracle of modern flight collapses into a nightmare of absolute haplessness.

We are not talking about rare or isolated mishaps. Independent adjudicators handle over 43,000 formal passenger complaints in a single year. Millions of pounds have to be legally forced out of airlines after they initially reject legitimate customer claims. Shockingly, the Civil Aviation Authority’s own research reveals that, when major flight disruptions strike, only one in 10 passengers feels fully informed of their actual legal rights. That is the grim reality of the British airport floor today, which is why this Bill is not just necessary; it is an urgent economic and moral imperative.

This legislation delivers three undeniable victories for ordinary travellers. First, there is accountability: repeat corporate offenders can no longer break consumer law with impunity. Then there is transparency: passengers will receive honest, real-time, frequent communication during a crisis. Finally, there is oversight: the heavy burden of proof shifts away from individual consumer and on to proactive regulatory enforcement.

Having said that, aviation is one of the ultimate success stories of modern Britain. Our airports handle more than 300 million passengers’ journeys annually. For the vast majority of us, though, air travel is not a luxury but an absolute necessity in modern life. For me, this industry is not just a sector on a spreadsheet; it is deeply personal. My late mother worked for over a quarter of a century for our national flag carrier. Her hard work and the stable, secure employment provided by that airline allowed her to support me through my university years. I saw at first hand how a job in aviation could transform a family’s horizons. In fact, many within her wider circle of friends and our family were able to completely transform their lives thanks to sustainable work in the airline sector around Heathrow. Because of that upbringing, I carry a deep, lifelong degree of loyalty to the industry. Over my career, I have more than repaid that debt.

Years ago, my work commitments meant that I was practically living out of a suitcase. I was working for a North American IT company, tasked with the overwhelming responsibility of working with teams scattered across three-quarters of the globe. This was the dark ages, before the everyday convenience of Zoom, Teams and video conferencing. In those days, virtual collaboration was not an option. If you needed to align a team across continents, you did not just click on a link—you bought a ticket. My friends used to taunt me and say that I was practically living on a plane. I must confess that the lifestyle completely shattered any potential green credentials I could ever hope to claim.

Because I have spent a massive portion of my working life in the air, prioritising our national carriers to repay the generational debt I mentioned, I know the rhythm of our airports like the back of my hand. I have flown through Heathrow, Birmingham, Gatwick and Manchester at every conceivable hour and have seen absolutely the best of this industry. I have watched airline crews and ground staff display heroic professionalism under immense professional and operational pressures.

But, like everyone else, I have also experienced the worst. I know what it feels like to stand in a queue that stretches out of the terminal doors, just like the noble Baroness, Lady Thornton, watching a hard-fought and important meeting with the opportunities it would bring, or a family milestone, just vanish with the clouds. I have sat stranded on tarmac for three hours with zero explanation. I have received an automated, emotionless text message cancelling a flight just as I reached the airport. I have spent successive evenings playing digital hide-and-seek with airline chatbots, trying to navigate intentionally difficult complaints systems just to submit a complaint.

My travel history has taught me one undeniable truth: the British public are remarkably resilient and reasonable. Passengers understand that aircraft develop technical faults. They know that safety must always come first. They accept that adverse weather and air traffic restrictions can shatter a schedule. What they do not accept—and what this Parliament must no longer tolerate—is being treated like an inconvenience or worse. They do not accept radio silence, a total lack of accountability or being forced to fight like a corporate lawyer just to claim basic rights that already belong to them. That is why I staunchly support this civil aviation Bill.

Concurrently, we must listen closely to the warnings from the aviation sector. Like many noble Lords, I received a Second Reading briefing from Airlines UK, which made a number of serious claims that this House must evaluate. It points to consumer surveys and argues that passenger satisfaction is at an all-time high. It claims that existing complaints procedures and alternative dispute resolution pathways are already providing substantial avenues for redress. It tells us frankly that there is “no strong case” for additional consumer measures and warns us that broad, turnover-based fining powers will create “regulatory uncertainty”.

With respect, I invite the authors of that briefing to leave the boardroom and stand on a terminal floor, because the data tells a completely different story. How can satisfaction be absolute when, as I said earlier, independent adjudicators are inundated with more than 43,000 formal passenger complaints in a single year? How can the current system be deemed “substantial” when millions of pounds have to be legally dragged out of airlines after they initially reject legitimate customer complaints? Airlines UK argues that the current framework imposes disproportionate liabilities on airlines, but what about the disproportionate burden placed on a lone disabled passenger left stranded without a room, a flight or an explanation? I have been there, like many noble Lords.

On the industry’s fear of new fining powers, I say that there is no uncertainty if you comply with the law. If you communicate honestly, refund promptly and treat the British public with dignity, you will never have to face the sting of these new enforcement powers.

However, let us be fair. The industry note is not entirely without merit. In fact, there are areas where the Government should actively align with our airlines, because consumer protection and industry competitiveness are not mutually exclusive. First, I support the industry’s call to use this Bill to fix the legal definitions surrounding flight disruptions. The current application of what constitutes an “extraordinary circumstance” is a mess of uncertainty. It fuels endless litigation that helps neither the carrier nor the traveller. Therefore, I support the Government using the delegated powers in this Bill to establish a clear, non-exhaustive and modern definition.

Secondly, I support Airlines UK on the urgent matter of airspace modernisation and airport slot reform. Our airlines are completely right to call the current system outdated. Modernising our skies, the invisible motorways of the air, is vital for network resilience, reducing delays and cutting emissions. The temporary powers that allow us to govern these frameworks are set to expire on 23 June. We cannot afford to let our regulatory framework lapse into legal limbo. I echo the industry’s urge to the Minister: we need a clear, revised timetable for the UK airspace delivery service. The Government must ensure full delivery of this programme no later than 2035. If the Government want airlines to deliver for passengers, they must deliver the infrastructure to let them fly efficiently.

While I champion these new powers, I ask the Minister for clarity on how they will be deployed. The industry is rightly concerned about broad powers being used recklessly. How will the Government ensure that these enforcement tools are used proportionately, focusing strictly on systemic market failures rather than penalising airlines for genuine, unavoidable operational disruptions?

Legislation is meaningless if it lives only in the statute book; its value must be felt by the passenger standing at the baggage carousel. No Act of Parliament can banish bad weather and no politician can legislate away a mechanical failure on a jet, but we can and must ensure that, when chaos hits, our citizens are treated with dignity, informed with honesty and supported with speed.

At its core, this Bill is about restoring the soul of British aviation. The success of the Bill will not be judged by the speeches we give or the guidance notes we print tomorrow; it will be judged by the travelling public. It will be judged by whether the silence at the gate is replaced by clear communication, whether the agonising delays in payouts disappear and whether basic respect is permanently restored to the passenger experience. If we achieve this, we will not just regulate an industry; we will secure the trust of the nation, restore the dignity of British travellers and ensure that the sky belongs to people who depend on it and not just the corporations that operate within it. I commend the legislation to the House.

18:51

[Lord Empey (UUP)]

My Lords, like many Members, I declare an interest as a member of the General Aviation APPG and as an honorary vice-president of the Union of Pilots, Engineers & Cabin Crew.

I want to talk about slots, but before getting to that point, I will say that much of the Bill gives additional powers to the CAA. Can the Minister tell us what the capacity of the CAA is to deal with the extra powers that are being directed towards it? Is that part of the reason for the long delay between the passage of the legislation and its introduction in practice? It seems to me that a huge extra burden has been placed and, if rules are to be made as well as enforced, new skills will be required by the CAA to carry out that activity.

Much has been said about consumer protection, and many of the causes of the problems at airports are actually caused not by the airlines but by the people who operate the airport services—whether that is luggage or other services that are provided. There is always a gap. It seems to me that, when we get to Committee, we will have to probe to see exactly how that can be looked at to ensure that the best possible service is provided.

One issue that is not in the Bill but concerns the welfare of passengers and people who work in the airlines is cabin air quality. It has been largely glossed over for many years but, if it is not monitored properly, it can affect and have a direct impact on not only the people who work on aircraft and in aircraft but the people who use them.

I listened very carefully to what the noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Moulsecoomb, said. She is not in her place right now. We all have concerns about the environment. It is not confined to one particular party. We all have concerns. She argued that we should take only two flights a year. That is going to put people like me in some difficulty, I have to say. We have to be realistic. Exporting the pollution to another part of the world at our own expense does not improve the environment or climate in general.

The noble Lord, Lord Kirkhope, mentioned NATS: something that has largely been passed by. I ask the Minister: is he satisfied that there is sufficient resilience? In 2014, 2023 and 2025 there were significant failures, and the last one was pretty catastrophic. If you are going to redesign with the help of technology, and perhaps AI, how the motorways in the sky are controlled and monitored, there is a capacity issue there to be resolved.

Obviously, the noble Baroness, Lady Grey-Thompson, raised the issue of people with mobility issues and other issues. The person who took my seat in the Northern Ireland Assembly—a war veteran who was severely injured in Afghanistan and is a wheelchair user—was left literally on the tarmac, having the indignity of watching his baggage being offloaded from the plane, which moved off the apron and took off while he was still on the tarmac, because the people who were responsible for bringing the equipment to get him on the plane did not show up. So, there are cases that we cannot ignore—but that is just one, and I am just saying that it is something we have to bear in mind.

I would like to bring slots to the Minister’s attention. Some years ago, I twice brought a Bill to this House, and it was passed twice in this House—the Airports (Amendment) Bill. It passed through this House and went down to the other place. As former Members of the other place will know, there was a particular Member down there who specialised in ensuring that a Private Member’s Bill ended up in a not very good place.

At that particular time, the Minister answering was the noble Lord, Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon, who is not in his place. What I was trying to achieve was to ensure that regional airports had access to appropriate slots at Heathrow. Of course, it was primarily a European function, and that is what his line was, because the Government of course did not accept the Bill. The fact is it has nothing to do with PSOs and providing subsidies. If you are a regional airport, the reality is that, in this country, access to a main hub airport to get connectivity internationally is essential. For those of us who do not have access to trains and so on, it is even more important.

In circumstances where a slot owner—let us take the IAG as an example—is acquired by people from the Middle East, for instance, who may find greater value in international flights than in domestic flights, they might decide to move in that particular direction and reduce the number of regional flights. The regions would then be at a disadvantage. In those circumstances, is the Minister satisfied that the Bill will provide the necessary powers? Would the Government be prepared to use those powers to guarantee that regional airports will have sufficient access to Heathrow to ensure proper regional connectivity within the United Kingdom? I do not think that that is an unreasonable thing to do, and we will probe it in Committee to see how we can do it. That was the primary purpose of the Bills that I put through this House, which had very strong support, I have to say. I ask the Minister: is that something that we can do?

The noble Baroness, Lady Foster, said that slots are not a simple thing. I understand that; they are very complicated. They are very valuable assets, worth tens of millions of pounds. Therefore, you can imagine a future situation where an operator is not nationally minded and is simply looking the best profit that it can make, which is understandable. But the fact is that there are national, regional and consumer rights for the people of this country, and we have to ensure that there are proper circumstances where they can get access. It has a huge economic effect on the United Kingdom as a whole. We talk about the London area, with the principal airports, and that is understandable, but we do not all live in London; there are one or two of us left outside London. I just draw that to your Lordships’ attention. So, it is important that we have that access and I think that most political parties would have that as a fundamental policy in their manifestos.

We may probe that issue in Committee, but I ask the Minister to take that on board so that we can be satisfied that, if circumstances arise where an operator or an owner of the slots is going to reconfigure their schedules to the disadvantage of the regions, that can be corrected by government action. In the past, Ministers were saying that because of our membership of the EU we could not do this; the question is whether this legislation will permit that to happen. Obviously, that is one of the things we will probe.

I point out that this has nothing to do with subsidising routes. There is a PSO for one or two perfectly justifiable routes, but this is not what I am getting at. Most of these routes do not need subsidies; they are perfectly economically viable in their own right, provided, of course, that there is the appropriate access. It is not a Northern Ireland issue; it applies to Scotland, to the north of England, to other areas and of course to the PSO routes as well, and to Cornwall and Scotland.

Can the Minister in summing up address the issue of slots and satisfy us that the Bill in its current form will have sufficient powers? If not, we will look at amendments to bring the necessary certainty that this will be addressed.

19:02

[Baroness Griffin of Princethorpe (Lab)]

My Lords, I concur with the statements of the noble Baronesses, Lady Grey-Thompson and Lady Ramsey, and the noble Lord, Lord Holmes, re access. Does my noble friend the Minister agree with me that disabled air passengers and air passengers with conditions which restrict their mobility should be enabled to travel independently if they so wish? Currently, it is total assisted travel—having to arrive early at airports, not being able to use lounges to work—or absolutely nothing. I have personal experience of being left in what can only be described as holding pens in airports, once being given colouring pencils when I was on my way to Strasbourg to declare an EU-wide climate emergency. I wish, however, to thank OCS assistance staff in the UK, who are kind and resilient.

Disabled passengers deserve equality of dignity. Will the consumer protection powers in the Bill significantly apply to airports and the rights of disabled passengers when flying? Time and again, when coming from the European Parliament to Manchester Airport, I was met with broken-down lifts and escalators, with no advance warning, leaving me stranded. Can my noble friend say whether there is scope for secondary legislation relating to both airlines and airports?

This is not widely known, but I discovered it: most airline staff will not assist with placing hand luggage in overhead compartments on planes, resulting in disabled passengers having to check in even hand luggage in advance or depend on the kindness of strangers. This is stressful and unequal. What measures are there to ensure better protections for air passenger rights, including those of vulnerable groups such as disabled passengers?

I also have a Michael O’Leary story—and this is true. The noble Baroness, Lady Foster, and I served on the transport committee in the European Parliament. Michael O’Leary asked for a meeting with the then chair, Brian Simpson. Brian, with his colleagues and his civil servants, asked Michael O’Leary and his staff if they would like a coffee, to which the response came back, “Yes”. Bearing in mind that this was over a decade ago, the chair of the EP transport committee then said, “That will be €3, please”.

What are the powers to amend or create air passenger rights regulations? Will the needs of deaf, blind and visually impaired passengers who wish to travel independently be met? What provision is there for disabled passengers to escalate complaints when needed? Too many disabled passengers are left on planes—the BBC’s Frank Gardner is a case in point, as noble Baronesses have already said. People disembark to find their electric wheelchairs damaged; how will the Bill improve this? Will it give powers to issue direct penalties when an airline or an airport breaches its legal obligations to disabled and less mobile passengers?

The most recent Civil Aviation Authority consumer survey illustrates that, while passenger satisfaction has improved overall, disabled passengers, people who struggle with digital services, and those under financial pressure report lower levels of satisfaction. The most common reasons for dissatisfaction include overcrowding and problems with accessibility. Assistance is required by passengers with pan-impairments, including visible, non-visible, physical and non-physical challenges, neurodivergence and health conditions.

The CAA has taken court action in only one case relating to air passenger rights. That took nearly four years to reach a final judgment, leaving passengers out of pocket and without recourse throughout that period. Can my noble friend the Minister say how this Bill, which I warmly welcome, will improve this?

19:07

[Lord Tunnicliffe (Lab)]

My Lords, I have been a Back-Bencher for two years, and in that period I have rather assumed that I bored enough people during the previous 14 years, so I have not been making too many speeches. I have a Select Committee and I do my duty there, and most important of all, I vote as my Whip instructs me. However, it was put to me when this Bill came up that, given my background, I had better participate, so the real reason I am speaking now is, frankly, just to say that I am going to participate.

I will give just a little information on my background. I spent 22 years in civil aviation. I spent about eight years as a pilot—not a captain, I am afraid, but a mere co-pilot; status matters in that industry. I spent 16 years as a manager, and very early on in my career I spent three years as a pilot shop steward. Since I spent the rest of my career in one management role or another, it was fascinating to listen to managers talking about strikes, and to recognise that they did not have the faintest idea how trade unions work and the emotions involved in making decisions. But enough of that. That was a fun career.

I have read the Bill and the notes from cover to cover, and frankly, I think it is a pretty good Bill. Generally speaking, I will be supporting it, and perhaps in places defending it. I received a briefing from my old trade union, BALPA, and three points stood out which I intend to explore. Unfortunately, however, the noble Lord, Lord Barber, got the same briefing, so I do not have a lot of original things to say. I will also make a point or two about some of the issues the noble Lord, Lord Moylan, raised in the debate on the King’s Speech.

Flying is relatively straightforward. I am not talking about the disastrous sort of dangerous flying that the noble Baroness, Lady Antrobus—I think it was her; I am not good with names—does. I admire her doing it and am deeply jealous, but, in civil aviation, the flying of the aeroplane is pretty straightforward. This does not mean that it is not fun. Racing down a runway at 200 mph and gently pulling back the control column, persuading 320 tonnes of aeroplane to follow you into the air, has a rather special excitement about it that is matched only by getting the damn thing back on the ground eight hours later.

One thing that has not come up in this debate is that flying is dangerous. It is very dangerous, for a series of reasons. Perhaps the single most significant one is that you do not have little accidents in aviation. When they happen, they are very significant. We have not had any in the UK for several years, but, in the rest of the world, things have not been going well. Aeroplanes have been crashing.

It is important to understand why flying is dangerous. It is not about getting the aeroplane into the air or getting it back on to the ground in those final few feet; it is about all the other things that get in the way. One of the most important hazards is the weather. Way back, I was a private pilot. That is great fun but, if the weather is bad, the key skill of a private pilot is deciding not to fly. In civil aviation, you want to fly right up to the edge of what is possible. You want to fly when there are thunderstorms, when there is fog and when there are gale force winds. But there are other aircraft, and those aircraft have lots of people in them. You have to not fly into them.

Then there are technical problems. It is no good saying, “They’re all right now”. They are all right only because of the considerable efforts that regulators and airlines put into assuring that those technical problems do not become disastrous. There are also communications problems. London has been mentioned. One of the privileges of London is that it is an international centre, but this means that communications are not always that straightforward—and when they go wrong, they can go very wrong.

Lurking in the background is the terrain, especially when you cannot see it at night or when it is covered in fog, in snow and so on. That is the challenge. That is what makes airline operations important, and that is where the pilot comes in. The pilot is in the business of flying these wonderful, modern aeroplanes and coping with all these hazards, which, as we have seen in recent years, all crop up sooner or later.

As my noble friend Lord Barber said, in essence, the three areas that BALPA brought out were: pilot involvement in airspace design; the CAA rules; and the issue of pilot numbers. The first two—airspace design and the pilot rules—must involve pilots and other critical workers, but especially pilots because, without being there, it is almost impossible to appreciate not only each problem individually but how they crowd together. Accidents happen usually—almost exclusively, I would say—when two or three of the issues come together; then a lot of people die. So it is crucial that workers, particularly pilots, are involved in a consultative fashion in airspace design and in the whole issue of the rules so that the redesigned airspace and the rules are workable and acceptable.

BALPA also raised the issue of the pilot workforce, which has been pretty chaotic ever since the Second World War. Broadly speaking, in the early part of that period, the Royal Air Force produced pilots. For many years, the Royal Air Force was a pilot-rich environment. Of course, there are fewer and fewer pilots in the Royal Air Force now, but there are more and more technologies. We are talking about fighter aeroplanes and jet fighters, which carry a swarm of drones with them. Twenty years ago, they tried to carry a swarm of aeroplanes with them, but no longer. It is about single people, and fewer pilots are being produced. When BEA and BOAC had a monopoly, they saw that coming. It was their job to create pilots, and they did so. I was a product of that creation. It all happened in a place called Hamble, and then in larger places.

Then came the issue of who should pay. I was lucky in my university career. We had to pay a mere £1,000. In retrospect, that does not sound like a large amount of money but, if you apply inflation, it is around £27,000. More recently, though, individuals have had to pay. The real cost of achieving the qualification that will make a pilot employable by an airline is £115,000-plus, and there is no scheme of loans. Whatever you think of the student loan scheme, at least it is there and is automatically available. Frankly, if you wanted to become a pilot in recent decades, it was a good idea to be born to an affluent family. More recently, I have to commend my old employer, which has at long last gone back to training its own pilots.

I want to pick up the issue of secondary legislation. Concern has been expressed that there will not be enough parliamentary involvement once the Bill has been passed. I have seen the other side of that, I am afraid. For 14 years, I was Her Majesty’s loyal Opposition’s odd-job Front-Bench Peer. I used to pick up transport, defence, Treasury matters, and so on. You would batter away at Bills, and the one thing you went for was, “Let’s get some more affirmative orders. Let’s get the Government to come back and get involved in this piece of legislation”. Over and again, I was punished for that. I would end up in the Moses Room with three other Peers: the Government Minister, the Government Minister’s sidekick, and a Lib Dem. Is that really involvement by Parliament?

The problem with our secondary legislation processes is that, in the Commons, the Government always have a majority, but, in this House, there is a constitutional crisis when we vote down an affirmative resolution. It is much more important to get the involvement of the people who know what they are talking about—the trade unions, the owners, the operators, and so on—as well as, of course, customer representation, especially in the important area of disability.

I will be looking out, as this develops, to see that we use secondary legislation, affirmative secondary legislation in particular, only where it will add real value, because I have to tell noble Lords that, in my 14 years of experience—including 40 or 50 appearances in the Moses Room in a year when we were going through Brexit—secondary legislation adds no significant value. We must look for a much wider view of how to input things and have checks and balances.

I hope that we have a good time working through this Bill. I hope that we do not spend too much time on it, going late into the night. The Bill in general is sound. I hope that we fine-tune it, rather than ruin it with unnecessary amendments.

19:20

[Baroness Bray of Coln (Con)]

My Lords, there is much in this civil aviation Bill that is sensible and worthy of support across the House. As we have been hearing, aviation remains vital to the United Kingdom, island nation that we are. It supports trade, tourism, investment and employment in every region of our country, it connects families and businesses, and it helps sustain Britain’s position as an outward-looking and internationally connected nation, serving passengers across the world.

When those passengers purchase a ticket, they are entitled to fairness, transparency and proper treatment when things go wrong. Consumers should know clearly what they are paying for, should receive timely information when delays or cancellations occur, and should not face endless obstacles when seeking compensation or redress. In that respect, measures to strengthen consumer protections and to improve clarity, by making aviation regulations clearer and less fragmented for consumers and industry, are welcome, provided that such reforms remain subject to proper scrutiny and ongoing review when necessary.

I recognise and support the case for fairer competition within aviation markets and for ensuring that access to airport capacity is not unduly dominated by entrenched, long-standing interests. At some of our major airports, incumbent airlines can become excessively dominant over time, which may reduce competition and ultimately work against the interests of passengers through reduced choice and weaker competitive pressure. However, reforms designed to improve operational efficiency must proceed with proper regard for the communities affected by likely increased aviation activity. At its best, good governance is about balance: balancing economic progress with accountability, transparency and public confidence. It is on that basis that parts of this Bill deserve closer scrutiny.

Too often, modern legislation comes before this House as a broad framework, while substantial powers are left to future regulations, ministerial direction or regulatory interpretation. That matters in this case, where changes presented as technical or operational may have significant consequences for communities far beyond airport boundaries. Parliament should always exercise caution before delegating wide discretionary powers without sufficient safeguards or scrutiny.

To be clear, this is not formally an airport expansion Bill, but it does involve changes to airspace management, operational arrangements and regulatory powers. Sometimes communities have been told that proposed changes are just technical adjustments, only for them to discover over time that the cumulative effect is a substantial increase in aviation intensity which subsequently places them under new or busier flight paths, sometimes far beyond airport boundaries.

For many residents, especially in rural and semi-rural Britain, this can be a serious development. It may well lead to the introduction of aircraft noise over towns and villages hitherto totally unused to it, or an increase for others. There are quite likely to be more runways and expanding regional terminals, along with increased traffic on local roads and pressure on local infrastructure, countryside and green spaces, and the gradual erosion of the quiet character of areas where people have chosen to live and which are all that some people have ever known. Once lost, it is rarely recovered. What does that do for local property values, by the way?

I am not opposed to aviation or economic growth. Britain needs both. However, public confidence depends upon assurance that change will proceed fairly, openly and with proper regard for those affected. This House must not only support economic activity but ensure that decisions command legitimacy and democratic consent. The countryside is not simply spare land awaiting development. Communities likely to be affected are not obstacles to be managed through consultation exercises of questionable sincerity. Quality of life—including quiet, landscape and environmental stability—has genuine public value, even when such things are hard to quantify economically.

While I support many of the broad objectives of the Bill, I hope that Ministers will listen carefully in Committee to concerns regarding parliamentary scrutiny, community consultation, and the cumulative impact of aviation expansion and airspace change. I hope that we can ensure that significant regulatory changes remain subject to proper parliamentary oversight, that communities likely to be affected are properly consulted before decisions are settled, and that environmental and countryside protections remain meaningful safeguards rather than procedural formalities.

If the Bill proceeds in that balanced spirit, supporting consumers and economic activity while respecting communities and democratic accountability, it will be considerably stronger legislation. Ultimately, that is the balance that I hope this House will seek to achieve.

19:26

[Baroness Ritchie of Downpatrick (Lab)]

My Lords, it is a pleasure to participate in this debate. I welcome the Bill and I welcome my noble friend the Minister on the Front Bench. This Bill focuses on supporting the aviation industry and provides much-needed related consumer rights and safeguards.

To come at it from a Northern Ireland perspective, the aviation industry makes a major contribution to the local economy, employment creation and business development there. Some businesses have grown up around Belfast City Airport. In my former constituency of South Down, when I was in the other place, Collins Aerospace, located in Kilkeel, manufactures aircraft seats and other components for the world aerospace industry. That company and its predecessors have done that for generations. Bradfor, based in Rostrevor, some 10 miles away, manufactures the covers for the seats and Thompson Aero Seating, in Lurgan, makes aircraft components for the global market. Air connectivity and the aerospace industry are vital to the economic development of Northern Ireland.

Like my friend the noble Lord, Lord Empey, and other noble Lords from Northern Ireland, I am a weekly user of return flights between Belfast and London. I gently say to the noble Baroness, Lady Jones, that if we were restricted to two flights per year, unfortunately we would not be here very often. On those weekly flights, I witness the challenges which face the aviation industry and its consumers, and like the noble Baroness, Lady Thornton, I speak in this debate as a consumer. Such challenges include flight disruptions caused by weather patterns and climate change, late arriving aircrafts and mechanical difficulties at the airport—as I experienced on Sunday evening at Belfast City Airport. Other challenges include inadequate compensation enforcement and accessibility barriers for vulnerable passengers, including disabled persons, as has been referred to by many noble Lords this evening. To the amateur traveller, airlines can cancel flights at short notice without due consideration for the rights of passengers.

I respect the need for consumer and air safety, but consumer rights need to be recognised. The Bill is designed to address this by giving the Government and the Civil Aviation Authority expanded powers to update and enforce passenger rights. This is a welcome step forward. The Bill will promote economic growth and infrastructure, as air connectivity is key to economic growth.

This piece of legislation will enhance aviation safety and will also seek to modernise UK airspace. Around two years ago, I tabled Questions about air traffic control issues at Gatwick and Edinburgh Airports, which had a knock-on effect on flights to and business with Belfast and Northern Ireland. So many flights were cancelled, which caused immense inconvenience to passengers and businesses. At that stage, I met representatives of NATS, who wanted the Government to bring forward measures to improve and modernise UK airspace and largely welcomed the provisions within this piece of proposed legislation.

Like many noble Lords in the Chamber this evening, I have been contacted by NATS, Airlines UK and the British Airline Pilots Association regarding the legislation. It is worth noting that NATS has no concerns about Clauses 4, 5 and 6, or Schedule 2, as it believes that they are sensible changes which support the practical delivery of airspace modernisation and help ensure that the regulatory charging and appeals framework keeps pace with the way the UK airspace is evolving, such as the integration of new airspace users into UK skies. Clause 4 is seen as strengthening the framework for progressing and implementing airspace change proposals, which would help support the delivery of the airspace modernisation strategy and the work of the UK Airspace Design Service, which the Government have asked NATS to lead on.

NATS also believes that Clause 8 on Civil Aviation Authority rule-making could be usefully strengthened to include two additional safeguards: first, clearer consultation and impact assessment and implementation; and, secondly, a statutory rolling rule-making plan. Therefore, I ask my noble friend the Minister: what are the possibilities of government amendments to reflect these sensible safety requirements?

The British Airline Pilots Association is also supportive of the Bill’s objectives to modernise aviation regulation and enable airspace reform. It feels there are several provisions, particularly the delegation of rule-making powers and the delivery of airspace change, that require stronger safeguards around workforce engagement, transparency and strategic planning. In this regard, I ask my noble friend the Minister: what are the possibilities that the Government could accommodate such changes while ensuring that the best-quality safeguards are in place?

Airlines UK welcomes the legislation and the recognition from the Government that the aviation sector is vital to the UK economy, enabling trade, tourism, business and economic growth while supporting hundreds of thousands of jobs and underpinning critical national connectivity. It does not believe there is a strong case for additional consumer measures at this time and thinks any legislative updates should focus on improving outcomes by supporting a modern and innovative UK aviation market rather than by adding unnecessary regulatory burdens and costs. I have a certain disagreement with that, but I am sure my noble friend the Minister could provide further clarification. Therefore, what is the position of the Government and the Minister in this regard? Will the Government ensure that the protections for consumers in airspace modernisation in this piece of legislation are sustained?

I believe the provisions in the Bill are constructive and proportionate steps towards delivering a modernised and integrated airspace which is fit for the future. I believe that the environment of the cabins within the aircraft and the wider environment need to be respected, but in terms of the wider environment, we also have to achieve a balance which allows our economy to grow. I welcome the Bill. Undoubtedly, it could be improved in the area of the CAA rule-making framework. Undoubtedly, the aerospace industry makes a major contribution to transportation, connectivity, job creation, tourism and our local economy.

19:35

[Baroness Grender (LD)]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb (GP)]

What a pointless jibe.

[Baroness Grender (LD)]

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

19:47

[Lord Moylan (Con)]

My Lords, it has been an excellent debate. Most of my points have been made; in the course of the afternoon, I have been tearing up and disposing of parts of the speech that was prepared for me, so I hope noble Lords will forgive me if what is left is a little disjointed.

I thank the officials who provided me with a briefing and the Minister for arranging that, and I thank noble Lords for their speeches. I learned a great deal, particularly about the experience of those with disabilities. From my own background, I have had to engage with those having experiences with disabilities on trains and on the railways in particular; to hear the stories today about those who have had problems in the air, and the sorts of problems they have had and the responses they have encountered, has been a very important experience for me. I can certainly say that we will consider sympathetically amendments brought forward to try to offer some sort of redress. I hope that some of those amendments could be brought forward by the Government, because I know that the Minister himself is not unsympathetic to that case. I would have thought that it would be helpful all round if the Government could take a lead. If they do not, I am sure that others in your Lordships’ House will do so.

Like other noble Lords, I want what this Bill does. For example, I want the “powers gap”, as it is known, to be filled. The retained EU law Act expires on 23 June and there is a whole range of areas for which we can no longer make regulations without primary legislation. This Bill addresses that in respect of civil aviation. In fact, I have been berating the Minister in various fora over the last couple of months, saying, “What are you doing about this powers gap arising on 23 June?” I will also take time out now to berate him about it because, while this is being dealt with in relation to aviation, his department still has no answer on the regulation of the marine sector, for example, and in other areas where we will be left completely bereft as a result of a perfectly foreseeable development—namely, the expiration on a known date, which happens to be this month, of an Act passed several years ago.

To go beyond that, not just the Department for Transport but other departments will be affected by the powers gap—but the Government have done nothing except in regard to aviation. We want to see that done: we want to see airspace modernised. My way of putting it is that we want to give a legal basis for passenger protection rights to substitute for their basis in EU law, which will no longer exist. That is what the Bill does: it creates a legal basis for those passenger rights. We want to see that done, but I do not think we really want to see it done this way. We do not want to see it done by the creation of a huge, baggy, all-powerful new regulatory body. We have had 25 years of creating regulators as the answer to everything, and it does not work. We have had 25 years of taking powers away from Ministers and Parliament and giving them to wholly unaccountable regulators, and here we are doing it again. The Civil Aviation Authority is, in essence, a safety regulator, an economic regulator and a regulator of airspace. It is a very focused body and it is very good, but we are now giving it a far broader range of powers.

I am going to read the bits that matter from the memorandum on the European Convention on Human Rights. We find that Clause 1 engages Articles 6 and 8, and Article 1 of the first protocol. Clauses 2 and 3 engage Articles 6 and 10. Clauses 4 to 6 engage Article 6 and Article 1 of the first protocol. Clause 7 engages Article 1 of the first protocol. Clause 8 engages Articles 6 and 7. Clause 9 engages Article 6.

Whole swathes of the Bill are open to challenge. Of course, civil servants believe that they can rebut those challenges in court, but it is no wonder that my noble friend Lord Redwood talked about the possibility of delay because, in effect, large parts of the Bill will be determined not in this Parliament but in a foreign court, as we discover whether these clauses will stand should they be challenged. As an illustration of how wide the powers that are being transferred are, I almost feel that parts of the Bill were written by the Civil Aviation Authority. I will come to some of them, but there is also the question of delegated powers.

Tomorrow or soon after tomorrow, thanks to the information offered by the noble Baroness, Lady Ramsey of Wall Heath, we will get the report of the Delegated Powers Committee. Huge swathes of power are being delegated to the Civil Aviation Authority and there are extensive Henry VIII clauses in the Bill. All this needs to be explored and the role of Parliament in it needs to be properly understood. At the moment, we are being emasculated in this. With the great swathes of powers being granted to the CAA, I see no provision in the Bill for parliamentary accountability or, indeed, for any accountability of the CAA to anybody, including to the Minister. How can that be an acceptable way of making law and regulation for the future?

I am going to disappoint the noble Lord, Lord Tunnicliffe, but, before I do, I want to say that his speech was one of the most interesting in the debate, because he brought alive for me, in a remarkable way, the experience of being a pilot—even if not a captain—and the things that can happen. I know that other noble Lords with that experience spoke, and I greatly enjoyed his speech and learned from it, but I am going to disappoint him. Of course, I agree with him that, in drafting and preparing regulations, you should consult people who know about things. You should consult pilots, airlines and so forth, and bring them together, but that can be done alongside proper parliamentary scrutiny. While the statutory instrument is an unsatisfactory method for doing so, it is the only one we have. To give up on it completely would be an abandonment of our duty.

I will run through some of the clauses. As I say, many of my points have been made, so I will try not to repeat them, but some things need to be raised. Clause 1(3) gives the Secretary of State the power to confer enforcement powers on the CAA, so why do we need Clause 2? Clause 2 is one of the bits that I think was written by the CAA. It puts into the Bill all the powers that the Secretary of State already has the power to confer, and these powers are extensive. What is going on there?

Then subsection (3)(e) of the new section inserted by paragraph 6 of Schedule 1 creates provisions for the Secretary of State to manage what is going on if two bodies are doing the same enforcement. I do not know which two bodies are meant; I suspect they are the Civil Aviation Authority and the Competition and Markets Authority, but they might be others. One of the principles of enforcement, which those of us with local government experience come across all the time, is that, for one crime, there should be one enforcement agency and one prosecutor. Only in that way do you get clarity and avoid somebody being punished twice for the same thing. We are actually building dual enforcement into the Bill and then giving the Secretary of State some power to manage it from the centre. The Bill should not be doing that; it should be clarifying whether the enforcement is by one or the other—not by both and certainly not by more than two.

Clause 4 is on airspace modernisation. Subsection (2) amends Section 2 of the Air Traffic Management and Unmanned Aircraft Act 2021 to extend the existing ministerial direction powers, so that the Secretary of State can compel implementation of approved airport changes. This is what we are calling the level of last resort. As a last resort, the Minister can step in and force things to happen. But there is nothing here—I echo the remarks made by the noble Baroness, Lady Grender, and my noble friend Lady Bray—about the consultation of the communities that will be affected by airspace modernisation. There will inevitably be winners and losers from that, but where are the communities in this? There is no answer to that, but the Secretary of State can exercise that lever without any regard to community consideration. Is that not too large a power for the Secretary of State to have?

Clause 8 on CAA rule-making is another example of a part of the Bill that I think must have been written by the Civil Aviation Authority. It is astonishingly extensive. First, I want to know what a “rule” is. We have rules in football. There is the offside rule. I know what a “law” is, but I do not know what a “rule” is. What is the force of a rule? Does it have the force of law? The CAA is going to make rules. It has no accountability in how it is going to make rules. There is no requirement in the Bill, particularly about consultation.

Then we have—this must be one of the most bizarre things that anyone has ever written into a Bill, which is one of the reasons I think the CAA wrote it—more in Clause 8 relating to CAA rules. In new Section 61F, we have the power for the Secretary of State to issue a document—note the careful avoidance of the word “guidance”—that

“sets out the Secretary of State’s priorities and objectives for the exercise of the CAA’s rule-making functions”.

I have no problem with that. That makes a great deal of sense. We then then go down to new subsection (6), which says:

“The Secretary of State … must consult the CAA in preparing or revising the document and”—


just listen to this—

“may not issue the document without the agreement of the CAA to the contents of the document”.

So we have an arrangement where the Secretary of State is allowed in effect to give guidance—of course, if you use the word “guidance” that has a legal meaning, but it is effectively guidance, I hope—to the CAA that the CAA can veto. Does anyone read these things before they print them? How can that possibly be justified?

Then we come to Clause 9 on offences. This is no criticism of noble Lords, but nobody in the course of this debate has mentioned the fact that the CAA is being given the power to create criminal offences—something that Parliament normally reserves to itself. The CAA can create criminal offences and you can get a fine. You can be taken to the magistrates’ court and you can get a fine. Again, what is the parliamentary scrutiny for that? What is the justification for leaving that in just that fashion?

We then have the Henry VIII powers. These are completely unnecessary, because the Government’s delegated powers memorandum, which they have written for the benefit of the Delegated Powers Committee, identifies every Act that this Bill interacts with and states that those amendments are already made in the Bill—so why should they need Henry VIII powers to amend further legislation? What is the further legislation, if they have already identified all the legislation with which the Bill interacts? Unnecessary Henry VIII powers have been loaded in that are simply not needed.

We support aviation. I agree with everything that has been said about its economic importance and its contribution to growth. I cannot none the less allow the Government to sit there and say that that is solely their objective when they themselves have done so much damage to aviation in the country. The SAF mandate, for example, is adding significantly to the costs of fuel, and that is feeding through to what passengers are having to pay. Then we have the astonishing, bone-crunching increases in business rates being imposed on airports. This Bill could be a chance for the Government to do something for the benefit of aviation and make good on their commitment to use aviation as a means for growth. It could be that, but it needs drastic change if is to do so credibly.

20:05

[Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill (Lab)]

My Lords, I thank those who have engaged in today’s debate on the Bill. I have listened carefully and with much interest to the excellent points raised across your Lordships’ House. I will attempt to respond to as many questions and concerns as possible, and, where I am not able to, I will follow up in writing. As the noble Lord, Lord Moylan says, my contribution is likely to be a little disjointed, even though this Bill is constrained as to its effect. Like the noble Lord, I have learned much from many of the contributions today.

I should start with consumer protection, because virtually every noble Lord who spoke on that aspect was, I think, supportive of the intention of the Bill. A number of noble Lords including the noble Baronesses, Lady Grey-Thompson, Lady Ramsey of Wall Heath, Lady Dacres of Lewisham, Lady Thornton, Lady Gill and Lady Griffin of Princethorpe, and the noble Lord, Lord Holmes of Richmond, spoke passionately and with great strength of feeling about the inadequacy of some of the actuality that people have faced, particularly if they are disabled, whether they are physically disabled, neurodivergent or have sensory issues about air travel. The Government have brought this forward because we do not accept that that is inevitable. The noble Lord, Lord Holmes of Richmond, was kind enough to say that he knows that I have had previous encounters with this in the Bus Services Bill and the passenger railways services Bill.

In this circumstance, there is clear evidence that the Government need to take action and that the action we need to take is to enable the Civil Aviation Authority to deal with this subject much more easily in future than it has been able to in the past. The fact that it has managed only one prosecution, and that that has taken four years, is evidence that its existing powers are not sufficient. That is why we are bringing this forward.

We are particularly grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Grey-Thompson, for chairing the task and finish group. I will write to her with a current update on where those 16 conclusions have got to. We are determined to do something about this. Access to aviation should be for everybody, not just for people who are physically and mentally fit. I will not go through in greater detail the experiences of noble Lords who have spoken, other than to say that there ought to be real redress about all this in a way that there currently is not.

I noted particularly that the noble Lord, Lord Holmes, referred to inclusion by design. I will take that away and think about the extent to which the Bill covers this circumstance. We need to make progress on this, because it is unacceptable. The stories of the individuals concerned that we have heard about today and from people who are able to make a noise about their experiences mean that we should make a change. The noble Baroness, Lady Griffin of Princethorpe, asked whether this will apply to airports as well as airlines. The answer is that it will apply to both.

There was a question about divergence from former EU protections. We have heard different views today about whether we should be precisely aligned with the EU. Our position enables us to take a view about the extent to which we align with the EU, not foolishly diverging from things that are obviously useful but using the freedoms that we now have to do so.

On airspace modernisation, the noble Lord, Lord Harper, asked whether any direction would affect existing rights to be consulted. Indeed, the noble Baroness, Lady Grender, also raised that question. The answer is that anything in this Bill will not affect existing rights to be consulted. That must be right, otherwise the existing procedures would have no effect on airspace modernisation.

This is not of itself a measure for expansion; the expansion of capacity in most of the country is limited by runway capacity. The Bill is designed to support the entire aviation sector, helping it to grow and remain competitive for decades to come. Some measures in the Bill will support airport expansion across the UK, such as enabling further reforms to airport slot allocation and supporting airspace modernisation to meet future needs. These are not particular to expansion at Heathrow; they are also needed for the broader objectives raised during this approach. Slot co-ordination cannot increase capacity at an airport, but it can help manage that capacity more effectively. The noble Baroness, Lady Grender, and the noble Earl, Lord Russell, will know—because we discussed it prior to this Second Reading debate—that one of the effects of better airspace modernisation and better utilisation of slots is to reduce delays and pollution by better using airspace, rather than having aircraft circling around.

The noble Lord, Lord Kirkhope, raised a question about the single guiding mind. The set-up is now complete, and it is starting work. The noble Lord, Lord Empey, raised the capacity of NATS. We believe that it does have capacity. Notably, the noble Baroness, Lady Foster of Oxton, was very complimentary about the Civil Aviation Authority and NATS. We agree with her; they do a terrific job. It is important that we recognise the CAA as a competent body to do this work.

The noble Lords, Lord Barber of Ainsdale, Lord Tunnicliffe and Lord Kirkhope, raised the question of the engagement of pilots. In that we agree: the people who pilot planes should be consulted about airspace modernisation.

The noble Baroness, Lady Antrobus, raised the whole question of drone use for freight, blood, police and the military. This is, of course, one of the main reasons for looking at airspace modernisation and the charging mechanism. These are new uses of airspace; airspace modernisation needs to allow for these uses, and the people who are using the drones need to be appropriately charged.

On the question of wider slot reform, the noble Baroness, Lady Foster of Oxton, said that we should tread carefully, and I think we will. The noble Lord, Lord Redwood, said—I am paraphrasing—that nothing will happen for ages. We do have to be careful with some of these measures, and we should do them properly, but not everything will be delayed for ever. Indeed, many people regard the question of airspace modernisation as urgent, and we do too.

Going back to consumer protection, I hope we regard that as urgent too; it has been a scandal for far too long. So, not everything in this Bill will take years to do. On airspace modernisation slots, the noble Lord, Lord Tunnicliffe, gave us a very careful exposition of safety in the operation of aircraft. We should be very careful to make sure that what we and government bodies do in this space is always safe and properly considered.

The noble Lord, Lord Empey, raised the question of access to slots at Heathrow for regional flights, about which I know a little through some of my prior work. It is not our intention to interfere with airlines’ commercial decisions, but this Bill will give powers to allow the allocation of slots to be relevant to the evolving context of airlines.

On the questions about delegation to the civil aviation safety rules, we acknowledge that we need to be careful with this, and that is why the Secretary of State is retaining powers to direct. However, we also need to be aware that the environment in which we are making aviation safety rules is highly technical and fast-moving. I too was interested to listen to the noble Lord, Lord Tunnicliffe, with his experience of business in the Moses Room. We are struggling to keep pace with evolving international standards, and that is why we propose to fix this by placing technical rule-making with the CAA. We will of course listen very carefully indeed to the Delegated Powers Committee when we get its report. I have no doubt at all, bearing in mind the length of time the noble Lord, Lord Moylan, spent on it, that we will have a great deal of discussion about the virtues of doing this. However, we must remember that, in whatever we do here, we have to give this industry the ability to keep pace with international standards so that it can continue, as many noble Lords have remarked, to make its contribution to economic growth. I go back to the previous remarks about the competence of the CAA. It is a good regulator, and it will of course have to be staffed to carry out the functions the Bill seeks to give it.

There were some other questions related to delegation to the CAA. As I say, I have no doubt that we will fully discuss that in Committee.

Noble Lords raised a number of other questions. The noble Lord, Lord Harper, asked whether the CAA has powers to implement all the options for Heathrow expansion. Our current position is that the CAA has not identified any new powers needed to implement the options that have been put forward.

The noble Lord, Lord Davies of Gower, asked about general aviation. This Government support general aviation. They see the connection, particularly with training pilots and so forth, and will continue to maintain their interest in general aviation. They note the importance of general aviation in airspace modernisation and will continue to consult it.

The noble Lords, Lord Barber of Ainsdale, Lord Tunnicliffe and Lord Kirkhope, asked about the future supply of pilots. The Government are mindful of future requirements of the industry. I am sure that we can discuss that in Committee as well. We recognise that to have a healthy industry we need to develop new generations of pilots. More will be said about that, no doubt.

The noble Lord, Lord Empey, asked about cabin air quality. This was last looked at in 2022, when a review of current evidence concluded there was no significant cause to think that it caused ill effects.

I come to the contribution from the noble Baroness, Lady Grender. First, I welcome her to the Front Bench of the Liberal Democrats. She has made a number of very strong points which we will obviously have to answer in Committee. I think I have dealt with the question about whether this is some surrogate vehicle for airport expansion already, but no doubt we will discuss it further. She expressed concerns about delegated powers, which of course we will discuss, and her points about Eurostar were well made. Separately, this Government are very committed to increasing international travel by rail because, of course, if it can be done, it is an environmentally friendly alternative to air travel.

I think that I could better answer many of the points from the noble Lord, Lord Moylan, in Committee because he will make them again, no doubt. I could answer the questions, for example, about Clause 1 and setting out in Clause 2 the details of the powers that are needed. Perhaps I should just answer that question. We have heard so much about the rights of people who use air travel that I do not think it is a bad thing to point out in the Bill what we are trying to deal with regarding the obligations of airports and airlines to provide adequate service to all sorts of customers, including those who are disabled. I cannot quite see how we can conclude that is such a difficult thing to contemplate.

I will not keep your Lordships any longer. It has been highly encouraging to see such passion and interest on the topic of aviation, and I have noted the broad consensus on the important role that aviation can and does play in supporting our country and the broad consensus on having a Bill of this sort and on dealing with the subjects in it. Strengthening consumer rights and protections, promoting economic growth and infrastructure provision, and enabling improved safety standards will ensure that the UK retains its appeal as a competitive aviation hub.

It has been a privilege to present this Bill to your Lordships’ House for the Second Reading. Once again, I thank all noble Lords who have participated in today’s debate. I welcome the support of the many noble Lords who have spoken in favour of the Bill’s measure, and I look forward to the detailed discussions we will have in Committee.

Bill read a second time.

Commitment and Order of Consideration Motion

Moved by

[Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill]

That the bill be committed to a Grand Committee, and that it be an instruction to the Grand Committee that they consider the bill in the following order: Clauses 1 and 2, Schedule 1, Clauses 3 to 5, Schedule 2, Clauses 6 to 13, Title.

Motion agreed.

House adjourned at 8.23 pm.