Airports Slot Allocation (Alleviation of Usage Requirements) Regulations 2026

Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill Excerpts

Wednesday 10th June 2026 Grand Committee

Moved by

[Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Lord Kirkhope of Harrogate (Con)]

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

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

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

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

--- Later in debate ---

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

[Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill (Lab)]

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

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

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

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

[Lord Grayling (Con)]

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

[Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill (Lab)]

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

[Lord Grayling (Con)]

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

[Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill (Lab)]

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

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

Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill Excerpts

Tuesday 9th June 2026 Lords Chamber

Moved by

[Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill (Lab)]

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

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

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

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

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

E-scooters and E-bikes

Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill Excerpts

Tuesday 9th June 2026 Lords Chamber

[Lord Storey]

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

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

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

[Lord Storey (LD)]

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

[Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill (Lab)]

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

[Lord Krebs (CB)]

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

[Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill (Lab)]

I do.

[Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Con)]

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

[Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill (Lab)]

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

[Lord Shamash (Lab)]

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

[Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill (Lab)]

Electric cycles are only legal provided that the user is 14 years old or older and that the cycle meets the regulatory requirements: a maximum power of 250 watts and a maximum assisted speed of 15.5 mph. Beyond that, they are classed as motor vehicles, so they cannot legally be used on the road unless they are approved and registered with the DVLA, and taxed and insured. Riders must also wear helmets and hold a driving licence. The encouraging thing is that enforcement, which has been championed by the City of London Police, is increasingly being carried out by other police forces which have realised that people who use illegal e-bikes also break other laws and create other offences.

[Baroness Grender (LD)]

My Lords, we see a wide- spread issue with gig economy on-demand delivery riders illegally operating private e-scooters on public infrastructure. Will the Government introduce robust statutory duties for delivery companies to actively audit, monitor and enforce legal compliance among their riders?

[Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill (Lab)]

The noble Baroness is quite right: many of the principal complaints about this concern riders delivering food and other items. The Minister for Local Transport has written to food delivery companies emphasising the need for appropriate training, and the department has commissioned research on the road behaviours of food delivery drivers. As part of the road safety strategy, we have announced the piloting of a voluntary national work-related road safety charter for businesses that require people to drive or ride for them. The noble Baroness is right that there are issues with the gig economy and people who are employed to ride these bikes, and this is what the Government will do about that.

[Lord Rogan (UUP)]

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

[Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill (Lab)]

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

[Lord Young of Cookham (Con)]

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

[Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill (Lab)]

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

[Lord Moylan (Con)]

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

[Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill (Lab)]

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

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

Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill Excerpts

2nd reading
Tuesday 2nd June 2026 Lords Chamber

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.

--- Later in debate ---

[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.

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.

King’s Speech

Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill Excerpts

Wednesday 20th May 2026 Lords Chamber

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

My Lords, it is an honour to be closing today’s debate on behalf of His Majesty’s Government. I extend my thanks to His Majesty for his gracious Speech and to all noble Lords for their thoughtful contributions, except perhaps for the last one, which I shall mostly ignore.

I begin by echoing what my noble friend Lady Merron said in her admirable opening speech. She set out clearly and concisely the scope of the Government’s programme for the second Session in the areas of health, housing and transport. I am grateful to her not only for her clarity but for being a valued friend and colleague, as is the Minister for Housing, Communities and Local Government here on the Front Bench.

As my noble friend Lady Merron was in relation to health, I am immensely proud of the progress this Government have made in laying the foundations for better public services, particularly in transport. Transport and the railway have been my life’s work, so it is a privilege to be part of the biggest transformation of the railway in over 30 years. We have also enabled a quiet revolution in bus service provision through the Bus Services Act and opened real opportunity for British innovation with the Sustainable Aviation Fuel Act. I am grateful to all noble Lords for their contributions on these Acts.

I was wondering yesterday and the day before how my noble friends closing these debates would cope with so many varied contributions, and now I have to do the same. I will do my best, but I am reassured that noble Lords who have spoken with such knowledge and passion will raise all their points in the passage of the Bills that are in the King’s Speech.

Before I talk about the Bills themselves, I will address a variety of other matters raised by noble Lords today. I start with the noble Lord, Lord Butler, who spoke widely and wisely, particularly about the Civil Service. I am delighted that he commended the new Cabinet Secretary and his views on impartiality are, of course, supported. The noble Lord, Lord Kakkar, spoke about the peerage removal Bill. We will take careful note of what he said tonight and when he speaks on the Bill itself.

My noble friend Lord Jordan spoke about accidents and, while I cannot say that we will take up his argument about an approach across government, he can rest assured that individual parts of government take this subject extremely seriously. My noble friend Lady Jones of Whitchurch spoke widely about the huge desirability of industrial harmony through dialogue and partnership. I echo that and, in terms of the progress on the railway towards Great British Railways, we will pursue it, and I am pleased that she welcomed the new arrangements in social care.

The noble Baronesses, Lady Jones of Moulsecoomb and Lady Young of Old Scone, raised the absence of the environment from the subjects for debate. I cannot account for that, but this Government are very serious about this subject. Let me give three examples: the pursuit of net zero, the vigorous action by my noble friend Lady Hayman of Ullock on farming and the environment, and the pursuit of more freight by rail are all individual examples of the Government’s care about the environment in the future. I will ask my noble friend Lady Hayman to write to the noble Baroness, Lady Jones, further on that subject.

My noble friend Lady Linforth raised clean air in public spaces for kids. Again, I defer to my noble friend Lady Hayman of Ullock on that subject.

The noble Lord, Lord Robathan, made a wide-ranging speech on various subjects. He raised antisemitism, and I cannot believe that he cannot see a very strong response from this Government to the recent outrages to the Jewish community.

The noble Baroness, Lady Walmsley, spoke passionately about food standards. The Government thank her for her work in this area. I therefore hope that I have covered most of the subjects raised that do not really appear to be covered by the main subjects of this debate today.

Moving to health, this Government have already taken serious action on waiting lists. They are down by half a million and the number of people waiting less than 18 weeks for planned care is now at 65.3%, up from 59%. Ambulances responding to strokes and heart attacks are arriving 5 minutes faster compared to last year and we are meeting our manifesto commitment to recruit an additional 8,500 mental health staff, three years early. That is a foundation which we are not yet satisfied with, but it is a reasonable start.

The objectives of the NHS Bill have been debated in many contributions today. My noble friends Lady Nargund and Lady Ritchie of Downpatrick both fully supported the Bill. Others took a view that care needed to be taken about how this huge change, the abolition of NHS England, should be done—in particular, the noble Baronesses, Lady Shawcross-Wolfson and Lady Bray. We also note the important points made by the noble Lord, Lord Kakkar, on this subject. It is a large step, and this Government are committed to doing it wisely, carefully and properly.

My noble friend Lord Babudu and the noble Baroness, Lady Shawcross-Wolfson, talked about prevention, which is important and one of the principal features of the Government’s policy. The noble Lord, Lord Kamall, and the noble Baroness, Lady Watkins, talked about the connections between health and place. As it happens, the Secretary of State for Health in the other place is making a major speech on this tomorrow.

There was a lot of discussion about the single patient record, data security, careful use and comprehensiveness. The noble Baronesses, Lady Bray, Lady Tyler and Lady Walmsley, the noble Lord, Lord Patel—who was particularly helpful—and my noble friends Lady Pitkeathley and Lady Nargund all supported it. We listened with interest to the noble Lord, Lord Dodds, on the experience of Northern Ireland. My noble friend Lord Davies talked about the particular circumstances about Palantir. We are reviewing the federated data platform contract in advance of the break point. The single patient record is different: it will be supplied through contracts with multiple suppliers with no single supplier dominating. No decisions have been made about who those will be.

My noble friend Lady Donaghy and the noble Lord, Lord Black of Brentwood, talked about osteoporosis and the fracture liaison services. The Government are committed to rolling out fracture liaison services everywhere by 2030, and my noble friend Lady Merron is well prepared to respond to any new issues in that respect.

My noble friend Lord Winston talked about egg freezing. I am singularly unqualified to deal with this subject in any practical way, but my noble friend Lady Merron has listened very carefully to everything he said and has committed herself to write to him.

Similarly, the noble Lord, Lord Mott, spoke about cancer and maternity services. My noble friend Lady Merron listened to that carefully too and is acting on it already. Lastly, the noble Lord, Lord Mawson, talked about his Bromley-by-Bow experience—as a matter of coincidence, he has shown me around that very thing—and it is an obvious long-term experience for government to take an interest in.

On health and local government, the first thing to say is on the Social Housing Bill. The Government believe that everyone deserves to live in a decent, safe, secure and affordable home. The Bill will provide much- needed social housing stock, give affordable housing providers the clarity and confidence they need to build more social homes, and better protect tenants who are victims of domestic abuse by providing them with greater security and stability. The Bill delivers on the manifesto commitments to prioritise the building of new social rented homes and to better protect our existing stock.

A number of noble Lords supported the concept of the Bill, but, unsurprisingly, there was some criticism of it. I can tell the noble Baroness, Lady Eaton, that the proportion of people in rented accommodation is stable and has been since 2013-14. There has been a 3% increase in available homes in quarter 1 of 2026, and buy-to-let loans have increased by 14% in a year. Therefore it is not evident that there is a reduction. The noble Lord, Lord Bailey of Paddington, talked about stamp duty but did not explain where the £11 billion that it would cost to abolish it would come from. The Government are working with the Mayor of London on an emergency housing package to enable rapid delivery of what London needs.

The noble Lords, Lord Young of Cookham, Lord Best and Lord Truscott, and the noble Baronesses, Lady Shah and Lady Watkins, commented on various aspects of leasehold reform. I am confident that, when the Bill comes forward, they will have much to say during its passage. The Government believe the Bill is moving in the right direction to deal with what a number of noble Lords this evening have described variously, up to scandalous. The right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Chelmsford is right that people are entitled to a home and that young people are entitled to have the certainty of knowing where they are going to live. There are powerful arguments for housing reform and I hope that she is convinced that the Government will move in the right direction.

The noble Baroness, Lady Thornhill, referred to social housing. My noble friend remarked that the £39 billion that the Government have allocated to that subject will certainly help provide it. She also referred to SME builders. The £16 billion National Housing Bank, started on 1 April, includes provision for financial support and loans for SMEs in the housing market.

The noble Lord, Lord Best, spoke powerfully about all aspects of the Bills that are being brought forward. I am sure he will make valuable contributions to the discussion of them when they arrive.

I move on to the four transport Bills. The Railways Bill will deliver on the Government’s manifesto. I was enormously encouraged by hearing from the noble Lord, Lord Bradshaw, who all of us with any connection with the railways admire and respect. As somebody who was there when the railways were nationalised in 1948, he has pretty good experience of what is going on. He is right that running railways is a job for railway people. The intention of this Bill is not, as it is wrongly characterised, to give any more powers to the Secretary of State—both the Secretary of State and I want less power—because the railway deserves to be run by people who understand how to make it work better, which is what passengers want.

I have the greatest respect for the noble Lord, Lord McLoughlin. However, we are not starting from where he would like us to be but from where are at the moment. The railway needs an injection of vigour to get better reliability, drive up patronage and drive down costs. That has been seriously absent in the railway post Covid, even though it is run by allegedly vigorous private sector operators.

My noble friends Lady Dacres and Lady Wilcox talked about the benefits of transport investment. They are right that transport is not an end in itself. Transport is the means by which you create growth, jobs and homes. The noble Baroness, Lady Dacres, talked about the Bakerloo line extension to Lewisham. It is up to the Mayor of London to make the case and I know that he will do so. She talked about long-term finance. This Government have given that mayor the first long-term financial settlement for some considerable time, so that he can both spend the money better and decide where it should go.

My noble friend Lady Wilcox talked about it in terms of Wales. This Government have put over £400 million of railway investment into Wales, creating new stations in south Wales and better services in north Wales. That is an example of working together to create benefits throughout Great Britain. I am very pleased to join my noble friend Lord Faulkner of Worcester in congratulating the Talyllyn Railway on its 75th anniversary in preservation—it was the world’s first preserved railway—which is great. He also talked more substantively about encouraging freight, which the Government are extraordinarily keen to do. Freight will form a part of the Railways Bill and a commitment will be made to freight growth in the railway. He also referred to the new service between Bristol and Oxford. That is an example, post Covid, of getting towards the new era and working collaboratively to produce new services. I am sure that Great British Railways will produce more of them.

The high-speed rail Bill described in the gracious Speech is currently headed the High Speed Rail (Crewe-Manchester) Bill. The noble Lord, Lord Moylan, is right that it was put forward by the previous Government. However, since the previous Government summarily cancelled phase 2a of HS2 between Birmingham and Manchester, the Bill has languished. It is now being reactivated because, contrary to what he said, the Government are funding Northern Powerhouse Rail. In fact, this is the first plan for railways for the north of England that is properly funded. Part of that Bill is necessary to create the new line between Manchester and Liverpool.

In the meantime, the trans-Pennine upgrade, which is funded and in delivery on time and on budget, will improve connectivity across the Pennines. On improvements east of the Pennines, the railways in Yorkshire will come sooner because they do not need new railways. There is a credible plan for the whole of Northern Powerhouse Rail. I am very happy to take the noble Baroness, Lady Pidgeon, through the plans to describe precisely what they are. They are funded and there is a considerable amount of money in this spending review to move forward with them.

My noble friend Lord Berkeley and the noble Lord, Lord Moylan, referred to HS2. The Secretary of State for Transport in the other place made a Statement about HS2 yesterday. It is a scandal. I am sure that my noble friend Lord Berkeley can be satisfied that he did tell us that it would cost a lot of money. But I am not sure he told us that the thing had been hideously mismanaged by a series of Governments and management boards of HS2. That is the lesson to be learned: not to not do these schemes but to do them properly. The trans-Pennine upgrade is one example of a scheme that is being done properly and on time.

It is not true that Britain cannot do these things. What is true, as the review recently set out, is that you should be slow to start these projects, decide what they are and then be quick to build them. This one was the other way around. The specification was obviously done by zealots. Part of it is incapable of being delivered because it is so technically advanced. That was wrong when it started and we are having to put it right now.

The highway financing Bill is not a bureaucratic Bill, contrary to what the noble Lord, Lord Robathan, said. It is a perfectly decent proposition about how to fund the Lower Thames Crossing and other future major road schemes. The noble Baroness, Lady Pidgeon, is right that there has to be genuine value for money for taxpayers. We are not proposing to do anything at all like Thames Water, for very obvious reasons, and there is absolutely no doubt that during the passage of the Bill we will debate why the regulated asset base is right for this class, as the noble Lord, Lord Moylan, pointed out.

The noble Lord, Lord Moylan, is right to say that the civil aviation Bill, which has a number of powers, including much better powers for consumers, replaces EU legislation. He has pointed out to me on numerous occasions recently in dealing with statutory instruments that the powers to do that run out very shortly, and this Bill is necessary to replace them. We will debate to what extent it is desirable or necessary to have the Civil Aviation Authority making some of the rules when we get there. The Government’s view is that it is quite reasonable to delegate some of these powers to a competent authority, leaving some others to the authority of the Secretary of State.

I am very pleased that the noble Baroness, Lady Pidgeon, raised micromobility. This House has debated micromobility, e-scooters and the like a number of times in the last nearly two years now. Although it did not feature in the gracious Speech, it is our intention to consult before the end of this year on what we will do about micromobility. The noble Baroness knows the range of different sorts of regulations there are throughout Europe. We have shared that information with her, and indeed I hope with others in your Lordships’ House. If we have not, I am very happy to share it. There is a huge divergence of views about how to regulate these things, so we need to properly consult on them before we get there.

The noble Baroness, Lady Pidgeon, referred to the draft taxi and private hire Bill, which was in the gracious Speech. I take this opportunity to pay tribute to her for our collaboration to make the relevant part of the English Devolution and Community Empowerment Act serve the immediate purpose of better regulation of taxi and private hire out-of-area working. That really is not enough, so this draft Bill, which will need a lot of discussion because circumstances vary throughout the United Kingdom, is absolutely necessary.

I am tempted to respond to the noble Lord, Lord Moylan, on a couple of his points because, well, why not? He referred to the £2 fare cap, but what he did not say is that the previous Government instituted it but did not fund it much past the election date—

[Lord McLoughlin (Con)]

How has Andy Burnham managed to fund it, then, in Manchester alone?

[Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill (Lab)]

The process by which bus franchising was established in Manchester was absolutely tortuous, although he was enabled to do it. The purpose of the bus services Bill is to make it easier to do, but the results are spectacularly good.

I have not been watching the clock. My time is up. I should say that my noble friends Lady Merron and Lady Taylor have listened carefully to the whole debate, as I have, and they will be as well placed as I am to take forward all the issues raised by noble Lords. The gracious Speech marks the next phase in our plan to deliver national renewal across housing, health and transport. This Government are putting better public services first. We have promised to do what these Bills set out and we will do that.

Debate adjourned until Thursday 21 May.

Merchant Shipping (Port State Control) Regulations 2026

Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill Excerpts

Monday 27th April 2026 Grand Committee

Moved by

[Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill]

That the Grand Committee do consider the Merchant Shipping (Port State Control) Regulations 2026.

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

My Lords, port state control is the system used by the United Kingdom and other countries to inspect foreign-registered visiting ships to ensure that they meet the necessary international safety and pollution prevention standards. These regulations apply not to British ships but only to foreign-registered ones, to ensure that they meet the expected standards to operate safely in our waters.

The United Kingdom is a party to the Paris memorandum of understanding, the well-established collaborative regional agreement to co-ordinate this activity, with the aim of ensuring that international standards that reduce the risks to health, safety and the environment are met. It allows us to information-share and work with our neighbours to ensure the effective targeting of vessels to identify those that are substandard. The purpose of the proposed regulations is to replace and update the existing 2011 United Kingdom regulations on this subject and to reaffirm our commitment to the Paris memorandum of understanding requirements by giving effect to them in UK law.

A four-week public consultation was carried out, during which responders expressed support for the implementation of the proposed regulations. The Maritime and Coastguard Agency published a consultation report, including responses to comments received. Before the regulations were laid in draft, they were sent to the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments for informal pre-laying scrutiny. The JCSI provided drafting comments on the regulations at that stage and then formally considered them after they were laid and noted them without further comment. The Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee has not drawn this instrument to the attention of the House.

The background to this statutory instrument is the Paris memorandum of understanding, which I understand dates from 1978 and is one of a number of collaborative regional agreements setting out a framework for carrying out port state control inspections globally. It is not a European Union agreement, although some parties are EU member states.

At the time when the 2011 regulations were made, the United Kingdom was a member of the European Union and the regulations were required to implement the relevant EU directive on port state control in accordance with the UK’s obligations as a member state. However, the UK remains a party to the Paris MoU and continues to maintain its commitments under the agreement as a non-EU member. The proposed regulations give effect to the Paris memorandum of understanding requirements in UK law and update the list of conventions against which inspections are undertaken to include those to which the UK has become a party since the 2011 regulations were written, and which the UK will now also enforce against foreign ships visiting the UK.

These regulations also remove references to EU legislation, instead referencing the Paris MoU directly. This has had the effect of making the regulations longer than the 2011 regulations, but the relevant legislation is now contained just in a UK instrument. Following the repeal of the European Communities Act 1972, the proposed regulations also remove reliance on this power. While Merchant Shipping Act powers are also used to the fullest extent possible, it has been necessary to use the Retained EU Law (Revocation and Reform) Act 2023 powers to fill some gaps before those powers expire next month.

I have set out the purpose and scope of these regulations: to update merchant shipping legislation and ensure it reflects the UK’s commitment to the Paris MoU. These regulations reflect our continued commitment to uphold international standards, not only for UK-registered ships but for all ships using UK ports, while tailoring the legislative framework to the UK’s post-EU exit context. I hope noble Lords will join me in supporting these measures and I beg to move.

[Baroness Pidgeon (LD)]

My Lords, I thank the Minister and his officials for their helpful briefing last week. As we have heard, this instrument revokes and replaces the Merchant Shipping (Port State Control) Regulations 2011, which implemented the UK’s commitment under the Paris memorandum of understanding and the associated EU directive. As I learned from last week’s briefing, the Paris MoU obligates the UK to operate a regime of port state control for the monitoring, inspection and control of foreign-flagged ships calling at UK ports, to reduce the risks that such ships may pose to health, safety or the environment by ensuring that they meet relevant international standards. We have been part of the Paris MoU and its predecessor since the 1970s.

The MCA has around 100 inspectors and inspects around 1,300 ships a year. This instrument will mean that new maritime conventions are properly referenced and reports will be written in the international context, which will improve shipping safety. However, this SI shows just how much work there still is to amend legislation a decade after Brexit. Does the Minister agree that the time and effort that have to go into technical tweaks and amendments such as this distract from tackling other important issues and take up resource?

[Lord Moylan (Con)]

My Lords, I am very sorry to hear the noble Baroness, Lady Pidgeon, say that making laws for our own country, through our own processes, is somehow a distraction from what we should be doing, and that it would be better, presumably, if we were to hand this responsibility over to unelected bureaucrats in Brussels. I cannot say how much I would want to distance myself from such a position.

Since I have very little to say about the instrument, I shall add a little local colour. I did on one occasion seize an unseaworthy ship. When I was the third secretary in the British embassy in South Africa, I was the duty officer one weekend. In those days without mobile phones, that meant I had to stay home all weekend, very close to the telephone. Nothing ever happened but to my astonishment, I got a telephone call from the harbourmaster at Durban, saying that there was a British-registered vessel—or, rather, I think it was registered in some territory, dominion or whatever in the Caribbean that none the less fell under the Crown—in his port. It was so unseaworthy that he intended to seize and immobilise it but, apparently, he needed the permission of Her Majesty’s consul-general. I knew nothing about consular services, but there we were: I was the representative, for that weekend, of Her Majesty’s consul-general in South Africa. After a moment’s thought, I reached the conclusion that, on the whole, it was probably safer all round for me to say, “Yes, you have my authority to seize this vessel”, than to say no or prevaricate in any way—so that is what I did.

It has not happened since, but I am therefore not wholly unfamiliar with the idea that there is a degree of port inspection going on and that vessels not meeting appropriate standards are appropriately dealt with. This instrument affects no change whatever in current arrangements. It advertises itself as achieving no change in current arrangements, and that is absolutely fine. I have no objection to this instrument.

However, I will raise the same point that I raised when we discussed a statutory instrument—I think on aviation safety—a week or two ago. This instrument is made—the Minister said “in part”—using powers under the retained EU law Act. By common agreement, that Act expires in June. From that date onwards, we have no capacity to amend regulations of this sort, which are crucial in the world of transport. Statutory instruments are the normal means by which these regulations are made in the field of transport, but this spreads across the whole of Whitehall and many other departments as well. I say that we have no power to change them—we have no power to do so other than by primary legislation and Act of Parliament; we cannot use statutory instruments.

This failure of foresight on the part of the Government seems a massive dereliction of duty. Even if the Minister was able to assure us today that there will be legislation in the King’s Speech to correct this oversight—I fully appreciate it is unlikely that he can tell us today what will be in the King’s Speech—it is most unlikely that it will possible to pass it in both Houses and enact it by the end of June, when it will be necessary. As I say, I regard this as a massive dereliction of responsibility on the part of the Government, and I expect there to be serious potential consequences unless something is done.

[Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill (Lab)]

My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Pidgeon, and the noble Lord, Lord Moylan, for their consideration of these draft regulations. I am grateful for the scrutiny and interest that they have shown in ensuring that the UK’s port state control regime remains relevant and compliant.

The noble Baroness invited me to comment on whether this and other changes distracted the Government and officials from more pressing matters. She would not expect me to do other than make an official reply, which is that the development of the new regulations has been a lengthy process, due to the complexity of the existing legislative regime. There have been a number of changes as a consequence of leaving the EU; my understanding is that this is one of the last. It has been left until late because the Paris memorandum of understanding is behind all this. As the noble Baroness said, we were a signatory when that started in the 1970s, and therefore this could be left until quite late.

The noble Lord, Lord Moylan, has one on me: he has seized a ship. I was thinking of withdrawing the whole lot and changing the regulations so that, in the future, he had to seize all the ships. He would be very busy doing that, or might at least be very busy attending ships. However, on reflection, it is better if we leave the arrangements just as they are in the way that this statutory instrument is drafted. The noble Lord certainly has some experience there that I have never had, and I doubt that I ever will.

The noble Lord makes a more serious point about the remaining EU legislation. My information on the maritime sector is that this is one of the last things because the Paris MoU is there and we can revert to it. I will not comment on what might be in the King’s Speech; the noble Lord and I, and everybody else, will have to wait for it.

Trains: Punctuality

Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill Excerpts

Monday 20th April 2026 Lords Chamber

[Lord Barber of Chittlehampton]

To ask His Majesty’s Government what plans train operators have to improve the punctuality of passenger train services in every season of the year.

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

My Lords, performance is already improving, as the Passenger Railway Services (Public Ownership) Act enables management of operations and infrastructure together, progressively, for each route and operating company. Harmonising performance measurement, reducing driver shortages and improving industrial relations are already making a difference. Passing the Railways Bill will enable Great British Railways to drive further systemic action, share good practice and encourage innovation, technology and investment, including on climate change, further improving performance, whatever the season.

[Lord Barber of Chittlehampton (Lab)]

I thank my noble friend for his very comprehensive Answer and the very important work that he is doing to improve the quality of our railway. When I was responsible for delivery in No. 10 years ago, I asked DfT officials why performance was so much worse in the autumn than in the rest of the year. They rolled their eyes and said, “Leaves on the line. The leaves fall off the trees in the autumn”. I said, “Oh yes, I realise that—what I want to know is why that takes you by surprise every year. Where’s the plan for autumn?” The result was that there was a plan for autumn and, if we look at the data from 2003 to 2013, we see that autumn performance improved every year. Why do people who run the railways so often leap for improving excuses rather than focusing on grinding out improvements in performance?

[Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill (Lab)]

The prevailing culture on the British railway system for the past 30 years is to blame somebody else when things go wrong. That is why the Government have come forward with the proposition to create Great British Railways. As I know from my own experience of running Transport for London, you want somebody in charge who has nowhere to go who fixes problems. Autumn is regular—it happens every year—and so does winter and so does summer. The railway has plans that are altered according to the weather, and the weather is getting worse because of climate change. I am confident that the structure that we are going to put in will drive better performance in all those seasons.

[Baroness Pidgeon (LD)]

My Lords, what are the Government planning to do to put a stop to the current situation where Northern services in the north-west have had their timetable cut by half on Sundays, because Sundays fall outside of conductors’ regular working week? When will that be resolved so that passengers can travel by train whatever the season and whatever the day of the week?

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill (Lab)]

The noble Baroness is completely right—the Northern conductors’ dispute started in 2019—actually, before 2019—but there was no obvious movement on it for many years prior to the accession to power of this Government. I am hopeful that there will be a resolution very shortly; it is a complex issue, but we are on the case. She is right that people in the north deserve better on Sundays and, indeed, on every other day of the week.

[Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Con)]

My Lords, does the Minister share my concern that, in future, when a train is cancelled or severely delayed for over 30 minutes, it is the public purse that will reimburse people for those delays and cancellations? How is the department intending to budget for this, and from which budget does he intend to take that money?

[Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill (Lab)]

I think that the noble Baroness will find that the public purse is recompensing that delay replay now. It is a good scheme to compensate people properly for significant delays, but the object, which I have been talking about in this Question, is to reduce the delays by better management of the railways. That is what is important here. It is not compensation that should count but running the railway properly.

[Lord Birt (CB)]

My Lords, in the last year, just under 10% of British train journeys were either cancelled, truncated or arrived more than 10 minutes late. The prime causes identified were unavailability of crew or fleet and signal and points failures. Recently, my wife and I holidayed in Japan for almost three weeks, travelling on national, regional and local trains. Every single train, without exception, arrived to the very minute on time and delivered us to our destination to the very minute on time. Will we ever attain that level of reliability?

[Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill (Lab)]

Virtually the whole of the world, in countries that run railways, is incredulous that this country managed to separate the infrastructure from the operations for more than 30 years. That is the primary reason why people have spent so much time in the railways discussing not how you fix delays but whose fault it was and who pays the compensation for them. The Japanese railways are renowned for their reliability, but one thing that the Japanese have never done is to contemplate splitting the infrastructure from the operations. That is what Great British Railways will solve.

[Lord Moylan (Con)]

My Lords, we will not get improvements in performance on the railways unless we also get improvements in productivity and efficiency of staff. In January this year, the RMT put out a press release boasting that it had secured a 3.8% pay rise for its Network Rail staff, with no productivity or efficiency conditions attached. Can the noble Lord say whether Ministers will be insisting that future pay settlements will be directly linked to productivity?

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill (Lab)]

The previous Network Rail pay settlement, which was carried out but curiously not much publicised by the Government, produced not only a one-off productivity improvement by a substantial amount but continuing productivity, so the staff involved in the pay deal for Network Rail this year are delivering increased productivity compared with that agreed at the time of the previous pay rise. This Government have been able to do that. We have settled over 50 pay deals in the last 12 months with virtually no industrial action, which is entirely contrary to the record of the previous Government.

[Lord Berkeley (Lab)]

My Lords, can my noble friend explain whether, in addition to making the trains run on time, he has any plans with Great British Railways to offer some food on the trains? My journey from Cornwall took five hours and we were offered sandwiches, but they had not arrived. It was the same last week: we were offered sandwiches, but they did not arrive. The staff are doing their best to serve customers, but if they cannot supply sandwiches, maybe that should be put out to the private sector.

[Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill (Lab)]

Of course, the irony of my noble friend’s journey to Fowey last week is that it was the private sector train company that failed to supply the sandwiches to him. It is a serious point and his complaint has been well aired, because he wrote to me, he wrote to the managing director of the train company, I think he wrote to the Secretary of State and he has now raised in the House of Lords that the trolley did not have any sandwiches on it. It is a valid point that the customer offer which is made to people should be reliable, and a five-hour journey without anything to eat is not much fun. I hope he got a drink though.

[Lord Morse (CB)]

I have a very brief question, because I know we are supposed to be brief. Does the Minister think that the quality of our transport services is helping us to deal with the problem of underemployment in this country, or is the idea of having to use the transport system a further disincentive to go into work?

[Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill (Lab)]

It is a very reasonable point. People should be able to rely on public transport, particularly those who do not have access to a car of their own. One reason why I am so passionate, and the Government are passionate, about good performance on the railway, and indeed on the rest of the public transport system, is so that people can rely on it to go to work and create economic growth in this country.

[Lord Redwood (Con)]

When will we be able to catch an HS2 train to Birmingham? This is a fully integrated, nationalised railway with enormous financial resource, but it never goes anywhere.

[Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill (Lab)]

The noble Lord needs to get up to speed with the history of HS2, because it has been comprehensively mismanaged by every Government who have had anything to do with it, and by the board and, sadly, by the management of the company that is building it. This Government have faced the most enormous task of sorting it out. I know that Mark Wild, who successfully managed to open the Elizabeth line after many delays from the people who were constructing it, and Mike Brown, who is the chair of HS2, are working as hard as they can to get HS2 open as soon as they can, having first established how much it will cost and how long it will take to deliver—which are two facts that were unavailable at the time this Government took office.

Aviation Safety (Amendment) Regulations 2026

Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill Excerpts

Monday 20th April 2026 Lords Chamber

Moved by

[Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill]

That the draft Regulations laid before the House on 24 February be approved.

Relevant document: 54th Report from the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee. Considered in Grand Committee on 15 April.

Motion agreed.

Aviation Safety (Amendment) Regulations 2026

Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill Excerpts

Wednesday 15th April 2026 Grand Committee

Moved by

[Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill]

That the Grand Committee do consider the Aviation Safety (Amendment) Regulations 2026.

Relevant document: 54th Report from the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee

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

My Lords, this instrument has two objectives. The first is to amend Article 71 of the assimilated basic regulation to give the Civil Aviation Authority more flexibility to grant exemptions to the basic regulation. The second is to remove a criminal sanction that has never been used. The removal of this sanction will enable further legislation later this year in order to bring the UK into line with international requirements on how far aircraft can operate from diversion airports.

This instrument was originally laid before Parliament in January this year as a negative procedure statutory instrument, in accordance with the procedures set out in the retained EU law Act 2023. Following scrutiny by both the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee and the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments during the sift, the Transport Committee recommended that this instrument be relaid as an affirmative SI. The Government accepted that recommendation, and the instrument was relaid as an affirmative SI in January.

During that sift, the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee raised concerns about how genuinely exceptional exemptions to Article 71 would be, given the suggestion that they would be used to facilitate day-to-day activities, and the JCSI raised a concern that

“the changes proposed by this instrument could represent a significant diminution of existing regulatory protections”.

Once the instrument had been relaid, the SLSC reiterated its original concerns and the JCSI had no comments. I will go into the detail of the amendments and then address those concerns.

Article 71 of the assimilated basic regulation sets out the conditions under which the Civil Aviation Authority may grant an exemption to the basic regulation for an applicant. A legacy of EU legislation, the existing wording of the law means that the CAA can grant an exception in only two possible scenarios: urgent unforeseeable circumstances, and urgent operational needs. This means that the CAA cannot issue exemptions for foreseeable circumstances with no urgent operational need, such as festivals or testing drones—consider, for example, the Formula 1 races at Silverstone, which handle around 1,000 helicopters over four days.

Under the assimilated aviation law, which is a legacy of the UK’s membership of the European Union Aviation Safety Agency—the EASA—all the basic requirements of the basic regulation would need to be met. This legislation was developed with the requirements of airports providing a permanent service in mind; such requirements are disproportionate for a short event. Currently, the CAA cannot grant exemptions for these events because they are yearly, predictable and foreseeable, even though granting an exemption would clearly enhance safety.

In addition, this amendment will allow the CAA to grant exemptions to businesses in order to enable the testing of new and innovative technologies. Today, that is difficult because many of the requirements of Article 71 do not take into account future developments in technology, such as testing “beyond visual line of sight” drone flights in airspace that is not separated from regular air traffic. The existing rules were made before current “beyond visual line of sight” developments, and it is difficult for the CAA to grant exemptions specifically for testing as testing is usually neither urgent nor unforeseeable. By enabling exemptions to be granted beyond urgent operational needs or urgent unforeseeable circumstances, the UK aviation sector will be able to trial and test new technologies more easily.

As the UK has now left both the European Union and the EASA, the Government are now able to amend Article 71 to give the CAA more flexibility to support safety and innovation. The CAA has developed a robust framework to ensure that exemptions granted under Article 71 will not degrade safety. Each request will be risk assessed by the CAA’s aviation safety experts and will be granted only if they believe that the exemption will maintain a high standard of safety and there is no other way of achieving the same goal. The CAA will examine each request individually, and just because the request has been granted once, it will not then set a precedent for future exemptions.

These criteria are deliberately strict, ensuring that the CAA considers the existing protection requirements for aircraft noise, fuel venting and engine emissions, whether decisions are non-discriminatory, the creation of unreasonable working conditions or safety risks, and whether exemptions support public protection and broader aerospace development. This means that while exemptions will be given for day-to-day activities such as testing, each exemption will still be exceptional. The CAA’s framework will ensure that each request is scrutinised and granted only if applicants can demonstrate high levels of aviation safety, as well as setting out a path to future full regulatory compliance. Regulatory protections will remain and my officials will continue to work closely with the CAA to oversee how the new exemption process is used.

I note that during the consultation, 42 of the 51 respondents supported the amendments to Article 71. One respondent, Unite the Union, raised concerns that exemptions might be granted on a regular basis, particularly where such exemptions could weaken the working conditions of crew onboard aircraft. I assure noble Lords that exemptions will be granted only where a high level of safety can be assured, and the CAA must and will carefully consider the impact of exemptions on working conditions.

I turn to the second objective of this SI, which is to remove a criminal sanction that has never been used. The removal of this sanction will enable amendments later this year, which will allow operators of two-engine aircraft more flexibility in how far they operate from diversion airports. Operators of aircraft with more than two engines will now also need to consider their distance from diversion airports. This change will bring the UK into line with international requirements. These amendments could not be introduced without removing the criminal sanction, as the powers needed to amend provisions with criminal sanctions are contained in the retained EU law Act, which expires in June this year. The Civil Aviation Authority has never brought a prosecution under this provision, and I am confident that it already has sufficient regulatory tools to ensure compliance without relying on a criminal offence—for instance, by revoking approvals to fly extended diversion time operations or by limiting operators’ air operator certificates.

On the wider powers gap issue in relation to criminal sanctions, the Government are aware of the powers gap. We are reviewing whether existing powers on the statute book may be able to fill the gap, and we are also considering introducing primary legislation when parliamentary time allows—I await with interest the King’s Speech on 13 May. I beg to move.

[Lord Empey (UUP)]

My Lords, the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee, as the Minister mentioned, has looked at this and suggested that the House may wish to seek assurances from the Minister regarding the use of exemptions. In the House of Commons Delegated Legislation Committee yesterday, the Minister said:

“I can confirm that we are confident in the capacity of the CAA to manage this process effectively. I am cognisant of the points raised by the shadow Minister and the Lib Dem spokesperson about the DFT having to exercise robust oversight over these processes and to liaise closely with the CAA to ensure that it is using these powers proportionately”.—[Official Report, Commons, Third Delegated Legislation Committee, 14/4/26; col. 6.]


The issue that I wish to question the Minister on is the capacity of the CAA to handle the various applications. Will he also address the issue of the testing by companies of new products, either aircraft or drones? We know of public events where there are a large number of helicopter flights coming in—golf tournaments, for example; I do not know whether Glastonbury has a lot of helicopter traffic—and I presume that these are covered by this sort of thing.

Without wishing to see things kept overly tight, particularly when we would like to see and encourage companies to develop new products—after all, this country has a tried and tested record of innovation in the aviation sector—the question is: who is overseeing the overseers in this case? I presume it has to be the CAA and the Department for Transport, ultimately, but is there sufficient capacity? Does the Minister expect an increase in these applications, or will it be only short term? If he does, is the capacity there and is his department sufficiently well organised to oversee that process?

The issue, I presume, comes down to the definition of “exceptional”. The Minister in the other place said:

“The shadow Minister asked me to say a little more about what we mean by ‘exceptional’. These exceptions will be granted only when there is no other reasonable way for the applicant to achieve the aims that have been put forward”.—[Official Report, Commons, Third Delegated Legislation Committee, 14/4/26; col. 6.]


He went on to give some examples.

This is a fairly straightforward regulation, but whenever regulations change there is always the risk that the organisation overseeing them may not be as fully prepared as we would like. I perfectly understand the Minister’s position on the powers that have not been used; it seems that there are alternative ways of dealing with those matters without having to regulate any further.

--- Later in debate ---

Finally, I hope that the Minister and noble Lords do not object, but I want to say something which takes me a little distance from the statutory instrument. One understands that the Department for Transport itself is in the throes of a reorganisation in which all its operational activities and expertise are being thrown out the door. All the people who know about running trains have been sent off to Waterloo to merge with Network Rail. We are now going to have no in-house expertise on aviation matters, because we will rely entirely on the Civil Aviation Authority. None of this has been discussed, but I think it is a matter of great interest to noble Lords. Although I am straying beyond the statutory instrument, I certainly think that we can be up for debating this separately in the course of the next couple of months, is the Minister willing to say today what is going on in his department about reorganisation? What change is it envisaging? What staff are leaving? How does he see the shape, role and function of the department going forward, following this transformation that apparently is in hand?

[Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill (Lab)]

My Lords, I am grateful to noble Lords for their comments in this debate. The noble Lord, Lord Empey, quoted the Minister in the other place in two respects, and because he quoted him, I do not feel I need to add to either of the things that he said in this Committee this afternoon.

On the question about testing how the Civil Aviation Authority assures itself that operators are acting safely, I have faith in the Civil Aviation Authority. This would not have come forward, fundamentally, if the Civil Aviation Authority was not confident that it was capable of overseeing the changing regulations that are being proposed today. It oversees and audits approval holders and individuals granted privileges, as set out in the regulation. That includes monitoring the effectiveness of organisations’ quality and safety management systems. The noble Baroness, Lady Pidgeon, referred to the policy framework for assessing requests for exemptions, which she helpfully asked for during the briefing that she referred to. The Civil Aviation Authority will seek clear justification, demonstrating compliance with the new policy, supported by a robust and documented safety risk assessment, showing that high safety standards can be maintained.

The Civil Aviation Authority is overseen by the department through the State Safety Board, which is a formal body. In addition, my officials maintain a good working relationship with the UK’s independent regulator, the CAA, which is responsible for enforcing all the aviation safety regulations. As I say, I am very confident that the Civil Aviation Authority has the resources to carry out what this statutory instrument is seeking to do. Of course, it has the option of rejecting applications if it cannot resource looking at individuals.

I believe I have answered the point about policy raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Pidgeon. She also raised the question about reporting on actions that have been taken by the CAA. The CAA will publish details of general exemptions applied to defined classes, such as all operators involved in short-term events. It will not publish all exemptions due to concerns about exposing commercially sensitive information for technical developments. I can see the noble Baroness nodding, and I am sure that that is right, because it will also have a duty of protecting people’s commercial positions.

The noble Lord, Lord Moylan, referred to the European Union reset. These powers would only be changed if we joined the EASA, the European Union Aviation Safety Agency, which is the organisation I previously referred to. We would have to have rejoined that to make a change to these powers again. I am not aware of any proposal to rejoin the European Union Aviation Safety Agency as part of the reset, which is why we are bringing this forward today.

The noble Lord referred to the gap in powers. I already said that I am awaiting with interest the King’s Speech on 13 May. He will be aware that this first parliamentary session has been a long one, so the Government need to take the opportunity of putting forward legislation when they can. I cannot say any more about that, but I do not think that he will find that the gap in powers is quite the terrible thing that he describes.

The noble Lord lastly referred to the reorganisation of the Department for Transport. Today I have signed off an Answer to a Written Parliamentary Question from the other place. There is a reorganisation; a number of people have not moved to join Network Rail—they have moved to join DfT Operator as a precursor to the radical programme of railway reform that the Government put in their manifesto and have committed themselves to. That still leaves—and the Answer to the Parliamentary Question will say so in the other place—no less than 477 people who work on railway policy and HS2. We are not leaving the department bereft of people. I expect that number may go down over time as reform is finished, but that has no effect on the rest of the department, and there is no suggestion in that change that the department is making any change which will affect its capabilities in supervising aviation or the Civil Aviation Authority.

For any question that I have failed to answer or to which I have not given a sufficient answer, I am happy to write as soon as possible. In conclusion, the safety of aviation and the travelling public is a priority for the Government. The Government are committed to ensuring that we maintain our exemplary record for aviation safety; these regulations represent a further step in doing so. I beg to move.

Motion agreed.

Rail Freight

Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill Excerpts

Monday 13th April 2026 Lords Chamber

[Lord Moylan]

To ask His Majesty’s Government what progress they have made towards achieving their target to increase rail freight volumes by 75 per cent by 2050.

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

My Lords, this Government have a clear ambition for rail freight growth, with a target of 75% by 2050, and we continue to work collaboratively with freight operators and Network Rail. My department’s modal shift revenue support programme and Network Rail’s access charges discount policy have been hugely successful, awarding £39 million over two years to eight freight operators and supporting 19 new flows. We continue to progress the Railways Bill, which will enable GBR to further support rail freight growth with the first ever statutory target for growth.

[Lord Moylan (Con)]

My Lords, it is encouraging to hear the Minister repeat the Government’s commitment to that target, which they inherited, of course, from the previous Government and which we support. However, the rail freight industry is, I think, finding it increasingly unconvincing, because the Government have refused, so far at least, to put this target into the Bill which is currently in the other place. They are leaving it, in effect, to the discretion of Great British Railways, which will of course be in competition with the freight operators for the very same paths on the railway. Would the Government not like to strengthen this target by making it part of the statutory obligation imposed upon Great British Railways in the Bill?

[Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill (Lab)]

The Government have been quite clear that setting a statutory target is in the Bill, and we have also been clear that it is 75%. In practice, that protects those freight paths that have been in the timetable for a long time but are not necessarily used other than at short notice. That is the reason for the proposed statutory inclusion in the Bill. For that reason, GBR will not be in competition for those paths. Those paths will have to be reserved in order to allow the target to be effective in the future.

[Lord Berkeley (Lab)]

My Lords, my noble friend the Minister mentioned the issue of competition for rail freight. I am pleased to hear him say that the Government are keen to grow rail freight, but it is difficult to see, in the text of the Bill, how Great British Railways, which will have control of most passenger services as well as access to the track, will be able to treat fairly open access passenger operators and rail freight operators. Is this something on which the Government have consulted the Competition and Markets Authority to see whether there is any potential for conflicts of interest?

[Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill (Lab)]

The Railways Bill is framed to give Great British Railways the authority, for the first time in over 30 years, to control access to the railway and make sure that it is fairly distributed and serves the nation’s economic and social purposes. That is in Clause 60. Clause 63 talks about GBR operating passenger services. The reason that the freight target is specified in the Bill is so that GBR will have the obligation to leave both freight paths that are used in the timetable for freight trains and those paths that are not used but will be needed for the expansion of freight services and are needed at short notice to be used by freight operators.

[Baroness Pidgeon (LD)]

My Lords, what consideration are the Government giving to increasing the capacity at London Gateway, Britain’s second largest container port, by the electrification of just three miles of track to the port, which would allow for the use of faster electric locomotives for freight?

[Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill (Lab)]

I am glad that the noble Baroness asked me that question. Network Rail has found some money to do studies on greater access to London Gateway, and that is the right thing to do. The question of electrification is one of the subjects that we need to discuss with the port’s owners, DP World. The other subject is the level crossings, which are probably a greater barrier to more freight trains there. I have recently written to the local district council about this, and my department is looking to have a meeting with DP World, Network Rail and the freight operators to decide how best to take that forward.

[Lord Redwood (Con)]

My Lords, will the Government speed up digital signalling and proper traffic information in the cab so that there can be more slots for all types of rail traffic, because obviously we want to expand rather more than the Government are suggesting in the short term?

[Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill (Lab)]

How right the noble Lord is. The digital signalling programme for the east coast main line does absolutely as he describes, which is to give more capacity on the existing track. It is in train, as far as I know; it is on target and on budget for the south end of the east coast main line. It is subscribed to by all the operators, including all the freight operators that use it. One of its principal objectives is to get more train paths out of the same railway.

[Viscount Thurso (LD)]

My Lords, does the Minister agree that, if we are to get a substantial move of freight on to the railways, we need to move to palletisation as opposed to containerisation as the principal unit that is used, and that to do that we need to construct proper freight villages in order to have the transfer that is necessary, and that without those infrastructure improvements we will not get to the target?

[Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill (Lab)]

It was a privilege for me to open the ninth Maritime Transport rail freight hub in Northampton about six weeks ago. I had a long discussion with John Williams, the chief executive, and we discussed precisely that. We were discussing how we should measure this, because tonnage is maybe not the best way of measuring container loads—in fact, the numbers of containers might be a better method of doing it, if we could find a way. The Government are very active in this, as am I personally. It is clear that intermodal container traffic, and indeed national container traffic, is the largest growth feature of this market and we should do everything we can to encourage it.

[Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Con)]

My Lords, the Minister will be aware that there are a number of existing barriers to rail freight, particularly between East Anglia, the port of Felixstowe, north Yorkshire and the rest of the north of England. One of the barriers is the urgent upgrade needed to Haughley junction. Does the Minister have a timetable for when that upgrade will be made?

[Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill (Lab)]

There is no use upgrading Haughley junction without upgrading Ely. Previous Governments have not found the money to do that and, regrettably, in the financial circumstances that this Government find themselves, we have not so far found it either. But I have had some useful discussions with local Members of Parliament and the combined authority mayor of Cambridgeshire and Peterborough about what we can do both to improve the business case for Haughley and Ely junctions and to reduce the cost. One of the crippling costs of that upgrade is the number of level crossings needed because East Anglia is very flat; there may be some things that local highway authorities can do which would make that project easier to do and give it a better business case in the future.

[Lord Faulkner of Worcester (Lab)]

My Lords, does my noble friend agree that one of the secrets of growing rail freight is to increase the versatility of freight locomotives? In that context, will he welcome the development of tri-mode freight locomotives—electric, battery or diesel—so that they are able to run anywhere in the country?

[Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill (Lab)]

My noble friend clearly knows a lot about it—probably more than I do—but I was at the launch of the Class 99 locomotives last autumn, which I think are the ones he is referring to. There are 30 being leased and operated through GB Railfreight, and he is right that they will be versatile to run anywhere. In fact, that may solve the issue at London Gateway port that the noble Baroness, Lady Pidgeon, referred to, because if there were battery-electric locomotives then we would not need fixed electrification. It is right that the rail freight fleet needs to be updated. That investment is very welcome, and I expect it to be followed by investment by the other freight operators which believe that there is a long-term future in freight on the railway.