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

Debate between Earl Russell and Lord Katz

Committee stage
Thursday 18th June 2026 Grand Committee

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

I meant to stand up at the start of the group, but the noble Lord, Lord Harper, was a little too quick on his feet. I just want to point out that we now have bang on an hour to finish the remaining groups, which I think that we can achieve, if we have concision in our remarks. That would be very helpful.

[Earl Russell (LD)]

My Lords, I note the comment just made. I welcome the probing amendment in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Harper. That is useful in the Bill, so I thank him for that.

I will speak to my Amendments 106 and 107. Together, they seek to form a coherent case for environmental accountability in the regulation of civil aviation. Amendment 106 asks the Secretary of State within 12 months of the Act passing to lay before Parliament a report assessing its impact on passenger information, on low-carbon travel choices and on emissions from civil aviation. The Bill contains important consumer protection measures, but a consumer framework is only as good as the information that it generates and the behaviour that it manages to change. The amendment asks a simple question: once the Act is on the statute book, how is it actually working?

My amendment calls for a report, which must address four things. First, it must address whether consumers are receiving clear and consistent information about the carbon emissions associated with their flights. Currently, there is no standard for presenting that, and the report would help to establish whether the Act drives progress. Secondly, it must address whether consumers are genuinely comparing aviation and rail options at the point of decision. At present, they largely cannot and booking platforms are entirely siloed. The integrated comparison of journey time door to door, total price and carbon footprint and the whole booking simplicity just barely exist for people who want to be able to do that. For short-haul routes, where rail is a credible alternative, this is a serious market failure. Thirdly, and relatedly, it must address whether consumer awareness of lower-carbon alternatives to short-haul flights has improved. Evidence from France and Sweden shows that better information helps to shift consumer behaviour. Fourthly, it must address the overall emissions trajectory of civil aviation, which, as we know, is one of the most difficult to decarbonise. Demand management, through better information, has an unavoidable role to play while sustainable aviation fuels and zero-emissions flight technology continue to mature.

The amendment would also require consultation with aviation, rail and consumer representatives. It would require the report to include recommendations, not merely descriptions. If the Act is working, the report will say so. If not, Parliament will have the information that it needs to act.

Amendment 107 addresses a related but distinct gap: the absence of any statutory environmental duty on the Civil Aviation Authority itself, particularly in relation to the new powers in the Bill. The duty that I am seeking is deliberately light touch. The amendment says that the CAA “must have regard to”. It does not override safety, does not prescribe outcomes and leaves the CAA to weigh its environmental responsibilities against its other functions. It would simply require those commitments to be present when decisions are made.

Three specific matters in subsection (2) are carefully drawn out: reducing greenhouse gases and other environmental impacts; supporting biodiversity and natural environment, consistent with the framework in the Environment Act 2021; and improving resilience in the aviation sector to the physical effects of our warming and changing climate. This would be in the form of an annual report, which would also be published to Parliament. It might be that the amendment is clunky and not acceptable because of how I have drafted it. I am more than happy to work with the Minister between now and Report. If there is a form of wording that could capture some of this in a better way, I am more than happy to discuss it.

Finally, I will speak to Amendment 115 in the name of noble Baroness, Lady Bennett of Manor Castle. This amendment is straightforward in its purpose. It seeks to insert a new clause requiring the Secretary of State to make regulations by statutory instrument to reduce carbon emissions from private aviation. These regulations could impose restrictions on private aircraft operations, impose changes on private aircraft movements, prohibit specific categories of movements and make different provisions for different classes of aircraft. This instrument would be subject to the negative procedure.

We have not talked about private aviation yet, but it is important. There is a compelling case here. Private jet movements in the United Kingdom have grown by over 40% since 2020. The carbon emissions per passenger of a private jet are on average five to 14 times higher than those of a commercial flight, yet private aviation sits entirely outside the consumer and environmental framework that this Bill seeks to create. That is a significant gap. The vast majority of private aviation growth is coming from short-haul flights and private aviation is a big part of that. It is in precisely these segments where we have the strongest leverage to change consumer action.

We cannot meet our obligations under the Climate Change Act, as have heard, without using some of those levers. Short-haul flights and private aviation are two of the matters that we need to move the dial on. On these Benches, we have considerable sympathy for the principles contained in this amendment and I welcome the challenge. However, I am not fully supportive of the drafting. The powers in subsection (2) of the new clause are substantial. They are broad, restrictive changes prohibiting entire categories of movements, yet subsection (3) subjects them only to the negative procedure. For powers of this reach, the affirmative procedure would provide more appropriate parliamentary scrutiny. We would welcome a clearer policy framework sitting behind the regulation-making powers, rather than leaving it entirely to ministerial direction.

To conclude, I hope that the Minister can tell the Committee what assessment the Government have made of private aviation emissions and whether a levy, perhaps proportionally hypothecated towards sustainable aviation, has been considered alongside perhaps a restrictions-based approach. How do the Government plan to regulate that sector, considering that it is not mentioned in the Bill?

Peatland Restoration

Debate between Earl Russell and Lord Katz

Thursday 12th March 2026 Lords Chamber

[Lord Katz (Lab)]

The noble Lord is absolutely right in drawing our attention to the Peatland Code and the work of other organisations and he is right in saying that private finance will be vital if we are to meet our peatland restoration objectives. It is important that peatland projects are able to make the most of new revenue streams, including carbon finance. We are acting in a number of different ways as a Government to ensure peatland restoration. A key constraint on restoration delivery is the size of the sector, which is why we are launching a new sector capacity grant of over £1 million in the summer, which will provide funding for training, skills and equipment. In terms of development, peatland policy works alongside planning systems, rather than prohibiting development. It guides developers to design schemes that avoid unnecessary peat loss and manage water tables safely.

[Earl Russell (LD)]

My Lords, last year we had a record number of wildfires, including in our peatlands and moorlands. I take this opportunity to ask the Minister if he could update the House on progress on the Government’s wildfire strategy and action plan, which is now overdue. If the Minister does not know the answer, perhaps he could write to me.

[Lord Katz (Lab)]

I will have to write to the noble Earl to update him on the wildfire plan strategy, but I would say that, just at the end of last year, the House debated and passed updated regulations around the burning of peatland, heather land and moorland, which is obviously an important aspect. I can tell him that over 675,000 hectares of peatland are now protected under those regulations; fewer than 2,000 hectares were burned last year.

Crime and Policing Bill

Debate between Earl Russell and Lord Katz

Committee stage
Monday 17th November 2025 Lords Chamber

[Lord Katz (Lab)]

I thank the noble Viscount, Lord Goschen, for that point. I appreciate what he is saying. I am not aware of the events that led up to the time it took to issue this enforcement action, and it would be wrong for me to speculate. I am afraid I have not yet had the time to review the Hansard report of the Urgent Question, but I suspect we may have some of the answers to that question if we review the Commons Hansard report of the Urgent Question that Calum Miller asked of the Government today.

I understand the point the noble Viscount is making, and in the future should I be in the position to report back, I will offer more information. All I will say is that one would hope—I am not speaking out of turn, I simply do not know the facts—that there would be community action and community reporting of this in strength. The Environment Agency only has so much resource; it cannot be all-seeing and so it cannot take enforcement when it does not know the action there. I am not suggesting that that was the case in this situation in Kidlington, but it is important for us to take wider societal responsibility to address these issues.

I am fortunate that the London Borough of Camden, my home borough, has an app through which I can always report fly-tipping, which is nowhere near on the scale of Kidlington. I am an avid user, and therefore I take responsibility. My kids hate me stopping to take pictures of rubbish when I am walking along with them, but I use it because that means that the offence is noted and recorded, and then action is taken. In tribute to Camden, it is usually taken quickly.

[Earl Russell (LD)]

I thank all those who have spoken in this group and the Minister for his response to my amendments. I recognise that the Government have inherited this problem, and I recognise that they are putting more resources into it through the plans for brokers and dealers and through digital waste tracking, which I hope are brought forward as soon as possible. That will start to make some concrete changes to these issues.

That said, however, this problem is out of the Government’s control and more needs to be done. It is not acceptable that these serious organised criminal gangs are exploiting loopholes in the system, destroying our countryside and leaving a mess behind them. Therefore, I want to see action on that.

I fully recognise that the Select Committee report came out only two weeks ago and that the Government are not due to respond until 9 December, as the Minister said. I am sure that the Minister also recognises that, if I did not raise these points in Committee, I cannot bring them back at Report. I think there is a commonality here on the need to address these issues, and I hope that between now and Report we can have further conversations and co-operate on these issues.

Returning to Kidlington, I know there was an Urgent Question. I had an opportunity to have a word with my honourable friend on that prior to the Statement. It is important that this site is cleared up and that the Government help meet the costs for that. I encourage the Minister to consider using a ministerial direction, if needed, to make sure that that happens. That said, I hope that, when the response to the committee’s report comes, the Government recognise that it is a serious job of work and that it takes a unique and forward-thinking perspective on genuinely trying to find ways to address and resolve these problems. With that, I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.

Public Transport: Expansion and Electrification

Debate between Earl Russell and Lord Katz

Monday 19th May 2025 Lords Chamber

[Lord Katz (Lab)]

I admire the noble Lord’s perspicacity in following this line of argument, but it is of course our reliance on gas from overseas that causes such fragility and variability in the cost of energy in this country.

“I believe that the struggle for decarbonised transport, clean development and clean air is as important as the struggle for clean water was in the 19th century”—


those are wise words, but they are not my own. Those are the words of Grant Shapps, the former Conservative Transport Secretary.

[Earl Russell (LD)]

My Lords, what role do the Government see for hydrogen in fully decarbonising the rail network? Could alternative zero-emission options, such as hydrogen trains, be the solution where electrification is not economically or geographically viable?

[Lord Katz (Lab)]

My Lords, we are looking for opportunities to provide diesel-free solutions to rail travel. That includes not only electrifying more of the network but looking for infills such as bi-modes, or some of the battery trials we have seen in places such as Greenford and on Merseyrail, to supplement non-electrified routes in a carbon-free way. Hydrogen has its place in the mix, but the sector seems to be taking a mostly electric route these days.

Water: Supply and Infrastructure

Debate between Earl Russell and Lord Katz

Wednesday 14th May 2025 Lords Chamber

[Lord Katz (Lab)]

The noble Lord is right to say—as my noble friend Lord Rooker also suggested—that we desperately need new infrastructure now and as soon as possible. I would like to be able to stand here and say that a number of new reservoirs are currently under way because of decisions that had been taken perhaps by previous Governments. I cannot do that, but I can point to the £104 billion investment in water infrastructure. That will do things such as help us build the 1.5 million homes. It will help us build the new nuclear infrastructure that he is referring to and generate the regional economic growth this country needs. We are working with colleagues in the MHCLG to explore how building regulations—and I think this is across the piece, not just domestic housebuilding—can tighten water-efficiency standards so that we are better able to rely on natural supplies rather than tankers.

[Earl Russell (LD)]

My Lords, we are on course for possibly the driest spring on record, having received only 35% of the expected rainfall. Our farmers are at the forefront of this fight against climate change. The harvest in 2024 was the worst on record. The next 10 days are critical for our arable farmers. Can the Minister commit that, if rainfall does not come, this Government will support our farmers?

[Lord Katz (Lab)]

I thank the noble Earl for his question. He brings our attention to a really important aspect of the water supply. He is absolutely right that we have had dry weather; I believe it has been the driest start to the year in the north of the country since 1929. Drought plans must be produced by water companies every five years. In fact, water companies are now planning to improve drought resilience to mitigate droughts that are so severe you see them only once every 500 years. We are very serious about tackling this.

I am pleased to be able to tell the House that the Water Minister, Emma Hardy, met the National Drought Group, which is convened by the Environment Agency, earlier this month to ensure that action is taken to safeguard water supply in all areas, including farming. The farming road map, which we are due to publish later this year, will help spell out how farmers can take more control of this. We have heard today from the NFU about how it is working with Defra to pilot initiatives such as on-farm private reservoirs, which would allow farmers to use their own water rather than rely on the public supply. This would be of benefit to both farmers and the wider population.