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

Baroness Dacres of Lewisham Excerpts

2nd reading
Tuesday 2nd June 2026 Lords Chamber

[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.

King’s Speech

Baroness Dacres of Lewisham Excerpts

Wednesday 20th May 2026 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Dacres of Lewisham (Lab)]

My Lords, modern transport infrastructure is not simply about moving people from A to B. It is about economic growth, productivity, housing delivery, social mobility and national competitiveness. Too often, transport is viewed as a cost. In reality, it is one of the greatest investments that a nation can make.

From my time in local government and as chair of London Councils transport and environment committee, I have seen the transformative impact that investment in transport infrastructure can have on communities, businesses and local economies. Reliable and integrated rail infrastructure does more than just improve journeys; it increases labour market access, boosts productivity and creates the confidence needed for investment.

The creation of Great British Railways provides an opportunity to deliver a more integrated, reliable and passenger-focused railway network that supports growth and connectivity across the country. Business invests where connectivity is strong; people seek work where transport is reliable; developers build homes where infrastructure exists; and local economies thrive where communities are connected.

Investment in transport infrastructure also generates benefits far beyond the immediate area in which the project is delivered. One example of this is the Bakerloo line upgrade and extension. I have consistently argued that this is not simply a London transport project but a national growth project. For too long, parts of south-east London have experienced lower levels of transport investment, despite their enormous economic and housing potential. The benefits and return on investment are clear. This transformative and shovel-ready infrastructure project will unlock 107,000 new homes and 150,000 new jobs, while adding £1.5 billion in GVA to the national economy. Those are not simply transport statistics but indicators of economic growth.

Transport infrastructure changes the geography of opportunity. It determines whether someone can realistically access work, education, training or culture within a reasonable journey time. For many communities, better transport is not simply a convenient thing, it is a game-changer. Transport infrastructure helps to ensure that people from all communities can access jobs, education, training and opportunity and share in the benefit of economic growth. The economic benefit would not stop at London’s borders; the project would support engineering and manufacturing supply chains across the United Kingdom, including rail manufacturing jobs in Goole in Yorkshire and beyond.

Modern public transport infrastructure is also essential to reducing congestion, improving air quality and supporting sustainable economic growth. Infrastructure requires long-term thinking and partnership between national government, local government, businesses and regional leaders. Does my noble friend the Minister agree that long-term certainty around infrastructure investment is essential to giving businesses, developers and local authorities the confidence to invest, plan and deliver growth? Transport infrastructure is ultimately an investment in people, opportunity and national renewal. If we get this right, we will not simply be modernising transport networks, we will be unlocking growth, expanding opportunity and helping to build a fairer and more prosperous country.

English Devolution and Community Empowerment Bill

Baroness Dacres of Lewisham Excerpts

Committee stage
Monday 2nd February 2026 Grand Committee

[Baroness Dacres of Lewisham (Lab)]

My Lords, please forgive me—this is my first time in Committee. I declare an interest as a local authority leader here in London, as the chair of the transport and environment committee at London Councils and as an executive of London Councils. I wish to speak to Clause 27 and to Amendments 118 and 118A to Clause 29; I shall speak to Amendment 120B later.

I have sat here and listened to what everybody has said. I believe it was mentioned that, in terms of Clause 27, there are questions around the devolution of power to the Mayor of London regarding Network Rail and land usage. What I can say from my personal experience, having worked closely with the GLA, the Mayor of London, Network Rail, Transport for London and other local authorities, is that they work together. There are often plenty of conversations between the different groups. We do not work in isolation. As anybody who is familiar with planning will know, you speak to and engage with those who have an interest in the land, and so on. I am in favour of the clause because, in London, we work closely with the Mayor of London, local authorities and the GLA. I do not see an issue with having this power devolved to the Mayor of London; it would make things quicker and easier just as much as, when we do anything, we reach out to the environmental authority, for example. This would make things speedier and more streamlined, especially as all the bodies mentioned work closely together.

I turn to Amendments 118 and 118A. I would like to address the fact that, as local authorities, we have local plans. We have to work closely with Transport for London, for example, on our transport plans, and they must have synergy between them. As I mentioned, we do not work in isolation. I believe that establishing local plans gives that freedom to work together, which is why I am not in favour of Amendment 118A.

The noble Lord, Lord Moylan, mentioned freedom passes. They are one of the recent topics of conversation at London Councils because local authorities put a considerable amount of money into them. As such, one of the discussions has been about whether we, as local authorities, should have our local authority on the cards so that residents know who is funding them. That is part of our conversations at the moment. I wish to highlight this because it is an ongoing, live conversation. I say this to noble Lords as somebody who is working hard at the coalface and having these discussions with multiple local authorities, where there is cross-party consensus. I just want to let noble Lords know that this matter is already under discussion in the place where it really matters for those conversations to take place.

Lastly, I am in favour of on my noble friend Lord Bassam’s amendment. I keep mentioning having those relationships. We are always having those conversations and not just as a mayoral authority. Whether in London or outside it, they speak to those local authorities that are contained within their areas and know the area best, and they have those relationships with other authorities across the border as well. I agree with my noble friend’s amendment. I wanted to speak to those amendments and Clause 27 as someone who is constantly in the rooms where those conversations are being had.

[Lord Teverson (LD)]

My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness for that contribution. I am interested in what she said. Unlike many noble Lords here, I am not into London politics at all, but that speech almost painted an ideal situation in London between different levels of local authority. I presume that Great British Railways will be very much a national organisation. I ask the noble Baroness: does politics not get in the way occasionally? I remember some years ago that, when the Mayor of London—it was still Sadiq Khan—tried to turn more of what used to be the British Rail commuter routes into London Overground services, the reaction of the Secretary of State in the Tory Government at the time was, “No way am I going to allow a Labour mayor to take over and have more power in this area”. I am delighted by the noble Baroness’s picture of London politics, but it does not read every way. We are trying to stop politics always getting in the way of improvements—but perhaps she will come back to me and tell me I am wrong, it is all sweetness and light and we do not need to be worried, and I will become a resident of London again. That would be great.

[Baroness Dacres of Lewisham (Lab)]

I thank the noble Lord for his kind comments. I also work on the Local Government Association, where I have a broader purview. In some of the discussions we have heard today, I have been sitting here thinking, “We do that in London, and we need to make sure that other places do it too”. I find that, where local authorities are keen on Vision Zero and moving towards more sustainable active travel, they are going ahead and doing it. It is with local authorities that are not so keen that a bit of politics probably comes into it. You want everyone to be on the same page and acting the same way. I am not going to mention any local authorities that are not on the same page as Lewisham or, frankly, as progressive when it comes to our green agenda, sustainable travel and so on, but last Monday I had to reprimand someone from a local authority and say, “You’ve got to give people information and guidance so that they can decide. You can’t decide for them whether they want to be included in declaring a climate emergency”. In fact, we have moved past the climate emergency; we are on to a climate action plan now, so I had to inform them of that.

Sometimes there are those differences but, as I say, we work closely with the LGA. The noble Lord mentioned an example where we had a Tory Secretary of State and a Labour Mayor of London. There can be sticking points where we want to get ahead and do something. That is why I speak to my noble friend Lord Bassam’s amendment, because we need things to be speedier and we have more capacity in local government and know our areas. We need this to be more streamlined so that we can make those decisions more quickly, such as for a transport and works order, and have connections to be able to speak.

For example, with the Bakerloo line extension going out into Kent, we have those relationships and connections. They are not in the Mayor of London’s realm but outside. More locally, in Grove Park, in the south of my borough, we have a desire and an ambition to have an inner-city national park. There is a patchwork of land owned by Network Rail; we are getting it and other parties around the table so that we can drive it and work together. We have an ambition to have this park, where Edith Nesbit lived and wrote The Railway Children. No matter what part of government we are in, money and financing always seem to get in the way. But, where there is a meeting of minds and a desire to achieve our goals, we can try, incrementally and bit by bit, to work towards that.

[Lord Moylan (Con)]

I congratulate the noble Baroness on succeeding me as chairman of the London Councils transport and environment committee. Does she agree that the answer to the noble Lord, Lord Teverson, in relation to refusing the Mayor of London additional rail routes in London, is that that is the policy of the current Government, who as I understand it intend to maintain the devolved routes as they are at the moment but have a policy of creating no more? One does not need to look to a political explanation of these decisions at all. I assume that, because they are in the same party, there is only sweetness and light between the Minister and the Mayor of London.

Does the noble Baroness also agree that it surely cannot all be sweetness and light in London at the moment, because London Councils has a policy that the boroughs should replace the assembly and have a relationship with the mayor much on the national level being proposed in this Bill, whereby the mayor is chairman of a combined authority? It seems to me that they feel that they are not sufficiently in the room, if they would like to be a great deal more so through a mechanism such as that.

These points are very good. While I am on my feet, I say to the noble Lord, Lord Teverson, that my experience of London Councils and of holding the position that the noble Baroness now does is that politics in the sense of pure party politics does not get very much in the way when boroughs are collaborating with each other, the mayor, Transport for London and so on. However, there are structural differences. The truth is that the interests of the boroughs and those of Transport for London, for example, are not always the same. That form of institutional politics is very apparent. Finally, I would say—

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Dacres of Lewisham (Lab)]

I thank noble Lords for their numerous comments. I will respond to just a few, because I think some might have been a bit rhetorical. As in any family, it is about communicating and having those discussions. My view is that there is room at the table for London Councils, but we do have those conversations with the Mayor of London and the GLA and invite them down to our boroughs, et cetera.

The other point I wanted to make is that we always work to make sure that we are moving in the right direction. We work cross-party as much as possible and when there is consensus, things can move forward.

[Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill (Lab)]

My Lords, I will begin with the proposition tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Moylan, on Clause 27. I will also say what a pleasure it is to hear my noble friend Lady Dacres of Lewisham on this and other issues. Just deviating from the amendments for one moment, I will say that the noble Lord is incorrect about the devolution of rail, because the Secretary of State is currently considering the devolution of northern inner suburban trains to the Mayor of London from the national railway network.

Transport in London is devolved, with the mayor responsible for managing the capital’s transport network, so it is right that, in line with the wider purpose of the Bill, the mayor should be empowered to consent to operational land-disposal applications from TfL. The noble Lord referred to operational land and therefore it is necessary to consult Network Rail, and that is enshrined in the proposition. This will therefore simplify the existing process and better enable the Mayor of London to unlock land for much-needed housing, supporting growth in the capital. The Secretary of State does not need to get in the way of housing developments on land owned by Transport for London and suitable for housing.

On Amendments 118 and 119, on local transport plans, constituent councils of strategic authorities with responsibility for managing local highways have a crucial role in supporting the delivery of the strategic authority’s local transport plan. Clause 29 is intended to support close working between constituent councils and the strategic authority by requiring the constituent council implementing the policies in the local transport plan to have regard to the proposals in the plan. This duty already applies to some constituent councils and this clause will extend that duty to all constituent councils.

The clause aims to strike the right balance between supporting close working between authorities while not giving the strategic authority undue control over how constituent councils manage their local highway network. These amendments would undermine this balance by weakening the duty placed on constituent councils to implement policies and instead substitute “have regard to” them. As members of the strategic authority, constituent councils have a key role in the development of the authority’s local transport plan. As set out in other parts of the Bill, this includes a vote on whether to approve the local transport plan.

I turn to Amendments 118A, 118B, 119A and 119B. Constituent councils of strategic authorities with responsibility for managing local highways have a crucial role in supporting the delivery of the strategic authority’s local transport plan. As I said earlier, Clause 29 is intended to support close working between the constituent councils and the strategic authority, by requiring the implementation of policies in the local transport plan and having regard to the proposals. As I said, the clause aims to strike the right balance between supporting close working and not giving the strategic authority undue control over the way that constituent councils manage their local highway network.

These amendments would undermine this balance by requiring constituent councils to “implement” rather than “have regard to”, and would therefore give strategic authorities indirect powers over how constituent councils manage local roads. However, we recognise that there are benefits to strategic authority mayors having levers to implement agreed plans. Clause 28 and Schedule 9 therefore give mayors a power to direct constituent councils in the exercise of their functions on the key route network of the most important local roads, helping mayors to implement their local plans.

On Amendment 120A, I know that workplace parking levies can be effective in delivering local transport priorities, as demonstrated—as my noble friend Lord Bassam observed—by the successful scheme in Nottingham, the only such scheme currently in operation in England. It has both reduced congestion in the city and provided funds to support the operation of the light rail system. We therefore hear the arguments for a greater role for strategic authorities, and for mayors to make decisions such as these in their area, but we need to take time to consider the issue fully before making changes to the framework. We need to be certain that any changes are the right ones. I am grateful to my noble friend for raising this issue, but I urge him to withdraw his amendment, while reassuring him that my department is giving this matter careful consideration.

I turn to Amendments 120B and 120C. Transport and Works Act orders can be used as a single process to obtain the majority of powers to construct and/or operate a range of both transport and waterway schemes. As observed, the Secretary of State is the decision-maker for schemes applied for under the Act across England, operating within a well-established and legally robust framework. The procedure is set out in legislation and would need to be followed regardless of who the decision-maker is. Powers granted through these orders are wide ranging and can apply or disapply legislation. They have significant legal and practical implications. Creating multiple new decision-making bodies would risk introducing inconsistency in the interpretation of policy and the use of powers, creating uncertainty, causing delays and potentially increasing the risk of challenge to the schemes.

However, the new Planning and Infrastructure Act 2025 recently introduced changes to this regime to improve the efficiency and predictability of delivering new schemes via this route and, in particular, to address the need for taking decisions quickly where necessary. Secondary legislation will drive further efficiencies. Very careful consideration would be necessary if such powers were to be devolved so that the benefits of the recent improvements that I have just referred to are not undermined and the necessary protections are in place for all parties.

I turn to Amendment 120D on Vision Zero. Noble Lords will remember that bus safety was discussed at length during the passage of the Bus Services Bill. The contributions of the noble Lord, Lord Hampton, helped highlight this important issue and ensured that bus safety is included in the recently published Road Safety Strategy. Published on 7 January, it is the first such strategy for 15 years. It sets out the Government’s vision for a safer future on our roads for all road users, not only buses. I say to the noble Baroness, Lady Pidgeon, that the whole strategy is based on the internationally recognised safe system approach, a core component of Vision Zero. The safe system principle accepts that human error will happen but ensures that all road users, roads, vehicles, speeds and post-crash care work together to prevent fatalities. It is a shared responsibility. It is right that local areas, including Greater Manchester, Oxford and London, which has also been mentioned, are adopting Vision Zero. The Government welcome other local areas doing so in respect of buses, but it must be right for them.

On Amendment 120E, buses already provide one of the safest modes of road transport in Britain and we remain committed to increasing that safety further. During the passage of the Bus Services Bill, we discussed adherence to the highest standards of safety, monitored by the Driver and Vehicle Standards Agency and regulated by traffic commissioners. This subject was exhaustively discussed then. There is already collection of data by the department, the Driver and Vehicle Standards Agency and the police, carried down to local authority level through the STATS19 framework. Data is also collected from PSV operators who must report incidents to the DVSA thanks to their operator licensing requirements. These datasets already provide a comprehensive picture of bus safety and, as observed during the passage of the Bus Services Bill, to require more frequent or richer data would increase the burden on drivers, strategic authorities and the police. I thank the noble Baroness for speaking to the amendments of the noble Lord, Lord Hampton, on this issue and I hope he will be reassured that we remain committed, as we were during the passage of the Bus Services Bill, to increasing bus safety and are taking real action to do so.

On Amendment 120F, tabled by the noble Baroness, the Government committed in the English devolution White Paper to ensuring that, for non-mayoral strategic authorities, key strategic decisions will have the support of all constituent councils. Adopting a local transport plan is one of those decisions, and the Bill therefore requires the consent of all constituent councils. Existing non-mayoral combined authorities and non-mayoral combined county authorities already have provisions in their constitutions that require local transport plans to be agreed by all constituent councils. We know that those provisions provide reassurance to prospective constituent councils. There is already a duty on local transport authorities to keep their local transport plans under review and alter them if they consider it appropriate to do so, and the Government are committed to providing updated guidance to local transport authorities on local transport plans, which will provide advice to authorities about when they should review and update their local plans.

On Amendment 121, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Moylan, at the moment concessionary travel is managed by travel concession authorities, which are also the local transport authority for their area. This means that one authority does local transport planning, secures the provision of public transport services and manages concessions. Reverting to the approach taken before 2011, as the amendment would do, would make travelling locally more difficult due to a range of concessionary travel frameworks as one moves from one area to another. Since that point, combined authorities and combined county authorities have all become both the local transport authority and the travel concession authority for their area, following a period of transition. This has proven effective, with local transport managed at the strategic level across the broader geography. With travel concessions managed alongside local transport functions, there are also streamlined benefits that would not be possible were these two separated at two different levels of local government.

I thank the noble Lord, Lord Pack, for his Amendment 236. The vast majority of applications to install cattle grids are decided by local highway authorities. Only when there are unresolved objections, or objections following the consultation stage, does the Secretary of State get involved, or where the Secretary of State, via National Highways, is the highway authority. There were no appeals in the years from 2016 to 2025 and only one in 2025, so it is scarcely a huge burden on either national government or the Department for Transport. There were two in 2014 and one in the years 2010, 2011 and 2012, so I submit that this is not a huge problem for government and it would resolve only the unresolved issues arising from the primary consideration by local government. I hope that, in the light of my remarks, noble Lords feel able not to press their amendments.